You are on page 1of 270

Transmission Efficiency Technology Assessment

Transmission Efficiency Technology Assessment
1017895 Final Report, December 2009

EPRI Project Manager A. Del Rosso

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA 800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT Electric Power Research Institute Electranix Corporation Lone Wolf Engineering, LLC

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or e-mail askepri@epri.com. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 942 Corridor Park Blvd. Knoxville, TN 37932 Principal Investigators A. Del Rosso J. Chan P. Zhan G. Sibilant F. Bologna B. Clairmont B. Brooks R. Lordan Electranix Corporation 12-75 Scurfield Blvd. Winnipeg, MB R3Y 1G4 Principal Investigator D. Woodford, P. Eng. Lone Wolf Engineering, LLC 10020 La Paz Drive N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87114-4921 Principal Investigator G. Wolf, P.E. This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. This report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Transmission Efficiency Technology Assessment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1017895.

iii

.

In a large network. energy-efficiency measures have focused on end-use efficiency. v . and transmission voltage-profile optimization. shield-wire segmentation. Energy efficiency will be a major contributing factor to achieving a low-carbon future. Leading utilities. But if one considers the electricity consumed by auxiliary loads at power plants and lost in power delivery. Few utilities take a holistic view of reducing energy losses and improving the energy efficiency of their own facilities. the efficiency gains alone can justify an optimization project. and tripole. bipole.PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Reducing our carbon footprint and increasing the role of renewable energy are important parts of the strategy for the greening of electric energy supply. corona losses as impacted by line voltage. use of advanced or lower-loss conductors and bundling. and there is increased interest in technologies and methods for improving transmission losses as they try to improve the overall efficiency of their operations. This report is specifically aimed at investigating technological options to reduce losses in transmission systems. It also discusses the necessary measurement and verification procedures to confirm the achievement of the anticipated reductions. have recognized the need to explore efficiency measures in each stage of the electricity value chain. Electricity providers are studying techniques to upgrade their overhead ac transmission lines to increase capacity without adding additional facilities. Utilities understand this. Traditionally. bundle optimization. conductor size. loss reduction is taking a lower priority. these losses can be significant. the single largest industrial consumer of electricity is the electric power industry itself. Although they apply advanced technologies and materials to improve their capacity to move electric power from the generator to the customer. redirecting power flow by power-flow controllers. low-loss transformers. Results and Findings The loss-reduction strategies examined in this report include raising transmission-line nominal voltage. as well as other organizations in the electricity industry. under certain conditions. insulation losses. It develops a comprehensive evaluation methodology and strategic-planning framework to evaluate various available transmission loss-reduction options in a cost-effective manner. Although some of these options have been applied in the industry for the main purpose of increasing capacity—with transmission losses a secondary consideration—the investigators found that. The objective of this project is to provide utilities with the background and comprehensive tools to assess the application of available technological measures to improve transmission losses. and bundle configuration. selective conversion to dc. Challenges and Objectives Utilities are under pressure to supply an ever-increasing customer demand for electricity.

without conflicting with the traditional objectives of sufficiency. EPRI Perspective EPRI has found considerable interest within the power industry in methods to increase power flows across overhead ac transmission lines. whereas others are investigating lower losses in large power transformers. Values. which could in turn reduce transmission-line losses. security. Unlike programs to improve end-use energy-efficiency. comprehensive strategy for the reduction of transmission-line losses. from both a technical and an economical perspective. and carbon emissions. and approaches of the project. It will also allow utilities to document those energy savings so they can be properly credited toward energy-efficiency savings goals. This situation may cause a conflict between these two effects. or focusing on more-efficient distribution transformers. The survey responses established the objectives. Keywords Transmission losses Energy efficiency Societal benefits Evaluation framework FACTS Bundled conductor Low-loss transformers vi . They measured cost-effectiveness according to the achievement of important societal benefits. scope. resulting in financial savings and improved equipment life expectancy. and economy. for implementing practical ways of reducing losses in transmission systems and equipment. choose. Hence. Additional rewards for implementing such measures will include a demonstration to regulators and the general public of a utility’s commitment to environmental issues. programs to enhance the energyefficiency of transmission systems have not been extensively applied. Some loss-reduction methods have dual effects: increased power transfer capability and reduced losses. and implement the most cost-effective energyefficiency opportunities for transmission system loss-reduction and to measure and verify whether the expected goals are attained. there are no widely accepted savings guidelines for these types of projects. This report is a first effort to investigate known technologies and to develop consistent and comprehensive methodologies to reduce losses in transmission systems. But it appears that there is no industry-wide. and Use The results of this project will provide utilities with a valuable proposition. Approach The project team surveyed EPRI members to investigate and gauge interest and activity in the reduction of transmission-line losses to improve the performance of ac overhead transmission lines. capacity. Some utilities are studying line losses. The EPRI team then conducted an analysis of the technologies available to utilities that could be implemented to reduce transmission losses. EPRI’s evaluation framework provides guidelines to properly address loss-reduction techniques without conflicting with the objectives of expansion planning and incremental transmission upgrades. and a reduction of its electrical losses. comprising the monetary value of key savings in energy.Applications. a reduction of its CO2 emissions and overall greenhouse gas footprint. Planning and design engineers and utility managers will find valuable tools to help them assess.

A complete case study is included to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework. and how many megawatts make up the 6– 9%. Losses are introduced at each step along the way. This report focuses on methods to improve the efficiency of the grid. Various existing technologies available to utilities for reducing transmission losses are described in detail. through the distribution system. The report first describes the elements that motivate utilities to investigate options to improve the energy efficiency of their transmission networks. capacity. Reducing the energy that is lost in the transmission and distribution networks provides significant benefits to society as a whole. is an area of concern as utilities struggle to supply the ever-increasing demand for electricity to their customers. These benefits can be monetized by evaluating the value of energy. into the transmission system. Typical losses for the transmission and distribution systems have been estimated at approximately 6–9%. The effectiveness of these methods to accomplish the desired loss-reduction goals. and carbon emissions savings. part of the electricity is lost. A survey of EPRI members was made to investigate the current scope of interest and activity in the reduction of transmission-line losses to improve the performance of ac overhead transmission lines. When the amount of power injected into the system is compared to the amount sold (customer’s meter). Having a consistent and uniform methodology to vii . their associated implementation challenges and limitations. A discussion of the principles and necessary considerations for the development of measurement and verification procedures is also included. the concept of the holistic view of energy efficiency across the entire value chain of an enterprise is introduced. and the issues that have prevented their wide spread utilization are addressed in this report. Every megawatt that is dissipated through losses is a megawatt wasted. can be found by comparing the information published by the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information Agency (EIA). This simplistic calculation method shows that the order of magnitude for the 2006 energy losses was roughly 395 million MW. How much is lost. to the customer’s meter. Industry-accepted methods are applied to evaluate various loss-reduction methods for the operating grid.ABSTRACT Energy loss in the transmission lines. at both transmission and distribution voltages. When electricity is produced. EIA reported the amount of electricity generated in 2006 (the last year for which this information is available) as 4065 million MWh. it can be seen that the two figures do not match. The amount of electricity sold (retail sales) in 2006 was 3670 million MWh. A framework for the evaluation of transmission loss-reduction options is developed. Increasing fuel consumption increases the utility’s carbon footprint at a time when protecting the environment is critical. Somewhere along the way. including numerical examples and case studies. It was found that this is a subject of great interest and of some activity. Then. it is moved from the generation plant. which in turn increases fuel consumption to replace those lost megawatts.

viii . It would also allow utilities to document the resulting energy savings so that they could be properly credited toward energy-efficiency savings goals. the main conclusions and suggestions for future research are presented.determine transmission-system losses would help utilities target cost-effective approaches for reducing these losses. Finally.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the guidance and assistance of the EPRI Advisory Committee: Mohamed Anmed (AEP) Jay Caspary (SPP) Jennifer Dering (NYPA) Dawe Fan (NYSO) Ray Ferraro (PSEG) Jeff Fleeman (AEP) Nick Koehler (AEP) Dejan Sobajic (NYSO) Harold Wyble (KCP&L) In addition.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS EPRI wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the many utility companies who responded to the industry survey found in this report. we wish to acknowledge the other participants and industry experts who provided helpful information and input. as well as constructive comments. to this document: Nick Abi-samra (EPRI) Kamran Ali (AEP) Dave Bryant (CTC) Jo Kutty (NYPA) Bernie Neenan (EPRI) Stephen Olinick (PPL) Craig Stiegemeier (ABB) Mile Taylor (CTC) Anthony Williams (Duke Energy) Abderrahmane R Zouaghi (ABB) ix .

.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACES : American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ANSI : American National Standards Institute CCS: Core Cooling System EE: Energy Efficiency EERS: Energy Efficiency Resource Standard EIA: Energy Information Agency FACTS: Flexible AC Transmission Systems GHG: Greenhouse Gas IRR: Internal Rate of Return ISO: Independent System Operator LMP: Locational Marginal Pricing NEMA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMS: National Energy Modeling System NERC: National Electric Reliability Council NESC: National Electrical Safety Code NPV: Net Present Value PST: Phase-Shifting Transformer RTO: Regional Transmission Organization RFI: Radio Frequency Interference SVC: Static Voltage Compensator TEE: Transmission Energy Efficiency xi .

.

.......2-2 Loss-Reduction Strategies ..................................................................................2-10 3 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................4-2 xiii .........................................................................................................................................................2-9 Transmission-Line Modifications ........................................................................................................................................4-2 Establishing Objectives .............................2-4 Loss Calculations ........................................................................................................................3-1 Applicability of Specific Measures to Reduce Transmission Losses..................2-8 Transmission-Line Inspections ....................................................................................................................................................2-1 Need for Understanding Industry Practice ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................3-1 Summary of Measures for Reducing Transmission Losses ..........................................2-3 Survey Results ...................................3-8 4 PRINCIPLES FOR THE EVALUATION OF TRANSMISSION ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OPTIONS...............................................................................................2-6 Technologies to Reduce Transmission Losses ....................................................................2-5 Reasons for Loss Studies......................................................................2-10 Survey Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................2-3 Loss Studies ................................................................................................................................................................................................3-8 The Value of Reducing Transmission Losses .................................................................1-1 Project Objective and Scope .............................2-7 Transmission-Line Projects .1-6 2 INDUSTRY SURVEY OF TRANSMISSION-SYSTEM LOSS ACTIVITY ....................................................................................1-1 Motivation for Evaluating and Reducing Transmission Losses ....................2-8 Transmission-Line Modifications ......................................................................................................................................2-5 Peak and Energy Losses.....................................1-4 References ...........................................................................................................................................4-1 Introduction ..............................................

.....4-7 Discount Rate .....................4-11 Cost of Emissions.........................5-4 Increasing Capacity Strategies.........................................................................................................................................................................................4-8 Least-Cost Planning Protocols.......................................................................4-11 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................5-3 Unscheduled Power Flow...........5-3 Voltage Control.................................................................................4-9 Transmission-Capacity Costs....................................................................................................................................5-12 xiv ..................................................5-1 Introduction ................................................................................................5-3 Feasibility of Upgrade........................................................4-14 5 LOWERING TRANSMISSION LOSSES BY RAISING TRANSMISSION-LINE VOLTAGE......................................................................................5-9 Mechanical Design Criteria.......................................................................5-2 General Operational Issues....5-4 Voltage-Upgrade Concepts ................................................................4-8 Benefits Assessment............................................................................................................................................................................................................5-11 Standards .......................4-8 Capacity Costs .....................................................5-6 Upgrading an Overhead Transmission Line.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4-10 Recommended Values for General TEE Evaluations ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4-3 Baseline Forecast..5-9 Physical Inspection....4-9 Energy Costs ...........................................................................................................4-7 Escalation Rates..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5-7 Overhead Transmission-Line Upgrading.4-9 Market-Based Prices......................................................................................................................................4-5 Quantification of Transmission Losses............................................................................5-10 Environmental Data ..................................................................................................................................5-10 Electrical Design Criteria ..........................................................Baseline Definition..................................4-7 Project Costs ...................................................................................................................................5-8 Considerations of the Existing Overhead Transmission Line....................................................4-6 Economic Variables for Cost-Effective Analysis........................................................................................4-3 Identification of Baseline Conditions...........................................................................................................................

.................................5-14 Mechanical Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................6-16 Conductor-Replacement Costs .....................................................................................................6-13 Reconductoring Options ....................................................................................................6-7 Sagging-Line Mitigator....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-16 Structures and Foundation Modifications...............5-12 What is Expected.....................................................................................................6-10 Trapezoidal-Wire Conductors – ACSR/TW or AAC/TW...........................................................................6-9 Advanced Conductors .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-17 Operation and Maintenance Costs.............................................................................................................................6-3 Conductor Characteristics ..........................................................5-15 6 LOWERING TRANSMISSION LOSSES BY APPLICATION OF ADVANCED OR LOWER-LOSS CONDUCTORS AND BY BUNDLING ...................................5-12 System Studies...................5-13 Electrical Analysis......6-3 Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-17 Examples of Reconductoring Alternatives..............Investigations and Studies ........................................................................6-5 Interaction of Wind and Conductor Temperature .............................................................................................................................................................................................................6-1 Background ......................................................................................5-14 Results .............................................................................................................................................................................................................6-14 Use of Larger Conductor or Bundling ....6-14 Cost of Upgrading...............................................................................................................6-13 Design Constraints on Structure Loads................................6-4 Power-flow Limitations ........................6-2 Conductor Thermal Rating .....6-6 Increasing the Height of the Conductor ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-3 Continuous Current Rating ....................................................................5-14 References .....................................6-12 Evaluation of Reconductoring Options for TEE Improvement.........................................................6-6 Monitoring Sag in Real Time ....................................................6-2 Thermally Limited Lines......................................6-14 Reconductoring Without Significant Structure Modifications: ...........................................................................6-18 xv ..............5-14 Detailed Engineering Design .......6-8 Bundling the Phase Conductor..........................

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7-10 AC Transmission Line Converted to DC...........8-1 Reduction of Corona Loss in Existing Transmission Lines ...........8-6 Reduction of Corona Loss in New Transmission Lines..........................................................7-12 References ................................................6-33 Nondisruptive Reconductoring .....................................................................................................................................7-9 Back-to-Back HVDC Converter ........................................................................Approach ......................................................................................................................7-9 HVDC Transmission ..........................................................................................................................................7-7 Unified Power-flow Controller (UPFC)...........................7-2 Means for Diverting Power Flow ......7-4 Phase-Angle Regulators..............................................................................7-5 FACTS Controllers ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-36 7 LOWERING TRANSMISSION-GRID LOSSES BY DIVERTING POWER TO HIGHERVOLTAGE LINES ..............8-8 xvi .......7-12 Summary ..........................................................................................................................6-35 References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-29 Case #4: ...............7-6 Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)..................................................8-1 Introduction ......................................7-8 Interphase Power Controller (IPC) .......................................................................6-19 Case #2: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................6-18 Case #1: .........7-5 Thyristor-Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) ............................................................8-2 230-kV Corona-Loss Example........................................................................................................................................................................................6-35 Summary ..............................................................................8-7 Summary ...............................................................................7-10 Evaluation of Potential Loss-Reduction..............7-2 General Issues ..7-13 8 CORONA-LOSS REDUCTION.......7-4 Series Compensation .6-24 Case #3: ................................................8-4 345-kV Corona-Loss Example....................7-1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................

...............................10-1 Introduction ...11-1 Introduction ....................................................................................9-1 Introduction ...........................10-7 Water Spray-Washing (Energized) ................................................................11-2 No-Load Losses .........................................................................................9-4 Phasing of Double-Circuit Lines to Minimize Shield-Wire Losses........................................................................................................................................................................................................11-1 Losses in Transformers...........10-7 Compressed Air and Dry-Cleaning Compound................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10-8 Coating with Silicone Rubber ............................................10-8 Re-Insulation .................................................................................................................................10-8 Comparison of Insulator-Maintenance Procedures ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8-8 9 SHIELD WIRE LOSS-REDUCTION .......................11-7 xvii ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11-5 Savings Potentials..............................9-2 Power Loss-Reduction ......................9-9 10 INSULATION LOSSES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................9-9 References ................................................................................................9-7 Summary .........................................................................................................11-4 Options to Improve Transformer Efficiency .............References ..........10-6 Hand-Cleaning ...........................................................................................................................................................................................11-3 Load Losses ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11-4 Losses Due to Harmonics .......9-4 Case Study....................................................10-9 References ...............................................................................................................10-1 Insulator Leakage-Current Losses .....................................................................................10-13 11 LOW-LOSS TRANSFORMERS ..........11-3 Losses in Auxiliary Equipment..................................................10-7 Greasing ............................................10-7 Water Spray-Washing (De-energized)............................................................................................................10-8 Application to Reduce Losses .................................9-1 Segmentation Method ............................................................................................................................................................10-5 Cleaning ..............................................................

.......................13-15 Step 3: Determine Optimal Set of Projects.....................13-13 Methodology for Stage 3 – Group A .............................................................................................................................................................................................................12-14 References .................12-4 Solution in Belgium...13-17 Step 4: Evaluate Costs Associated with Upgrade Implementation...........................................................................13-2 Categorizing Actions That Impact Transmission Losses............................12-16 13 FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING LOSS-REDUCTION OPTIONS.......12-1 Methodology of Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control .12-5 Solution in Italy ..........................11-12 Transformer Loading .....................................13-5 Stage 1: Qualitative Screening .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......13-13 Stage 3: Detailed Evaluation of the Selected Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................................................12-8 Voltage Profile/Stability Improvement .......................................................Conventional Evaluation of Loss Capitalization and Optimal Transformer Design ......................................................................................... .............................................13-6 Stage 2: Definition of Baseline Scenarios .................................................................11-20 12 HIERARCHICAL DYNAMIC VOLTAGE CONTROL TO HELP REDUCE TRANSMISSION LOSS...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12-1 Introduction ..........13-18 Step 7: Evaluate Transmission-Capability Increase............................... .............................12-11 Transmission Loss-Reduction ............................................................13-13 Step 1: Quantify and Cost the Reference Loss Level...................................13-19 xviii ....................................................................................................................................................................................12-12 Cost/Benefit Analysis .....................................12-4 Solution in France.............13-1 Introduction .......................................13-15 Step 2: Select Candidate Transmission Lines to Be Upgraded.......11-15 References ......................................................................................................................11-13 Transformer Investment Cost and Efficiency..........................................................13-18 Step 6: Conduct Benefit/Cost Analysis of Line Upgrades Without Increasing System Utilization................12-6 Solution in China ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .........................................13-1 Focus and Scope of the Framework .............................13-2 Framework Outline ..............12-2 Existing Solutions of Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control .....................................................................................................11-14 Transformer-Replacement Options .........................................................................

............................................................13-41 Step 8: Evaluate Benefits Versus Costs of Increased Capacity Permitted by Upgrades...............................................13-27 Stage 4: Ranking of Methods ............................................................................................13-32 Step 3: Determine Optimal Set of Projects.14-1 Introduction .........................................................................13-28 Stage 1: Qualitative Screening .............................................................13-39 Step 4: Evaluate Costs Associated with Upgrade Implementation........................13-41 Stage 4: Ranking of Methods .....................................................................................................................................................................13-26 Step 6: Cost/Benefit Analysis......................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................13-25 Step 4: Effectiveness of Each Facility in Reducing Losses......13-28 Stage 3: Detailed Evaluation of the Selected Methods ....................13-24 Step 2: Off-line Optimizing Procedure with Optimal Power Flow ...............................................13-44 References .............................................................................................Step 8: Evaluate Benefits Versus Costs of Increased Capacity Permitted by Upgrades..13-26 Step 7: Analysis to Locate and Size New Facilities ....................................................................................14-6 15 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................13-27 Case Study...13-39 Step 7: Evaluate Transmission-Capability Increase...............................................................................14-1 Method for M&V Applied in End-Use EE Programs .......................................13-25 Step 5: Simultaneously Test All Facilities ...................................................................................................................14-4 References ...........................13-31 Step 1: Quantify and Cost the Reference Loss Level...........13-31 Step 2: Select Candidate Transmission Lines to Be Upgraded...................................14-2 M&V Considerations for Transmission Energy-Efficiency Projects ....................................................................................... ..........................13-25 Step 3: Collection of Data for Off-line Optimal Power Flow ..................13-21 Step 1 and 1A: Prepare List of Existing Facilities..............................13-45 14 PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION FOR TEE PROGRAMS.........................................................15-1 Summary ....15-1 xix .........................................................................................13-28 Stage 2: Definition of Baseline Scenarios ........................................................................ .................................................13-20 Methodology for Stage 3 – Group B ...........................................................................................................13-39 Step 5: Conduct Benefit/Cost Analysis of Line Upgrades Without Increasing System Utilization....... ...............................13-27 Methodology for Stage 3 – Group C .....................................................................

...........................................Future Work..................................15-3 A APPENDIX – TEST-SYSTEM DATA ........................ A-1 xx .........................................................................................................

...................................................6-5 Figure 6–3 Installing Bayoneting on a 115-kV Transmission Line ...................................6-8 Figure 6–6 SLiM Device............................................2-8 Figure 2–7 Role of Inspections in Transmission-Line Modifications .................................................................................................6-25 Figure 6–10 Variation of Losses for Two 345-kV Lines of the Study System – Case #2..........................................................................................................................................................................5-11 Figure 6–1 Normal Ruling Span Sag-Variation Diagram ...1-3 Figure 1–3: Transmission System Efficiency-Improvement Process – Illustration of Project Scope......................................................3-10 Figure 4–1 General Overview of a Transmission System Efficiency-Improvement Process ................................................... Conductor...............................................2-6 Figure 2–5 Determination of Energy Losses........................2-9 Figure 3–1: Pictorial View of Integral Value Proposition Associated with Transmission Loss-Reduction .............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2–2 Loss Calculations.....................2-7 Figure 2–6 Frequency of Transmission-Line Inspections ..................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1–1 Overview of Energy-Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) by State..............................................6-24 Figure 6–9 Variation of Current over Two 345-kV Lines of the Study System – Case #2 .......................................................................................................................................................................6-4 Figure 6–2 Conductor Heating/Cooling.....................................................................5-3 Figure 5–2 Replacing Structures .......................5-9 Figure 5–4 Weather Stations Installed Along the ROW Provide Valuable Data .................................................4-6 Figure 4–3 GHG Allowance-Prices Projection (EIA Report) ...................6-7 Figure 6–5 Installing Sagometer Camera and Target on Line ................................................................................................................6-9 Figure 6–8 Sensitivity Analysis of Option #1 with Respect to Several Parameters ......................................................4-13 Figure 5–1 Multiple Transmission Lines Make up the Grid .............................5-7 Figure 5–3 Inspection of Hardware.......... and Insulators.................2-5 Figure 2–3 Reasons for Loss Studies and Verification with Test Data ............1-5 Figure 2–1 Transmission-Line Loss Studies........................................................4-2 Figure 4–2 Possible Approach to Define Baseline in Dual-Effect Projects When the Primary Objective Is Not Loss-Reduction .....................6-6 Figure 6–4 Installing PhaseRaiser on a Transmission Line ..............................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1–2 Utilities Face Growing Concerns over Carbon Emissions from Generation Plants ..........................................................................6-25 xxi ...........................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2–4 Determination of Peak Losses.......6-9 Figure 6–7 Bundled Conductor .................................................................................................................................

.....9-3 Figure 9–3 500-kV Tower for Segmented Shield-Wire Analysis ..................................................................................7-6 Figure 7–4 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of a TCSC Module...........................................9-4 Figure 9–4 Loss-Reduction Benefit Derived from an Example of a 500-kV Transmission Line for a Range of Power-Transfer Levels.................................................................7-12 Figure 8–1 Corona Loss Minus Ohmic Loss Increase for a 230-kV Transmission Line When AC Operating Voltage Is Reduced from 240 kV to 230 kV .........................12-4 xxii ................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................7-8 Figure 7–8 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of an IPC Configured as an APST with a Capacitor for Boosting Power Flow ......................................9-5 Figure 9–5 Phasing the Conductors on a Double-Circuit Tower to Minimize Shield-Wire Loss...........................................................................................................................................................7-3 Figure 7–2 345-kV Series Capacitors ............................................10-2 Figure 10–2 Pollution Severity Based on ESDD and NSDD Levels [6] ...............7-6 Figure 7–5 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of an SSSC ........................................................................................................10-4 Figure 10–3 Example of On-Line Leakage-Current Monitoring Using EPRI’s Wireless Leakage-Current Sensor..........................................................11-11 Figure 11–5 Percentage of Power Loss for Different Values of No-Load Loss (Po)...................................................11-10 Figure 11–4 Percentage of Power Loss for Different Values of Load Loss (Ploss) .....................10-6 Figure 11–1 Sources of Transformer Losses and the Physical Components That Affect Them [5] ................................12-3 Figure 12–2 Typical Closed-Loop Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage-Control Strategy...............................8-7 Figure 9–1 Example of Sectionalized Segment (OPGW) [3] .......................7-4 Figure 7–3 345-kV Thyristor-Controlled Series Capacitors (Courtesy of WAPA) ..............................................................................8-5 Figure 8–2 Corona Loss Minus Ohmic Loss Increase for a 345-kV Transmission Line When AC Operating Voltage Is Reduced from 345 kV to 327 kV ........................7-9 Figure 7–10 Line Loss As a Function of Power Transfer for the AC to DC Example..........................7-11 Figure 7–11 Line Losses as a Function of Line Length for the AC to DC Example ............................................................................................Figure 6–11 Line-Loading Duration Curve – Case #3 ..................11-9 Figure 11–3 Percentage of Loss Versus Capacity Factor for Different Values of Load Loss (LL) ...................7-8 Figure 7–7 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of a UPFC .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-31 Figure 7–1 A Modified Hierarchical Control Structure for Network Loss-Minimization and Coordinated Regulation of Transmission Network Voltages with Optimal Power Flow (PF).......................................9-8 Figure 10–1 Example of Dry-Band Arcing on Glass Insulators.........11-4 Figure 11–2 Percentage of Loss Versus Load Factor for Different Values of No-Load Loss (NLL).................7-9 Figure 7–9 Rapid City 200-MW Back-to-Back HVDC Converter Station .......................................7-7 Figure 7–6 Inez Unified Power-Flow Controller (Courtesy of AEP) ....9-3 Figure 9–2 Isolator and Related Components [3] ...................................10-5 Figure 10–4 Example of Insulator Leakage Current During a 24-Hour Period ................11-11 Figure 12–1 Typical Structure for Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control .........................................

...................................................................12-6 Figure 12–4 Italian Control Areas for Secondary Voltage Regulation............ and the TVR .... With and Without Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control..................................................................................................13-6 Figure 13–2 Framework of Stage 3 for Measures in Group A (Except for Conversion of AC to DC).............................................................13-30 xxiii .....13-24 Figure 13–4 Outline of the Automated System Required for Transmission Network LossMinimization ...12-14 Figure 13–1 Outline of the Framework for the Evaluation of Loss Reduction Measures .....................................................12-13 Figure 12–12 Transmission Loss-Reductions in an Evaluation Study on the PJM System (Unit: MW) .....................................................12-11 Figure 12–9 Comparison of the Pilot Bus Voltages (Unit: kV).................. Dotted Line = PVRs and SVRs....12-8 Figure 12–5 Main Power Plants Controlled by Jiangsu Provincial Grid’s AVC Strategy.............12-10 Figure 12–7 Main Power Plants Controlled by North China Regional Grid’s AVC Strategy ....13-14 Figure 13–3 Framework for Determining Minimum-Loss Operation with Existing Facilities .....Figure 12–3 Italian Hierarchical Voltage-Control System [11] ....................................12-12 Figure 12–10 Expected Transmission Loss-Reduction in Italian Power System ...........13-26 Figure 13–5 One-Line Diagram of The Study System ........ SVRs............ in Jiangsu Provincial Grid .......... Dashed Line = PVRs................................................13-29 Figure 13–6 Annual Load-Duration Curve and Approximation Steps ..............................................................................12-9 Figure 12–6 Two Zone-Division Strategies Generated by the TVR of Jiangsu Provincial Grid ...................................................12-13 Figure 12–11 Transmission Loss-Reduction in Jiangsu Provincial Grid .......................................................................12-10 Figure 12–8 Load Margins at Two Key Substations: Solid Line = PVRs Only........................................................................................

.

......................................6-28 Table 6-12 Conductor Data – Case #3 .....................................................................................................................10-12 Table 11-1 Properties of Common Amorphous Metals and Electric Steels [10]..................................................................................................................................................6-21 Table 6-5 Operational and Economic Parameters – Case #1 ......................................9-6 Table 9-2 Savings and Economic Analysis Results...............................................................................................................LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Transmission-Line Voltage Levels Reported in the Survey ................................................................................................6-11 Table 6-2 Characteristics of Equivalent Different Type Conductors ..........10-11 Table 10-3 Economic Analysis Results – Silicone Coating of Insulators ........6-27 Table 6-10 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #2............................................6-22 Table 6-7 Economic Analysis Results – Case #1 .....11-16 Table 11-3 Evaluation Process for “Repair-Now-And-Replace-Later” Option......................................................................................11-19 Table 12-1 Summary of Capital and Operational Costs (Currency: €)........7-11 Table 9-1 Line Characteristics and Economic Parameters ............................................................................6-30 Table 6-13 Project Cost – Case #3...........................................................2-7 Table 2-3 Technologies Being Used to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses...............................................................2-9 Table 2-4 Operational Practices Used to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses ..............2-10 Table 4-1 Representative Values of Utility Cost Variables ...........................12-16 xxv ............6-20 Table 6-4 Project Cost – Case #1..............................................................................................................................6-15 Table 6-3 Conductor Data – Case #1 ..........................................................................................................................................................6-26 Table 6-9 Project Cost – Case #2.........................6-32 Table 6-15 Economic Analysis Results – Case #3 ........................................................................................................................9-7 Table 10-1 Characteristics of Methods to Reduce Insulator Leakage Current ..........................4-14 Table 6-1 Comparison of Available Conductors ...............6-33 Table 7-1 AC to CD Conversion Example ...................11-6 Table 11-2 Description of Options for Transformer Replacement.........................................................10-9 Table 10-2 Line Characteristics and Economic Parameters ....................................6-28 Table 6-11 Economic Analysis Results – Case #2 .......4-11 Table 4-2 NERC Region Annual CO2 Output-Emission Rate (Ton/MWh).12-15 Table 12-2 Cost/Benefit Data...............6-31 Table 6-14 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #3...............6-23 Table 6-8 Conductor Data – Case #2 .............................6-21 Table 6-6 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #1................................................2-4 Table 2-2 Technologies Being Studied to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses ............................................................................................ .......................

.....................13-38 Table 13-16 Loss Savings – Complete Set of Projects – Application of Framework – Step 5.........................................................................................................................................................................................................13-4 Table 13-2 Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses...........................13-30 Table 13-4 Generation Dispatch for Each Approximation Step ....................................................................................................................... A-4 Table A-5 Generators Operation-Cost Parameters .................13-37 Table 13-13 Demand-Loss Savings – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2................................. Generation.....13-38 Table 13-15 Economic Analysis Results – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 ..........................................................................................................................13-40 Table 13-17 Economic Analysis Results – Complete Set of Projects – Application of Framework – Step 5................................14-3 Table A-1 Buses Data: Load....................................................13-35 Table 13-11 Economic Analysis Results: 138-kV Line 153–3005: Preliminary Analysis at Step 2........................................................ A-3 Table A-4 Generators Power-Flow Data...............13-33 Table 13-8 Conductor Data for Reconductoring Options – Application of Framework – Step 2..............................................................................................................................................13-43 Table 13-20 Savings and Benefits Obtained with the Set of Upgrading Projects – Application of Framework – Step 8 ..........................................13-35 Table 13-12 Conductor Data for Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2................................................ A-2 Table A-3 Transformer Data ......................................................................... and B-Shunt at Peak Conditions ........... A-1 Table A-2 Transmission Lines ......................................................................................................13-34 Table 13-10 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Reconductoring Options Application Of Framework – Step 2 ...............................13-31 Table 13-6 Selection Metrics to Identify a Candidate Line for Reconductoring ............................................................................................................13-37 Table 13-14 Energy and Emissions Savings – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 ..................................................................................13-33 Table 13-9 Project Costs for Reconductoring Options – Application of Framework – Step 2 ............................................................................13-44 Table 14-1 Characteristics and Typical Applications of Methods for M&V in End-Use EE Programs........................................................................................ A-4 xxvi ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13-32 Table 13-7 Economic parameters – Application of the Evaluation Framework..........Table 13-1 Characteristics of Loss-Reduction Methods ....13-31 Table 13-5 Baseline Conditions ...........................................................................................................................13-41 Table 13-18 Generation Dispatch with Increased Transmission Capacity – Application of Framework – Step 8......................................13-8 Table 13-3 Load-Duration Steps...........................................13-43 Table 13-19 Power Flow on Upgraded lines – Application of Framework – Step 8 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Indeed. Rapid increases in energy price. Section 144. the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. 9. 16. “Transmission Planning.5% in 2014. assistance to low-income households). such as public benefit funds (PBFs) and state tax credits. utilities have begun to consider delivery-system losses in an additional context. The ACES Act amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 to establish a combined efficiency and renewable-electricity standard that requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy-efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012. a number of sections in the Act include elements for improved Transmission and Distribution Efficiency. others are just getting started. Energy-efficiency tax incentives encourage providers to reach energy-savings targets. and 20% in 2021–2039). Although some states have been making commitments toward energy efficiency for decades. approved in June 2009. and electricity storage. state regulatory bodies are adopting aggressive energy-efficiency policies to increase investments in efficiency programs and improve efficiency in their own facilities and fleets. the need for improving reliability. and the increasing concerns of supply adequacy have all contributed to the recent increased focus on efficiency. 1-1 .” provides requirements to take into account all significant demand-side and supply-side options—including energy efficiency. including energy efficiency. is a more comprehensive approach to promoting a clean-energy economy.5% in 2018.INTRODUCTION 1 Motivation for Evaluating and Reducing Transmission Losses Electric utilities have always been conscious of delivery losses because they represent lost revenue. still others fall far behind. Many states have adopted policies to encourage efficiency investments. Emerging national and state legislative initiatives are driving energy efficiency and demand management. along with renewable-energy legislation. Energy efficiency has gained broad-based support as one of the main components of a clean and secure energy future. a number of initiatives are now underway in the United States to improve efficiency in a variety of areas. smart grid.” provides requirements to establish a baseline and achieve demand-reduction targets. Section 216A. Moreover. Recently. constraints in energy supply and delivery. In addition. As a result. however. These include tax incentives for advanced energy-saving products and buildings and updated authorizations for advanced energy research. The EPAct took modest steps to promote energy efficiency with these provisions. 13% in 2016. “Smart Grid Peak-Demand Reduction Goals. PBFs are small charges on electric bills used to fund energyefficiency programs and other programs deemed to be in the public interest (for example. The federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct) that was enacted in August 2005 includes some notable provisions for energy efficiency.

EERS-like laws and regulations are now in operation in many states. NY. a utility that exceeded its energy-efficiency targets in a given year would be able to sell its excess credits to other utilities that found it more expensive or difficult to comply with savings quotas. often with flexibility to achieve the target through a marketbased trading system [3]. State regulators set electric and/or gas energy-savings targets for utilities. Goals may specify reductions in energy (megawatt hours. at least 15 include EE as part of a renewable standard or goal. or both. IA. demand (megawatts. An EERS implemented in a market-based trading system can offer energy providers flexibility in reaching energy-efficiency targets. The states that enacted significant energy-efficiency legislation in 2008 include: DC. FL. Under such a system. Some EERS policies permit trading of efficiency credits. MI. HI. Figure 1–1 Overview of Energy-Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) by State EERS can be particularly effective because they allow utilities to save large amounts of energy by using a market-based system. OK. 1-2 . PA. Twenty-three states have an EERS or goal. UT. NJ. An EERS requires utilities to meet quantitative targets for efficiency improvements. or MWh). OH. which allow savings to be achieved at the lowest cost but may give credit for more complex existing programs. and VT [1]. State regulators specify explicit numerical goals that regulated utilities and others are required to meet on an annual and cumulative basis. NM. MA. or MW). Figure 1–1 provides a pictorial overview of the EERS programs nationwide.Introduction Perhaps the most important regulatory instrument implemented by states to date is the EnergyEfficiency Resource Standard (EERS). An EERS aims to reduce or flatten electric-load growth through energy-efficiency (EE) measures. MD. This helps keep the cost down for each unit of savings achieved. Indeed.

Minnesota has altered its EERS to allow energy savings resulting from improving system efficiency. utilities will have to adopt a much broader view of energy efficiency and evaluate efficiency opportunities 1-3 . As such. Therefore. Only recently. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy recommends including transmission and distribution improvements that improve efficiency in the EERS programs as one measure to accomplish their energy-saving goals.5% of the targeted 1.5% percent of annual retail-energy sales of electricity and natural gas. in some cases. many utilities have decided to take a leadership position through the implementation of various consumption.and delivery-system efficiency initiatives. however. Figure 1–2 Utilities Face Growing Concerns over Carbon Emissions from Generation Plants Although many utilities implement end-use energy-efficiency programs. there are no specific provisions in these programs to include transmission and distribution improvements as a measure for increasing efficiency.5% efficiency gains can come from system-efficiency improvements. Electric utilities. it is expected that utilities will be able to meet some portion of their EERS requirements through enterprise-wide system-efficiency efforts. significant opportunities to reduce energy losses and improve energy efficiency across other utility functional areas are missed. The state of Minnesota has stated that up to 0. achievable directly through energyconservation improvement programs and rate design. few take a holistic view of energy efficiency. In general. are themselves large consumers of electricity and. Going forward. The Minnesota energy policy mandates energy savings equal to 1. [1]. the single largest consumer of electricity relative to their end-use customers.Introduction All current EERS programs focus on end-use energy-savings improvements. As a result.

(EIA: Electric Power Industry 2007: Year in Review. The wasted MW caused by transmission losses are an untapped resource. through enduse utilization). Indeed. political. and regulatory environments promise additional rewards for a transmission utility that implements measures to improve transmission-system efficiency. utilities have to generate more power to offset these losses—power that otherwise could be delivered to customers. and compare prospective projects across operational sectors in a fair-basis comparison. annual generation of 4157 million MWh). 2009). Within this overall approach. to distribution.S. According to Energy Information Agency (EIA) generation and consumption data. 1-4 . Although these percentages may appear relatively low. Reducing system losses helps utilities to defer generation and transmission investments. Provides the potential to relieve transmission constraints and defer capacity addition. it should be possible to assess. the evolving social. efficiency improvements in the transmission system play a very important role. Reduces electrical losses. EPRI has established this project in response to this industry-wide need. In addition to utilities’ traditional efforts to reduce losses in order to maximize revenues. The percentages equate to about 83–166 million MWh lost each year (based on a total U. appraise. Indeed. The realization of measures to reduce transmission losses within this context of holistic interpretation of energy efficiency should be consistent with the customary approach followed in the development of end-use EE programs. Project Objective and Scope The responses to the EPRI industry survey by participating utilities are summarized in Section 2. The implementation of technology-based solutions to improve transmission efficiency requires utilities to study and assess not only the technologies. Supports cost-effective compliance with emerging energy-efficiency mandates. to transmission. Such a utility • • • • • Demonstrates its commitment to environmental issues to regulators and the general public through more efficient use of transmission resources. especially in the new context of generalized interest in and efforts toward energy-efficiency improvements. Reduces its CO2 emissions and its overall greenhouse-gas footprint. report released January 21. Utilities need a comprehensive evaluation methodology and strategic-planning framework to accomplish this task. resulting in financial savings and improved life expectancy of some equipment . These responses confirm that implementing effective transmission loss-reduction methods is important to utilities. the total amount of energy involved is considerable. but also their transmission systems. transmission losses account for approximately 2–4% of the total electricity generated in the United States.Introduction across the electric utility supply chain (generation.

which illustrates the main sequential steps in the development of a transmission energy-efficiency (TEE) program. detailed engineering design and implementation stages are not addressed here. this project should be considered a first attempt toward the development of consistent and comprehensive methodologies. ideas for the development and implementation of M&V procedures and methodologies are provided in this report. Although a detailed treatment of the M&V component was not included in the primary scope of this project. That is. However. This report focuses mainly on the first stages of a TEE program. they do not have the benefit of widely accepted savings guidelines. For end-use projects. the evaluation framework includes provisions to properly define and establish the baseline for a prospective TEE program and provides guidelines to conduct the necessary feasibility and scoping studies. Industry-wide deployment of transmission energy-efficiency programs very much needs to establish measurement and verification (M&V) protocols to demonstrate the realized savings and document the benefits. It is worth emphasizing that programs to improve energy efficiency in transmission and distribution (T&D) systems have not yet been extensively implemented. and protocols for the assessment and implementation of a T&D energy-efficiency program. procedures. Hence. Therefore. such as those available for end-use efficiency projects.Introduction The ultimate goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive strategic framework to assess and evaluate energy-efficiency opportunities from reduction of transmission system losses and to choose the most effective options. Figure 1–3. Establishing Objectives Baseline Definition Evaluation Framework Scope Measurement and Verification (M&V) Feasibility and Scoping Study Implementation and Monitoring Detailed Engineering Design M&V Guidelines Figure 1–3: Transmission System Efficiency-Improvement Process – Illustration of Project Scope 1-5 . certain established measures— such as the replacement of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)—have associated energy-savings guidelines. helps to clarify the scope of this project.

is presented in Section 15. A summary of technological options for reducing transmission losses is first presented in this section. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. their associated implementation challenges and limitations. Electric Market Overview: Energy-Efficiency Map. Finally. https://webrh12. A complete study case that illustrates the application of the framework is included in this section. 100. Energy-Efficiency Planning Guidebook: Energy-Efficiency Initiative. EPRI.revisor. 1016273. Palo Alto.leg. Section 14 describes the basic considerations and requirements for the development of a comprehensive methodology for an M&V process in transmission energy-efficiency programs. The proposed framework for the evaluation of transmission loss-reduction options is described in Section 13. ACEEE Report E063. [3].state. Minnesota Office of Reviser of Status.mn. a summary of conclusions and main findings. No. Section 3 also includes a discussion of the value proposition of transmission energy-efficiency improvement. Minnesota Office of Reviser of Status. CA: 2008. The effectiveness of these methods to accomplish the desired loss-reduction goals.leg.ferc.Introduction This report is structured as follows: Section 2 summarizes the results of the survey conducted for industry members. 2008 Minnesota Status: S.F.2401&year=2008 [4]. they have not been extensively applied. Section 3 presents background material. Sections 5 to 12 thoroughly describe the available technologies for reducing losses in transmission networks. The survey was aimed at gaining knowledge about utility practices and approaches related to the computation and management of transmission losses. Although many of these techniques are well known in the industry. References [1].state.html&session=ls85 [5]. 2nd Engrossment: 85th Legislative Session (2007–2008). along with proposals for future research. and the causes that have prevented their wide spread utilization are discussed in these sections.php?bill=S0100. 1-6 . March 2006. http://www.us/bin/bldbill. https://www.revisor. Section 4 presents the principles for the evaluation of transmission energy-efficiency options that are the basis for the analyses and case studies presented throughout this report.mn. FERC.gov/ [2]. It was also developed to determine the interests and the needs of the industry related to transmission lossimprovement. 2008 Minnesota Status: 216B.2.2401 Energy Conservation Policy Goal. Energy-efficiency Resource Standards: Experience and Recommendations.us/statutes/?id=216B.

which include investor-owned utilities (IOU). public power utilities. Some of the areas covered in this survey are: • The use of the eleven (11) candidate transmission loss-reduction strategies (which are further developed in the report): – Six dealing with transmission lines: o Use of advanced or lower-loss phase conductors o Bundling of the phase conductors o Phase-conductor corona losses o Shield-wire–associated losses o Transmission-line insulation losses related to leakage current o Conversion from ac to dc – Two dealing with transmission voltages: o Raising transmission-line nominal voltage o Transmission voltage-profile optimization – Two system approaches: o Redirecting power flows o Switching out of equipment – • – – – • One dealing with high-efficiency transformers Loss calculations Reasons for loss studies Peak and energy losses Information about the loss studies. 2 This section groups the responses from the various participants.INDUSTRY SURVEY OF TRANSMISSION-SYSTEM LOSS ACTIVITY This section covers a survey that was sponsored by EPRI to compile information and lessons learned on transmission-system efficiency efforts at various member companies. transmission providers. and federal utilities. cooperatives. performed with an emphasis on Transmission-line projects that have been undertaken by a survey participant: 2-1 .

and characterized in order to extract the information and lessons learned. EPRI conducted a survey of the participating members. Additionally. These technologies might not be applied specifically for the purpose of reducing losses. EPRI has used the survey responses to identify opportunities for direct consultation and interaction with the technical staffs of companies that have indicated experience that can be leveraged in formulating an understanding of what has been taking place in the industry: that is. it is worthwhile to gather and analyze the procedures. It was determined that this rich knowledge needed to be recorded. A list of recipients for the survey was made from the list of EPRI member organizations. Understanding the strategies and methodologies that have been applied in the design of transmission lines. The utilities responding to the survey. Assessing the effectiveness of the implemented methods in terms of loss-reduction will also be a valuable consideration for the project. There is also a wealth of previous EPRI work related to technologies designed to increase transmission capacity. Certainly. This knowledge constitutes very valuable information for the industry. The survey results are presented in this section. but they are on the grid. The study has also attempted to determine what considerations utilities use to determine which transmission lines are candidates for loss-improvement. It is also important to collect industry knowledge related to the study and application of those schemes designed specifically for the improvement of loss-reduction. are not specifically identified (as a matter of confidentiality to the membership). advanced conductors. concerns. and expectations regarding transmission-system loss activity. Such data would be very relevant to this project. and the actual transmission lines. and tools utilities have used to evaluate transmission losses. as well as whether there is real interest in methods for transmission loss-reduction. Data can be extracted from such operational experience in terms of how the applied methods have affected losses in the system. dynamic ratings. and application of flexible ac transmission system (FACTS) devices. as well as the criteria the utility followed. In the majority of cases. any information concerning the actual loss-reduction following the implementation of the strategy—and any discrepancies with respect to the projected energy savings—is of major importance.Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity – – Transmission-line inspections Transmission-line modifications Need for Understanding Industry Practice EPRI understands that there is significant knowledge within the industry regarding the implementation of many of the loss-reduction technologies described in Section 1. In Phase 2 of this project. these modifications have been implemented for reasons other than reducing transmission losses. To this end. In addition. These data are extremely valuable for the purposes of this project. 2-2 . The loss-reduction strategies listed here serve as a reference for those companies contemplating such activities on their own transmission systems. it is necessary to determine if there is any standardized approach to loss-reduction being applied by utilities. is of great value to this project. properly compiled. including voltage and current upgrades of transmission lines. what are the needs. techniques.

or conversion to. Participants included investor-owned utilities (IOU). dc— including bipole and tripole configurations Switching or cycling out-of-service equipment not needed for current operation Survey Results Twenty-five member utilities responded to the survey. transmission providers. cooperatives. conductor size.Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity Loss-Reduction Strategies The loss-reduction strategies were: • • • • • • • • • • • Raising transmission-line nominal voltage Transmission voltage-profile optimization Use of advanced or lower-loss conductors Redirecting power flows Bundling phase conductors Improving corona losses. and bundling Segmentation of shield wires Improving insulation losses Installing low-loss transformers Selective use of. They were fairly representative of the industry as a whole: small-. as impacted by line volts. A breakdown of those levels is as follows: 2-3 . and large-sized utilities took part.5kV. public power utilities. and federal utilities. medium-. The responses included voltage levels from 765kV to 34.

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity Table 2-1 Transmission-Line Voltage Levels Reported in the Survey Transmission Voltage Levels 765kV 500kV 345kV 230kV 161kV 138kV 115kV 100kV 69kV 46kV 44kV 41.6kV 34.5kV Number 1 10 15 16 7 7 14 1 10 4 1 1 2

Loss Studies It is important to determine what type of database is available for transmission-line loss identification. Utilities were asked if they performed loss studies on their overhead ac transmission systems. Twenty-nine percent reported that they performed loss studies on their transmission lines. These respondents were also asked if any system components were included in the loss study. Of those responding, 50% included substation transformer load-loss figures in their studies. Substation transformer no-load losses were included in 21% of those including transformer losses in their calculations.

Figure 2–1 Transmission-Line Loss Studies

2-4

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity

Loss Calculations Knowing how utilities calculated their losses is also important in establishing standardized methods when applying study results across the grid. Therefore, respondents were asked how they performed the loss calculations for their facilities. Fourteen percent of those answering the question reported performing field investigations to collect and verify data for transmission lines and substation transformers. Interestingly, 64% of those answering the question reported using office records and design criteria for the studies. Twenty-two percent did not answer the question of how their losses were calculated.

Figure 2–2 Loss Calculations

Reasons for Loss Studies Knowing the reason utilities are performing loss studies gives us some insights about the importance of the data. The survey asked an open question about why the loss studies had been performed. This allowed a variety of responses from the members. Fifty-two percent answered the question. Thirty-six percent reported needing the loss data for rate and/or regulatory filings to justify their cases. Thirty-six percent used the information for the billing of transmission services. The survey also asked if the studies were verified with actual test data from the system. Twenty-eight percent responded that they verified their transmission studies with test data.

2-5

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity

Figure 2–3 Reasons for Loss Studies and Verification with Test Data

Peak and Energy Losses Another key element in the process of understanding the industry’s activity regarding loss evaluation is to understand how the utility determined peak losses for their system. Fifty-six percent answered “yes” to this question. Forty-four percent did not answer the question. The survey also asked how peak losses were calculated by the utilities. Seventy percent reported that they used computer simulations; 25% used supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) data, and 5% made estimates based on transmission studies.

Figure 2–4 Determination of Peak Losses

The survey also asked if utility systems determined their energy losses. Forty-four percent reported that they did. Twelve percent reported that they did not. Unfortunately, 34% did not answer the question. It is also interesting to know how energy losses were determined by these utilities. Of those answering the question, 56% reported using actual data from their transmission system, 33% used load-flow simulations, and 11% reported taking information from their energy-management systems.

2-6

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity

Figure 2–5 Determination of Energy Losses

The survey also asked about the types of load data that were used to generate loss studies. The answers showed no commonality. They covered a wide range of methods, including demand-loss factors, real-time system losses, empirical methods, and load modeling. Technologies to Reduce Transmission Losses The survey was also interested in a utility’s intent to apply loss-reducing technology on its transmission systems. Therefore, a question was developed to gage this movement. Eighty-four percent of the utilities responded to the question: 43% said they were investigating these technologies; 57% said they were not. The respondents who answered positively were asked to describe the technologies being studied, which are defined in Table 2–2 below. It is important to note that many utilities are investigating more than one technology.
Table 2-2 Technologies Being Studied to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses Methods Under Consideration Raising Nominal Voltages Optimizing Voltage Profiles Using Lower-Loss Conductors Redirecting Power Flows Bundling Phase Conductors Improving Corona Losses Segmenting Shield-Wires Improving Insulation Losses Installing Low-Loss Transformers Converting to DC, Bipole, or Tripole Switching Off Equipment Not in Use Percent Responding 33% 22% 56% 44% 11% 11% 22% 11% 56% 0% 0%

2-7

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity

Respondents were also asked if there were any methods not listed in the survey that were being considered to reduce transmission-line losses. Thirty-three percent responded that they were doing computer studies of the overall bulk-transmission system, but that nothing had been planned as a result of the computer studies. Transmission-Line Projects The respondents were asked to provide a description of the overhead ac transmission lines being studied for application of the advanced technology. Twenty-two percent responded, but the respondents did not include details of their projects. Transmission-Line Inspections A very important aspect of upgrading an existing transmission line is knowing the physical condition of the specific transmission line being considered. Maintenance records are an excellent source of data regarding the line. The survey asked the utilities about their inspection process: did they inspect their lines on a regular basis? Thirty-two percent answered the question; the other 68% skipped the question. Of those answering the question, 38% reported that they inspected their lines more than once a year. Thirty-eight percent reported that the lines were inspected annually. Twenty-four percent reported that their lines were inspected every two years.

Figure 2–6 Frequency of Transmission-Line Inspections

The survey also asked if the transmission-line inspections influenced the decision process to modify the line’s capacity rating (apply new technology). Forty-four percent of the respondents answered this question. Eighty-eight percent of those answering the question reported that neither schedule maintenance nor inspections were considered. Twelve percent reported that it was an influence in the decision process.

2-8

Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity Figure 2–7 Role of Inspections in Transmission-Line Modifications Transmission-Line Modifications The survey asked utilities if they were actually applying any loss-reduction technologies to their existing transmission lines. Everyone skipped this question. Table 2-3 Technologies Being Used to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses Technologies Being Installed Raising Nominal Voltages Optimizing Voltage Profiles Using Lower-Loss Conductors Redirecting Power Flows Bundling Phase Conductors Improving Corona Losses Segmenting Shield Wires Improving Insulation Losses Installing Low-Loss Transformers Converting to DC. 2-9 . Twelve percent reported that some form of loss-reducing technology was being applied to their transmission system. Sixty-eight percent answered the question. Bipole. Eighty-eight percent reported that no projects were being considered. or Tripole Switching Off Equipment Not in Use Percent Responding 4% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% Respondents were also asked if there were any other methods being considered to reduce transmission-line losses.

2-10 . the following determinations have been made: • • • • Utilities have a definite interest in developing methods to reduce transmission-line losses and improve the performance of transmission lines. Table 2-4 Operational Practices Used to Reduce Transmission-Line Losses Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Practice Use of Load-Tap-Changer (LTC) Use of Reactive Devices Control of System Voltage Tower Inspections Sag Inspections Insulator Inspections Vegetation Management Voltage Studies Survey Conclusions After reviewing the data in the surveys returned by the EPRI members. There is no industry-wide strategy for approaching the reduction of transmission-line losses or performing the necessary system studies. Utilities are studying various methods and technologies to reduce losses on the bulktransmission system. The majority of transmission-line loss data is empirically derived from design and office records rather than from real-time data from the field. To this end. Sixty-eight percent answered the question. and 69% said that they were not. a framework for calculation of transmission-system losses will be proposed as part of this project. This survey has proven that the ability to increase power flow is a timely issue for the owners and operators of transmission facilities.Industry Survey of Transmission-System Loss Activity Transmission-Line Modifications The survey asked the respondents if their companies had undertaken any operational practices to reduce overall transmission-system losses. it is vital that the owners of the facilities making up the transmission grid operate as efficiently as possible. 31% reported that their companies were making operational changes. To meet the increasing demands of the industry and our customers. There is a need to develop an industry-wide standard approach to transmission-line loss studies.

3 Some of the areas covered in this section are: • The dependence of line losses on the line's resistance and the square of the current flowing through the line. Conductor resistance can be reduced by either replacing the conductor with a larger-diameter conductor or by replacing the conductor with one of the new advanced conductors with lower resistance and of the same diameter. A reduction of conductor resistance directly reduces Joule losses. which also reduces the line’s impedance. because the losses change with the square of the current flow. reducing line losses requires either a reduction in the resistance of the line or in the current flowing through the line. as well as the merits of lower-loss transformers. Reducing the currents flowing in a given transmission line can significantly reduce losses. Therefore. Another option is bundling conductors with additional conductors per phase. It introduces the need to look beyond reducing the losses in the components to examining the effects of increasing the energy efficiency of the transmission system as a whole. for the same amount of transferred power. such as o Transmission at higher voltages o Using a centralized coordinated control of bus voltages o Diverting the flows to lower-resistance lines • This section introduces some of the salient points of the other techniques for reducing corona and insulator losses. The section introduces measures to – Reduce the line resistance. such as o Using different conductors (reconductoring) o Bundling conductors with additional conductors per phase – Reduce the line flow. from the power-systems experts to the financial analysts who would welcome some of the fundamental information included in this section. Transmitting electricity at higher 3-1 . Summary of Measures for Reducing Transmission Losses When electricity is transmitted over ac transmission lines.BACKGROUND This section attempts to provide the reader with the required background and reasoning behind choosing the transmission loss-reduction measures included in this report. some portion of the energy is consumed by Joule heating losses (resistive or line losses) in the conductor. These line losses are a function of the line’s resistance and the square of the current flowing through the line. It is intended to serve a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

consequently. which transmits no energy to the load. Based on the nature of transmission losses. Switching or cycling out-of-service equipment not needed for current operation. But. Hence. Reduction of these types of losses can contribute. Hence. including corona and insulator losses. This fact suggests the idea of using special methods and control equipment to redirect the power flow over a selected transmission path to reduce losses. and the deposition of polluting substances over conductors and insulators. Another source of no-load losses are transformer-core losses that are dependent upon voltage levels.Background voltages can also reduce transmission-system losses. the power system operation. Reactive power flow is influenced by the power factor of the loads. if power flow is diverted from a lower-voltage line to a higher-voltage line. raising the voltage of existing transmission lines reduces losses. a centralized coordinated control of bus voltages allows the user to obtain a flatter voltage profile that minimizes the reactive power losses over the transmission grid. a reduction of the overall transmission grid losses can also be accomplished. There are additional sources of transmission losses other than line losses. Alternatively. or a high-loss path to a low-loss path. The main measures considered here are: • • • • • • • • • • • Raising transmission-line nominal voltage Transmission voltage-profile optimization Use of lower-loss conductors Redirecting power flow Bundle optimization Corona losses Shield-wire segmentation Insulation losses Low-loss transformers Selective conversion to dc. These losses can be controlled primarily by installing high-efficiency transformers. the design characteristics of the transmission line. the inductance and capacitance of the phase conductors also significantly impact current magnitudes. Many of these methods have been studied for loss-reduction to varying degrees. In an alternating current (ac) circuit. For a given power flow. in most cases. but that can also be used for the reduction of losses. and a number of them actually 3-2 . a higher voltage reduces the current and. The inductive and capacitance currents flowing in the circuit impedance constitute reactive power. to the overall loss-improvement of the transmission lines. the characteristics of network components. as well as by the bus voltage profile throughout the power network. bipole. the resistive losses. a number of different measures for reducing transmission losses can be implemented. they can be easily addressed. in a minor way. These losses are not influenced by the power flow over the lines (like resistance losses). This list includes measures or actions that have been considered within the industry specifically for increasing power transfer. but rather by the voltage level. and control practices. or tripole. but increases losses as the magnitude of the current increases.

The measures listed above are briefly described in the following subsection. reactive-power flows in the grid consume transmission and generation capacity. In addition. This approach might require upgrading the transmission towers to meet safety standards regarding clearance levels or phase spacings. doubling the line voltage could double the thermal capacity of the line. which in turn substantially impacts transmission losses. Changes of voltage level as a measure to increase transfer capacity consist of energizing a transmission line in a higher voltage class. 3-3 . appropriate voltage control and reactive-power management in the power grid allows maximizing the amount of real power that can be transferred across congested transmission lines.) This measure is a considerable improvement. maintaining system voltages within acceptable limits. are not listed here as loss-reducing measures because they represent major additions or expansions to the system. Besides. Inadequate reactive power support has led to voltage collapses and has been a cause of several recent major power outages worldwide. the switching stations and substations must also be upgraded with higher-voltage circuit breakers. If the line loading remains the same. such as adding new lines and substations/transformers. Detailed descriptions of these technologies are provided in the corresponding sections of this report. a significant reduction in transmission losses can be accomplished without jeopardizing system security. (The maximum current remains the same if the conductor is not replaced. Reactive power/voltage-control service should fulfill the objectives of satisfying overall system and customer requirements for reactive energy on a continuous basis. the MWh losses will not be reduced. Indeed. • Voltage-profile optimization: Sufficient controllable reactive power resources are essential for the reliable operation of electric power systems. Doubling the line voltage for longer lines could increase the power-handling capacity of the line by as much as the ratio of the line voltages squared. which might avoid or delay the need for the construction of an additional line to achieve the necessary transmission capacity. switches. thermallylimited lines. the percentage of loss with respect to the transmitted power will be less. • Raising transmission-line voltage: The one goal of increasing the nominal voltage level of an existing ac transmission line is to reduce the transmission line’s losses while increasing the power-transfer capacity of that line. The extent of the loss-reduction that can be achieved depends on the way the line loading is changed after the voltage uprating. voltage control can be used as an effective method for reducing losses. and reducing system losses. However. and other related equipment. and loss-reduction will be significant. Hence. providing a reserve to cover changed reactive requirements caused by contingencies. For short. if the line load is increased to the maximum capacity of the line. Other system-expansion projects that would impact losses. transformers. However. the current will be reduced proportionally. Increasing the operating voltage of the transmission line can substantially boost the powertransfer capability. especially in long voltage-limited transmission lines. In other words.Background have been implemented by utilities on varying scales. by adjusting bus voltages to minimize the transfer of reactive power over the grid. hence limiting a system’s ability to move real power. The profile of bus voltages strongly affects the reactive power flow throughout the power network.

Reactive-power compensation is the action of planning and installing new reactive-power equipment to improve voltage control. • Reconductoring with larger cross-sectional conductors By using a larger cross-sectional conductor. Optimizing the voltage profile for loss-minimization requires adjusting voltage-control settings according to continuously changing system conditions. or VAR compensators (SVCs). assuming the same amount of aluminum. an important reduction in transmission losses can be achieved. Clearly. Such systems can be implemented in a hierarchical control fashion. The same current magnitude will flow through a lower-resistance conductor. but with lower resistance. replacing existing round-wire conductors with TW conductors of the same diameter allows utilities to reduce line losses up to 20% without increasing structure transverse loading. the thermal capacity of the transmission line can be increased significantly. voltage control can be understood as an optimal way of setting up a voltage profile. if the reconductored line is loaded to its updated maximum capacity. “High-temperature. switched reactors and capacitors. • Reconductoring with lower-loss conductors By replacing the original line conductors. Conversely. It is clear that after installing additional reactive-power support equipment. and other FACTS devices. The higher cost is basically attributable to the premium feature of trapezoidal strands over circular strands. Similar to raising the transmission voltage. for this approach to be effective. at a cost of less than half that of a new line. static voltampere-reactive. If the power flowing over the reconductored line remains the same. a centralized automatic process. Hence.Background Two methods typically used to improve real power transfer are: • • Voltage control by optimizing the voltage profile to minimize losses. but they provide up to a 20% increase in aluminum area. This characteristic results in lower resistance and a moderately higher current-carrying capacity. transformer tap changers. transmission losses will not be reduced. optimal voltage control can be applied to maximize the benefits from the new equipment. using all existing voltage-control equipment available in the power system Reactive-power compensation by installing additional reactive-power support equipment Reactive-power compensation and voltage control are intrinsically related. with one of the control levels being a loss-minimization control. the impact of this measure on transmission losses will depend on how the power system is operated after the installation of the new conductor. The loss-minimization control level would perform on-line adjustments of the overall network voltage and reactive-power plan based on the most recent system-state estimation. low-sag” (HTLS) conductors are capable of continuous operation at temperatures ranging from 150°C (302°F) to 250°C (482°F) without increasing sag at mid-span or reducing conductor-strength problems associated with 3-4 . The use of certain new conductors can yield an increase in thermal capacity of as much as 100%. like centralized secondary voltage/VAR control systems. it is possible to employ modern conductors of the same diameter. The cost of an ACSR trapezoidal conductor is about 5% higher than the cost of a conventional round-wire ACSR conductor of similar aluminum section. is required. From the point of view of reactive-power management for loss-reduction. generator excitation adjustment. It reduces reactive-power transfers through the transmission network by means of the existing control components—for example. Trapezoidal wire (TW) conductors of “equal diameter” type have an overall diameter equal to their standard aluminum-core steel-reinforced (ACSR) counterparts.

On the other hand. Depending on the system topology. significant pieces of equipment have to be added. Line losses will be less. such as increasing transmission capacity. • Redirecting power flows Redirecting power flow through an ac transmission network consists of forcing power into lowloss paths that are obstructed by higher relative impedance. electrical losses will be greatly increased. confining power to a specific path. Reconductoring with HTLS conductors is attractive in particular situations in which extra capacity is required for short periods of time due to N–1 overload conditions. To achieve such a modification of the natural power-flow pattern on a transmission system. they could be used with the second-priority objective of reducing losses. a centralized controller to optimally adjust settings on-line is implemented. reducing loop flows. However. power is forced through higher-impedance paths. the voltage magnitude of end buses. and they are usually installed in transmission networks for other reasons than reducing transmission losses. The devices for power-flow control allow alteration of the key parameters that affect the power transferred by a transmission line: that is. and the voltage angles of end buses. operation of lines at high temperatures is a clear indication that electrical losses are significant. FACTS controllers are typically installed to fulfill a specific role. line impedance. To do so. And it should be carefully designed to avoid possible adverse interactions or conflicting control actions with the main controller of the devices being controlled. The control devices—(FACTS and high-voltage direct current (HVDC)— and the strategies that can be applied for diverting power flow are discussed in detail in Section 6. 3-5 . because conflicting control actions would occur. if loading of HTLS conductors is increased (taking advantage of their higher temperature capability). Installation of power-controlling equipment with the sole objective of diverting power flow to achieve lower losses is normally not cost-effective. HTLS advanced-technology conductors are able to carry much higher currents continuously without exceeding sag clearances. Such a controller would operate as an additional control loop. a change in losses will result. and if in order to avoid these loop flows. Such pieces of equipment are costly. due to the reduced resistance of the conductor. Indeed. changes in losses can be expected from both directions (increasing or decreasing). if FACTS devices already exist in the power network. a loss-minimization controller might not be feasible. the operating characteristics. or improving system stability. if a particular FACTS controller is used to mitigate power-flow loops.Background ACSR conductors exposed to high temperatures. For instance. In this case. and the manner in which the power-flow pattern is controlled. Reconductoring with HTLS conductors can provide significant reduction in line losses if the new conductor is operated under the same parameters as the conventional ACSR conductors they are replacing.

Amorphous iron deserves special mention. This loss is known as core loss. No-load losses can be reduced by selecting a high-performance steel for the core and by improving the core design. Distribution transformers built with amorphous iron cores can have more than 70% lower no-load losses compared to the best conventional designs. The auxiliary losses are very low compared to the other losses. However. There are basically three types of losses in a power transformer: – No-load losses An unloaded transformer experiences loss because of the magnetizing current required to take the core through the alternating cycles of flux at a rate determined by system frequency. More recently. techniques were introduced to redirect the domains of the iron crystals by laser etching. – Auxiliary losses: These are losses caused by the use of cooling equipment such as fans and pumps to increase the loading capability of substation transformers. or iron loss. Some transformers are designed to run the fans and pumps continually. Core loss is present whenever the transformer is energized. To reduce losses in transformers. During the 1980s. it is worthwhile to identify the different losses found in power transformers and to understand how they are improved by high-efficiency designs. and because the equipment is used to increase the loading capacity. these features might result in an increase in the capital cost of the transformer. This loss is dependent on the transformer loading throughout the year. Various processing and coating techniques and a reduced silicon content led to the creation of high-permeability grain-oriented steels. Over the years. The reduction in transformer-related losses over the years has come about by improving the materials and construction of the cores and coils of distribution and substation transformers. no-load loss. and using various shielding techniques to reduce the stray losses produced by leakage flux. To understand the benefits of using high-efficiency transformers.7% efficiency for 1000 kilovoltampere (kVA) units. This type of loss falls into two categories: • • Resistive loss within the winding conductors and leads Eddy-current loss in the winding conductors Lower load losses can be obtained by reducing the current densities of the conductors. more finely subdividing the conductors to reduce eddy-current losses. and can achieve up to 99. two components can be improved: the core and the windings. the development of amorphous iron introduced a significant new evolution for reducing iron losses. using structural materials that develop lower losses when penetrated by leakage flux. the losses should be compared to the increased capacity to achieve a fair assessment of transformer 3-6 . The energy consumption of auxiliary equipment depends on the horsepower of the fans and pumps and the length of time they are running. – Load losses The load loss of a transformer is that part of the losses generated by the load current and which varies with the square of the load current. mowing the shape of the conductor to reduce skin effect.Background • Low-loss transformers Transformers can be designed to operate with lower losses and higher efficiencies than the standard efficiency designs. better steels for transformer cores have been developed.

• Corona losses Corona and insulator losses are normally low in comparison to the resistance losses in transmission lines.Background efficiency. distribution transformers are one of the largest lossmaking components in electricity networks. which depends on the various weather conditions occurring in a given year. Auxiliary-equipment losses can be reduced by limiting the operating time of the auxiliary equipment. and. More comprehensive investigations will be required to assess potential implementation of this strategy in actual systems. The application of 3-7 . loss-reduction is not usually a reason for replacing existing large transformers. type of conductor. Therefore. the effect on overall loss-reduction is more important in transformers with relatively low load factors. Transmission lines designed for higher voltages are generally more prone to corona. The main options include cleaning insulators. To realize such a reduction in practice. altitude. the improvement in high-efficiency transformers based on amorphous metal technology allows their economical use in large transformers. Transformers in the distribution systems are relatively easy to replace. coating with silicone. lowering the ac-line voltage may reduce corona loss more than the system losses increase. and bundle design. • Insulator losses Losses in the insulation of overhead transmission lines occur when there is resistive leakage current flowing across the surface of the line insulators. and standardized. Corona loss for an existing transmission line will be present if the line voltage is operating near or above the critical corona-onset level. For large transformers. and—as an ultimate alternative—replacing insulators. The resistive leakage current is negligible with clean insulators. In fact. The mean annual corona losses of high-voltage transmission lines are usually an order of magnitude lower than the resistive losses. because the major improvement is in the core. These techniques are usually applied to reduce the risk of flashover. Hence. greasing. Nevertheless. resulting in a more significant effect on losses. The replacement of existing low-efficiency transformers and the use of high-efficiency transformers have been focused mainly on the distribution side because the effect on system efficiency is more significant there. above a few megavolt amperes (MVA). the costs of losses are so important that transformers are custom-built. labeled. Corona losses are dependent on voltage levels. improve failure rate. A reduction in ac voltage will lower the corona and associated losses but will increase resistance losses because the line current has to increase to keep the transfer level. has an impact on the economic choice of conductors. There are a number of technical options available to mitigate the effect of contamination of insulators. However. However. which is mainly the case in distribution systems. consequently. The loss-reduction in high-efficiency transformers is principally achieved in the no-load losses. They are tailored to the loss-evaluation figures stipulated in the transformer specification defining the unit. and their efficiency can be fairly easily classified. but it increases when contaminants are deposited on the insulator surface. Practical implementation of this option poses technical challenges because it may impair system operation and reliability. compared to transmission lines or conductors. The degree of corona will vary with environmental conditions and with the voltage applied. a centralized controller that modulates bus voltages according to power-flow levels and optimal weather conditions would be required. annual corona-energy loss. during conditions of light load and heavy corona loss.

The beneficiaries of loss-reduction and its associated monetary benefits in an unbundled power system will depend on the transmission-pricing mechanism and on how losses are allocated among the market participants. as a result of marginal-loss 3-8 . economic responsibility for losses varies from one transmission-line owner to another. flow-tracking. unit size. Will the additional revenue from reduced losses justify the associated costs? As noted in Section 1. both across the system and across time. This method basically distributes the actual losses evenly. evolving environmental. presented in Section 2. and from one regulatory entity to another. identification of the net benefits from lossreduction for the different participants in an electrical system is not straightforward. It is expected that such interest will significantly increase in the upcoming years. and regulatory environments may very well alter the value proposition associated with reducing system losses. and average MW—have been applied within the industry. generation energy and capacity cost will be reduced accordingly.Background these techniques might produce a significant reduction in insulator losses if the existing insulators were heavily contaminated. every customer pays the same loss rate. political. the extent to which new capital projects specifically designed to reduce losses will be adopted will most likely rely on economic decisions. Typically. projects implemented to increase transmission capacity may actually result in increases in transmission losses because lines are more heavily loaded. such as the previously discussed ACES Act and the EERS. regardless of location. Under such a system. Moreover. The economics of reducing losses will likely result in changes to this process. the total losses of the system are estimated or measured and applied to every generator (and/or load) on a pro-rata basis. As system losses are reduced because of the implementation of specific technologies. pro-rata. many of the identified potential loss-reduction measures would not be economically justified solely for the purpose of loss-reduction. indicate that there is real interest among utilities in developing methods to reduce transmission losses. Evolution of regulatory requirements. first MW. Different variations of loss allocation—such as. last MW. loss-reduction takes a lower priority or is not considered at all. In the pro-rata system. along with market conditions. The Value of Reducing Transmission Losses The results from the industry survey on transmission-loss activity actually undertaken. Indeed. mainly because of the new policies and regulatory provisions for improvements in energyefficiency. load level. Section 13 provides an analytical framework to evaluate and account for losses under these changing market and regulatory conditions. bilateral. Under traditional market and regulatory conditions. from one line to another. or any other factor. Nevertheless. may result in financial penalties for carbon emissions. Z-bus. for example. Applicability of Specific Measures to Reduce Transmission Losses Most of the methods or initiatives previously described for reducing transmission losses have been applied by utilities with the main objective of increasing transmission capacity and/or reliability. However. In power systems in which the transmission tariff includes the cost of losses in a way that reflects the real cost of moving power (marginal-cost pricing). consumers and generators receive shortterm and long-term signals with regard to transmission. The overall economic impact of losses has two main components: the cost of energy losses and the cost of providing additional generation capacity to compensate for the losses.

using economic dispatches that account for transmission losses. Therefore. utilities have not had incentives to invest in loss-reduction. it should be implemented because it is deemed to be beneficial for society. The cost-effectiveness of a program can be evaluated by applying one or more of the widely used economic tests. costs associated with demand-losses can be identified. including externalities. From the above discussion. such as net present value (NPV). and regulatory frameworks. Normally. a portion of the system’s total loss is caused by wheeling power from external generating sources. These costs. there is no real commercial debate about how transmission losses are allocated among the generator and its customers. losses are usually embedded in the cost of operation. However. Even though it can be argued that there is no energy cost of losses to utilities. under traditional ratemaking. Indeed. internal rate of return. are a component of the capital-operation and maintenance budgets and are normally included in the rate base. current regulatory frameworks should be revised and expanded to include specific provisions and mechanisms to motivate stakeholder 3-9 . benefit-cost ratio. a utility schedules generation to meet a specific demand. it can be attested that transmission losses impact power-system participants in many different ways----depending on system characteristics. in order to allow utilities to recover investment costs and to provide incentives for the development of loss-reduction measures. Reduction in losses also plays an important role in reducing pollution and carbon emissions. If the option proposed to reduce losses is cost-effective. On the other hand. The decision for the implementation of any particular project to enhance transmission energy efficiency should be based on a benefit/cost analysis from the point of view of overall societal sustainability. ownerships. however. In general. generators placed closer to their load experience an advantage over generators farther away. Another important aspect of the benefits of transmission loss-reductions is the allocation of losses due to wheel-through transactions. which clearly represents a remarkable benefit for the entire society. Large customers may also face higher energy prices depending on their location in the system. and pay-back period. This consideration implies that there are no benefits that accrue to the utility if it decreases its system losses. specific regulatory instruments need to be adopted. losses do impose costs on a utility— such as the requirement to increase the size of assets on the network to transport energy that will be lost further into the network. Indeed. More directly related to the transmission owners’ business incentive is the impact of demand-losses on MW-transfer capability and its value in gaining transmission rent. and. in vertically integrated utilities. The way losses due to wheel-through transactions are allocated also varies from one system to another. it does not affect them financially. reductions in transmission losses decrease resource depletion and provide a benefit by reducing investment in generation and transmission infrastructure. on their contribution to system losses. Thus the most appropriate and simplest way to assess loss-reduction benefits is based on the real total cost to society as a whole. the cost of energy losses is a pass-through cost. Moreover. In some power systems. consequently. The benefits to environmental externalities—especially carbon emissions—should be included in the assessment of any TEE program. the evaluation test should include all of the costs and benefits to the utility and its rate payers as a whole.Background pricing. reduction of carbon emissions has emerged as a major driver for energy efficiency. and the cost to maintain assets with higher capacity. therefore. which must transmit their power over greater distances to reach the load served. From the viewpoint of utilities and transmission owners in a deregulated environment. as explained above. From a societal resource-cost perspective. That is.

rather than as just another cost. Such initiatives will allow utility managers to start thinking of TEE as a profit center. however. imports Emission Cost Need to develop Regulatory Instruments Figure 3–1: Pictorial View of Integral Value Proposition Associated with Transmission Loss-Reduction 3-10 . Figure 3–1 is a pictorial description of the concepts expressed in this section. The societal benefits to be derived from efficiency improvements and loss-reduction measures constitute a basis for developing the necessary regulatory instruments to provide positive incentives for utilities. Aspects related to the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of various options for transmission loss-reduction are addressed in this project.Background support for reducing transmission losses. Effects Reduced: Value Transformation Market/Utility Price and Investment Who Benefits Utility Business Model for System Efficiency Transmission Loss Reduction •Energy (MWh) •Capacity (MW) Externalities All Electricity Consumers •Utility cost recovery mechanisms •Incentives for improving transmission efficiency Lower emissions. analyses of utility business models for transmission energy efficiency are beyond the scope of this study.

in which the future benefits of loss-reductions are to be evaluated. factoring in the definition of future power-system scenarios (baseline) that describes year-by-year changes in the system (for example. load. transmission. 4 Some of the areas covered in this section are: • Definition of a set of benchmarks to be used for the analyses. because it lays the foundations upon which the various options are to be evaluated. energy costs.PRINCIPLES FOR THE EVALUATION OF TRANSMISSION ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OPTIONS This section establishes the principles that are used in the rest of the report for evaluating the energy-efficiency options. or internal rate of return (IRR)–accepted methods Valuation of savings achieved from the implementation of the various measures to improve transmission efficiency. and carbon emissions) • • • 4-1 . based on (NPV). including elements such as capacity costs. such as: – – – A system baseline that will constitute the reference against which loss-reduction is assessed A baseline forecast that will constitute the forecast needed to measure the benefits of loss-reduction over a range of future years Modifications of baseline conditions. power-flow or security-constrained dispatch programs (The handling of the hourly cost of losses is also introduced here. payback period. in which the tools for evaluating the losses of the transmission system are introduced—basically. generation.) A breakdown of the total project costs. and the cost of emissions (Also included here are some typical cost figures from some EPRI members) Financial-appraisal methods for long-term projects. energy costs. transmission-capacity costs. and in which various factors— such as additions or changes in transmission and generation or load growth—are defined • Quantification of transmission losses. It is perhaps one of the most important sections in this report. generation.

At the same time. first presented in Section 1 as Figure 1–3. The elements discussed here constitute the basis for the evaluation framework described in Section 13. including externalities. This mechanism will most likely allow the utility to recover cost or provide incentives only on those TEE programs that are costeffective from a societal-benefit point of view. It presents a flowchart that illustrates the main stages that should be followed in the development and implementation of a program to improve transmission energy efficiency.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Introduction Figure 4–1. This section describes the key elements for the assessment of transmission energy-efficiency options and the general approach that is followed in this study. As described in the previous section. it can be said that the objective a utility might define in terms of transmission energy efficiency will greatly depend upon the cost recovery and/or incentive regulatory mechanism that will be implemented. It also briefly addresses M&V issues. is included again here for easy reference. The interest in implementing measures to reduce transmission losses arises as a result of increasing pressure from the public. state regulators. outweigh the associated investment costs.) Therefore. under these conditions. and federal policy makers to meet growing energy demands in a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable manner. Establishing Objectives Baseline Definition Evaluation Framework Scope Measurement and Verification Feasibility and Scoping Study Detailed Engineering M&V Guidelines Implementation and Monitoring Figure 4–1 General Overview of a Transmission System Efficiency-Improvement Process Establishing Objectives The first step of a TEE process is to clarify and establish the utility’s strategic objectives. utilities have an obligation to serve the best interests of their shareholders. A particular utility would implement measures to reduce losses to the 4-2 . there are no predefined targets for reducing transmission losses to a certain amount. (The total benefits for the society. It was explained in Section 1 that this project deals specifically with the first stages of the TEE process: baseline definition and feasibility and scoping studies.

Baseline Definition In end-use EE programs. Thus. The number of years included in the NPV analysis can have a significant impact on the absolute NPV value. such as annual energy consumption. The annual benefits in terms of energy. payback period. require the definition of future power-system scenarios (baseline) that describes year-by-year changes in the following parameters: • • • • Additions or changes in the transmission network (transmission-expansion projects) Load growth New generation Generation changes and changes in fuel costs or other parameters that may impact generation dispatch 4-3 . against which EE options will compete. The EE-program baseline forecasts are generally derived from the utility’s official load forecast. the baseline forecast is the projection of expected loss level (energy and demand losses) in the absence of any TEE measure. and emission-cost savings associated with loss-reduction measures are aggregated to evaluate the applicable economic metrics. Consequently. the forecast is represented by single yearly values for a specific set of variables. using either probabilistic or scenario-generation methods. the baseline is the reference case or benchmark against which loss-reduction is assessed. Standard methods to appraise long-term projects—like NPV. which is used to project utility capacity needs and fuel costs as well as to evaluate supply-side options. Baseline Forecast The benefits of implementing measures to reduce transmission losses are to be evaluated on an annual basis over a range of future years. capacity.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options extent that they are technically feasible (that is. they do not adversely impact system reliability) and cost-effective. or IRR— require that annualized benefits and cost evaluations be conducted up to a predefined horizon year. The EE baseline forecast is based on a utility’s load forecast. Some utilities use a range around the point forecast. as well as the assessment of their related economic metrics. It is generally related to the accepted repayment period. The definition of horizon year (as well as that of other economic parameters) will depend upon the rules and customary approaches used within the organization for the appraisal of investment projects. The baseline serves as a reference against which the impact of EE can be assessed. which results from the application of the planning and operation criteria. Most frequently. In programs for improving TEE. and winter peak demand for each year of the analysis. but typically it is much more detailed. the baseline forecast represents a projection of energy consumption and peak demand in the absence of EE. the valuation of savings achieved from the implementation of measures to improve TEE. summer peak demand. Indeed. the NPV is an indicator of the value or magnitude of an investment. It represents the normal transmission loss level the system has. because benefits from loss-reduction are collected over the years.

Projects that are needed to maintain reliability while accommodating the ongoing needs of existing transmission customers are identified as necessary. point of view. or by alleviating congestion beyond that achieved by reliability projects. On the other hand. annual economic benefits can then be calculated for a postulated set of loss-reduction measures. Typically. transmission-expansion projects are usually justified or based on either or both of the following criteria: • Reliability: These projects are network upgrades that ensure that the transmission system complies with applicable reliability requirements. In this way. The criteria and procedures to perform transmission-expansion plans may differ considerably from one system to another. Transmission-reinforcement decisions are usually made to ensure that the total investment cost is minimized while reliability constraints are met. On the other hand. by expanding trading opportunities. The responsibility for construction and the allocation of costs among the customers differs from system to system. Transmission plans in vertical integrated utilities have traditionally been justified from a technical. and they normally receive transmission rights for the transmission capability that their upgrade yields. 4-4 . such as the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) or regional reliability councils. the future system conditions envisaged in the plan can be used as a reference for defining baseline scenarios. in economic planning. The level of system losses will result from the application of these planning and design criteria. in market-based power systems. rather than from an economic. • Transmission-system reinforcements needed to maintain reliability are usually built by transmission owners and paid for by customers. As load forecasts predict demand to exceed available capacity. depending on the system characteristics and. Economic: These projects are proposed network upgrades that are beneficial to some market participants but that are not required for reliability. the expansion philosophy was to expand the transmission system to satisfy a set of predefined service-quality and reliability standards at minimum cost. Economic projects may benefit market participants by supporting competition in bulk power markets. the market participants proposing the economic projects are responsible for the investment expenditures and costs. Projects based on both reliability and economic plans should be considered for baseline definition in TEE-program evaluations.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options • • • Anticipated changes in interregional flow patterns impacting the system Generation retirements and other deactivations Expected performance of demand response (if applicable) Having defined power-system scenarios. especially. on the regulatory framework. If a long-term transmission-expansion plan is available. transmission expansion will allow the utility to accomplish the target level of reliability with which its load will be served. Transmission-expansion plans define the transmission reinforcements that are to be implemented in order to ensure that the electric system will be able to supply electricity to customers from the available generation in a reliable and economic manner. T&D planners identify necessary system upgrades and expansions.

minus the total losses associated with the ACSR Lapwing. Note that if the TEE project is decided upon. For example. For example. 4-5 . so wind and ice loading would not increase. a project consisting of reconductoring a transmission line for increasing the transmission capacity of a certain corridor. In this case. The diameter is the same as the ACSR Lapwing. Consider. consider the case of an existing 50-mile-long 230-kV transmission line with a simple-bundled ACSR 795-kcmil conductor. the identification of benefits solely due to loss-reduction and cost allocation poses a challenge. the most practical implementation would be to replace the existing conductor with the ATHABASKA/TW conductor. because a reduction in losses is in fact achieved. However. If regulatory instruments for TEE cost recovery or incentives are implemented. and to associate this extra energyefficiency benefit with the marginal investment. for which certain established measures (such as the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs) have associated energy-savings guidelines. if the reinforcement is needed to supply the load. The consideration of the intermediate case(the ACSR Lapwing conductor) is a means to enable the utility to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the energy-efficiency option. For example. for that matter. In this case. the extent to which loss-reduction can be evaluated depends upon the primary purpose of the improvement—efficiency versus capacity expansion—because loss-reduction options such as voltage uprating. if not impossible. efficiency projects in transmission systems do not have the benefit of widely accepted savings guidelines. loss-reduction is a by-product of an investment that was chosen for other purposes. the benefits would be the total losses associated with the ATHABASKA/TW conductor. Currently. It is necessary to expand the transmission capacity of the line. An option to further improve transmission energy efficiency would be to choose a trapezoidalwire conductor. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4–2. for instance. it is necessary to identify the benefits of reducing losses and the associated implementation costs. they are embedded in the total benefit of the project. One option for evaluation of dual-effect projects could be to identify additional improvements to the base design that would allow a further reduction in losses. it is not possible to determine a baseline for a loss-reduction evaluation without such reinforcement. And the cost associated with the loss-reduction measure would be the price difference between these two conductors. reconductoring. There are a number of analytical subtleties involved in quantifying the loss-reduction impacts of transmission projects. The conductor chosen is an ACSR Lapwing 1590-kcmil conductor.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Identification of Baseline Conditions As opposed to end-use efficiency projects. it could be argued that savings from loss-reduction should be credited to such a project. This conductor will allow the utility to meet the project objectives at a minimum investment cost. But the resistance is 18% less than for the Lapwing. there is no industry-standardized method to account for electrical lossreduction in the transmission or distribution system—or. Assume that losses in the entire system are reduced by this project. But even if it were acceptable to credit loss savings to the project. for the loss-reduction opportunities associated with transmission-upgrade projects. The ACSR Lapwing 1950 ATHABASKA/TW kcmil would be a good option. so it has been decided to replace the existing conductor with a larger one. the specific benefits solely due to loss-reduction are in most cases very difficult. or bundling conductors have a dual effect. to identify. In projects with dual effects.

Different methodologies can be applied for transmission loss-evaluation. unlike in the previous reconductoring example. with the objective of diverting power flows to improve some congested paths and/or to improve system security. The approach to be adopted will depend upon the operation characteristics of the system being studied.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Figure 4–2 Possible Approach to Define Baseline in Dual-Effect Projects When the Primary Objective Is Not Loss-Reduction As another example of marginal investment to further reduce losses. In cases in which the loss-reduction measure is being considered for the sole purpose of TEE. without affecting the primary objective of the power-flow control. the baseline definition is more straightforward. Assume that a reduction of transmission losses is actually achieved to some extent as a result of the power-flow control. because it is defined “without” the upgrade project. in this case. Quantification of Transmission Losses Quantification of transmission losses is a key component of the evaluation of options for improving TEE. suppose that FACTS devices are chosen to be installed in a given power system. this reduction in losses is a by-product of the strategy that was implemented for another purpose. 4-6 . Suppose. any such marginal reduction of losses that can be obtained by augmenting other projects that are undertaken for other purposes should be considered in the TEE evaluation at the marginal cost incurred. The benefits will be the extra loss-reduction that is achieved because of the implementation of such a controller. as well as the available data and simulation tools. However. the additional investment to reduce losses can be chosen and implemented at any time after the primary installation is in place and operating. As in the previous example. that the addition of a centralized controller is evaluated in order to further redirect power flows to obtain additional reduction of losses. the incremental cost due to the installation of the centralized controller is considered as the cost. Losses need to be accurately determined for two conditions: “without” and “with” the loss-reduction projects being investigated. For the cost/benefit analysis of the TEE (the supplemental centralized controller). In summary. however.

the loss impacts are implicit in the overall economic results. a materials index and labor index may be appropriate for determining the investment cost of projects considered in future years. the benefit-cost ratio. the utility’s allowed rate of return for capital investments is the appropriate rate to consider for the evaluation. the same methodology must be followed in all the different stages of the evaluation process so that the benefit appraisal will be consistent. they should not be used in such cases. because the analysis here is focused on loss-optimization. This computation requires estimates of both escalation (or inflation) rates and discount rates. Such models exist.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Regardless of the methodology adopted. Discount Rate Because of the nature of the technological options proposed for TEE. escalation rates reflect the expected inflation for each of the cost and benefit components. Economic Variables for Cost-Effective Analysis Computing the NPV. Transmission losses can also be determined by power-flow analyses or by applying the securityconstrained dispatch program to a limited number of load levels. statistics of hourly circuit loadings and marginal costs can be summarized for postprocessing to obtain annual transmission losses. different inflation indexes may be appropriate for different cost categories. Even though such approximations provide reasonable precision for operation and expansion planning purposes. losses are estimated approximately. As an alternative. 4-7 . total energy losses are then determined by integration of this function over the annual load-duration curve. For example. or the other economic metrics of a TEE requires estimating the present value of the stream of costs and benefits of the program over its lifetime. Transmission losses can be evaluated as a byproduct of the economic operating-cost analysis obtained from a security-constrained dispatch program. a more precise approach is required. but they may be time-consuming to use when hourly resolution over a number of years is required. as derived from a load-duration curve. Alternatively. as well as of capacity and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have to be scaled to determine savings during the horizon time considered in the evaluation. Hourly costs of losses obtained at each load level can then be multiplied by the number of hours of exposure to this load level. In general. However. Procedures for transmission-loss evaluation are described in Section 13 and the references therein. Escalation Rates To estimate the future annual costs and benefits of a TEE program. the value of each component of the cost-effectiveness test must be appropriately escalated over time. The cost of energy. If linear dc load-flow representations are used in the constrained dispatch program. If an ac network model is used to evaluate savings in energy costs resulting from upgrades. curve-fitting techniques can be used to determine losses as a function of system load.

Capacity Costs Generation-capacity costs are a measure of the cost of building and maintaining new generation plants to serve peak demand. which determines the monetary impact the utility realizes. Operating-cost penalties during the implementation of upgrades can be evaluated by operation-simulation software. Capacity cost is determined differently for a restructured market than for a vertically integrated utility. and the flexibility of the system to accommodate the required outages. Indeed. necessitate temporary operations that do not meet reliability criteria.) Operating constraints caused by outages during upgrade construction may have a significant impact on operating costs. 4-8 . These costs include capacity cost. As explained in the previous section. These adverse impacts will vary dependent on the outages required. if a centralized control. need to be included. (For example. Benefits Assessment The benefits associated with a TEE project are determined based on the avoided cost for the utility to supply electricity with a reduced level of losses.system loop is evaluated to control existing or new FACTS installations for loss-reduction. reductions in line losses reduce the kWh required to serve end-use loads and also reduce peak demand. the investment cost to consider on the evaluation of TEE is basically the cost of deploying such a control system.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Project Costs The cost-effectiveness evaluation of prospective TEE projects requires a consideration of all the costs and expenses that the utility has to incur to develop and implement the project. The savings must be monetized to compare the benefits with the costs and to ascertain whether the investment is justified. energy cost. How kilowatt (kW) and kWh savings are monetized depends on how the electricity market is organized. or require temporary interruption of supply to customers. The costs include: • • • Capital cost of upgrades Increased or decreased maintenance costs associated with upgrades Operating costs caused by operating constraints during construction Capital cost varies significantly with the nature and characteristics of the project. For instance. and T&D costs. The marginal investment cost to further improve efficiency is to be considered in dual-effects projects driven by transmission-capacity expansion or reliability. and more personnel may be required to handle it. the duration of the outages. Sections 0 to 0 describe in detail the capital and maintenance costs for each of the different technologies. like increments in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the new installations. the work burden in the control room may increase. Operating constraints may result in operating-cost penalties. the capital cost allocated to TEE in dual-effects projects will depend on the project’s main driver. Other costs.

one would expect that the cost would be quite uniform across the country. and other non-machinery-based costs. In some markets. whereas others use average supply costs. with differences reflecting local variance in land costs. taxes. the prices bid by dispatchable loads (if any). Most of the capacity need is met through bilateral contracts.20/kWh. A new auction mechanism has stabilized prices. Posted avoided-energy costs range from as low as $. some jurisdictions (such as PJM and NYISO) use locational marginal pricing (LMP). and over time for a utility. Engineering studies that are normalized for localized exceptional conditions typically report peaking capacity costs in the range of $60–75/kW. This practice provides transparency to capacity prices.10/ kW-month to $5/ kW-month. they should vary only a small amount from year to year. at least for the auction term. However. such as the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). In principle. Market-Based Prices Independent System Operator/Regional Transmission Organization (ISO/RTO) markets that impose capacity requirements on load-serving entities (utilities and competitive retailers of electricity) operate capacity markets so that buyers and sellers (generators and demand-response providers) can resolve imbalances. and as a result. LMPs are determined based on the prices offered by generators. like Independent System Operator–New England (ISO–NE) and the Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland Interconnection (PJM). The NYISO auction prices have historically been highly volatile. Others. considerably lower). sometimes ranging in a year from as low as $. However. which is about $65/ kW-yr. ISO-NE). the market is used primarily to resolve short-term imbalances (for a sixmonth period or a single month). but some (especially demandresponse suppliers) can make offers for up to five years and receive that clearing price throughout that contract term. and the transmission constraints. PJM and ISO-NE auctions have imposed a floor on the price for the initial auctions at the assumed price of a peaker turbine. which are lower (in some cases. so do the avoided costs—even among utilities with quite similar generation resources. operate central procurements in which the entire capacity requirement is procured through a centralized auction. Moreover. All buyers pay the market-clearing price. the utility will typically identify the type of plant that will be added to its planned capacity additions. LMPs vary by location 4-9 . Because the standard of comparison is a peaking turbine. utility protocols for determining the avoided costs vary. reflecting turbine-parts costs. Energy Costs Avoided energy costs ($/kWh) are typically set by predicting marginal supply costs for each year through some forecasting methodology. Some utilities set the avoided costs based on estimates of marginal generation costs. Avoided cost ($/kW-yr or $/kWh) reflects the cost savings that the utility realizes from reduced kW and kWh delivery requirements. avoided capacity costs ($/kW) are set equal to the annualized cost of a gas-turbine peaking unit. most recently in the $40–60/kW-yr range. posted avoided-capacity costs have varied quite substantially across utilities. In restructured markets with ISOs. under the assumption that reduced kW have a corresponding impact on the need for such units.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Least-Cost Planning Protocols In a vertically integrated utility.030/kWh to over $. Each auction procures the capacity requirement for three years out (for example. and all sellers receive that price. but they still vary considerably across the state’s capacity zones. from as low as $30/kW to over $100/kW avoided.

it is difficult to generalize the methodological approach. In these cases. the estimated value of energy costs can be used to evaluate TEE projects. losses are priced at average value instead of marginal cost. Moreover. somewhat reducing to some extent the cost of transmitting power across the transmission network. some states do not recognize T&D avoided costs. These values are typically calculated based on historical transmission-investment data and are very system-specific. In some cases. determines the economic benefit of loss decreases due to system reinforcement by pricing losses at an hourly load-weighted LMP. so the cost of transmission is based on the cost of replacing the losses rather than at a competitive transmission price. the cost of losses to be considered for determining benefit from loss-reduction measures has to be calculated based on LMP values. variable expenses. Capital costs go down to the extent that peak-load growth is averted. Transmission investments occur for a variety of reasons. For systems under this transmission pricing regime. Then the results from these two cases are compared to obtain the economic benefit. however. Midwest ISO (MISO). However. In some cases. and one case with the projects. To obtain the economic benefits of select projects. only a portion of them are related to growth in peak demand. losses are paid on the margin instead of on the average. the energy-cost forecast needs to consider all the projects and future system characteristics foreseen in the expansion plan. the marginal cost of transmission losses is considered for transmission pricing. because these savings are determined somewhat subjectively. Because the baseline should be based on a transmission. the cost-effectiveness evaluation of a TEE requires a future stream of energy prices. By including the penalty factor. The marginal transmission cost should be based on investments related to growth in system peak. states that consider avoided generation capacity and energy costs attribute the associated cost savings to avoided transmission costs. Penalty factors are usually determined from the incremental losses calculated in an optimal power flow. using a production-costing model that simulates the day-to-day operations of a utility system or a larger system (if the market is restructured)—including projected fuel costs. Average energy prices or LMPs need to be forecasted on an hourly basis. In some power systems. In such cases. as a consequence an over-collection occurs because the marginal-loss cost is much higher than the real cost of replacing losses. The simulation software PROMOD® is used by MISO for economic evaluations. Transmission-Capacity Costs Reduction of transmission losses unloads some transmission circuits.expansion plan. Regardless of the way losses are priced. and other factors.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options (or bus) on the grid and represent the marginal cost to supply one more megawatt (MW) of load at a given location. Loss-penalty factor are incorporated into dispatch and pricing calculations. the average cost of losses is considered for a benefit-evaluation of the lossreduction methods. An escalation rate is used to estimate increments of energy in future years. it is difficult or unfeasible to forecast energy costs by using a cost-production model or a similar simulation tool. and the costs of transmission upgrades are avoided. 4-10 . In systems under an LMP dispatch regime. maintenance schedules. for instance. two PROMOD® cases are run: one case without the projects.

05 High $100 $0. Therefore. The program subjects 4-11 . Table 4–1 provides a representative value of the utility cost variables needed to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of TEE.10/kWh. Avoided transmission costs are generally under $0. The addition of the externality cost raises the level of the allowable incentive for implementing measures to improve efficiency. Reducing transmission losses generates environmental benefits from reduced emissions associated with supplying electricity.20 Cost of Emissions Externalities are costs that are associated with economic activity apart from the costs included in and recovered from the price consumers pay for the good or service. Utilities use the approved jurisdictional procedure to determine the transmission-capacity cost. Table 4-1 Representative Values of Utility Cost Variables Cost Variable Generation Capacity ($/kW-yr) Transmission Capacity ($/kWh) Energy Cost ($/kWh) Representative Value $70 $0.10 Low $50 0 $0. The ACES Act is a complex bill that regulates emissions of greenhouse gases through market-based mechanisms. because generator owners pay penalties for excessive emissions. It can be observed in this table that the variation range of these values is significantly great. estimated values should be used for these parameters. efficiency programs. and economic incentives. society would benefit from clean air and reduced climate change to the extent that conservation measures reduce negative externalities. So if there is not enough information available to make a good estimate of the values for a particular study. Until the very recent enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009.005 $0. The Title III cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions addresses the provisions for cumulative GHG emissions. energy and transmission costs) are difficult to determine (or to expedite screening analyses). Recommended Values for General TEE Evaluations In cases in which utility cost variables (capacity. a more complete sensitivity analysis should be conducted to assess the impact of data uncertainty on the study results. and often less than five mills ($0. The environmental costs of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) are included in the calculations of avoided costs of generation—implicitly.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options Transmission-capacity costs are only relevant for vertically integrated utilities. Pollution is a negative externality (unaccountedfor costs) because the damage caused by pollutants emitted from power plants is not entirely captured by the cost of production or reflected in the prices paid by consumers. and they are typically small compared to generation-capacity and energy costs. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were not restricted. and explicitly—because they can purchase rights to increase emissions above their allowance and must add that cost to the price they charge.002 $0.005/kWh).

the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. regulation. ACES Act High-Offsets Case: This case is similar to the Basic Case. without regard for possible institutional or market impediments. except that the costs of nuclear.” analyzes the impact of the ACES Act proposals on energy choices made by consumers in all sectors and the implications of those decisions for the economy. One of the outputs and key findings of this study is a projection of GHG allowances for different scenarios. The scenarios and analysis cases. ACES Act Zero-Bank Case: This case is similar to the Basic Case. coal with CCS. ACES Act No-International/Limited Case: This case combines the treatment of offsets in the ACES Act No-International Case with an assumption that deployment of key technologies— including nuclear. and various renewables—are developed and deployed on a large scale in a timeframe consistent with the emissions-reduction requirements of the ACES Act without encountering any major obstacles. ACES Act High-Cost Case: This case is similar to the Basic Case. The very recently issued report by the EIA.R. with tighter emissions caps after 2030 through reductions across all energy uses. 2454. The cap requires a 17% reduction in covered emissions by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 (both relative to a 2005 baseline). fossil with core cooling system (CCS). and dedicated biomass generating technologies are assumed to be 50% higher. including transportation. fossil with CCS. except that it assumes the nearly immediate use of international offsets at levels at (or close to) the specified aggregate ceiling. and/or slow progress in reaching international agreements or arrangements covering offsets in key countries and sectors. The reference case used as the starting point for the analysis in this report is an updated version of the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO2009).Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options covered emissions to a cap that declines steadily between 2012 and 2050. Allowance obligations may also be offset by reductions in domestic emissions of exempted sources. reflecting the assumed availability of a broad array of reasonably priced low. except that no banked allowances are held in 2030. by international offsets. The report studies the impacts of the provisions in the ACES Act by means of the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). but it represents an environment in which the use of international offsets is severely limited by cost. and dedicated biomass—cannot expand beyond their reference case levels through 2030. • • • • • 4-12 . Compliance is enforced through a requirement for entities subject to the cap to submit allowances (which are bankable) sufficient to cover their emissions. “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H. or by emission allowances from other countries with comparable laws limiting emissions. are briefly summarized below: • ACES Act Basic Case: This case represents an environment in which key low-emissions technologies—including nuclear. with targets that decline steadily for intermediate years. ACES Act No-International Case: This case is similar to the Basic Case. which are described in detail in this report.and no-carbon technologies that can provide an alternative path to compliance.

less offsets. The report indicates that the projected allowance prices represent idealized paths. whether or not some allowances are received for free. or emission intensity. It is observed in this graph that GHG allowance prices are sensitive to the cost and availability of emissions offsets and of low. Allowance prices in the ACES Act Basic Case are projected at $32 per metric ton in 2020 and $65 per metric ton in 2030. assumed in financing the investment in allowance banking.and no-carbon generating technologies. meet the emissions caps over a time period. The allowance-price path is estimated by assuming a constant rate of growth matching the cost of capital. because in reality. The projected GHG allowances are presented in Figure 4–3. which has been taken from the EIA report. That cost provides an incentive to reduce emissions. Note that the initial value of the Basic Case ($20 per metric ton) is very similar to the initial value used throughout this report for the various case studies. Allowance prices and levels of emissions are estimated in this report so that covered emissions. For a given power system. because operating costs can be reduced by reducing emissions. Figure 4–3 GHG Allowance-Prices Projection (EIA Report) Emission Intensity The carbon-emission rate.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options The report states that under the ACES Act’s cap-and-trade provisions. expresses the amount of CO2 emissions per MWh of electricity generated. the market price of allowances will establish an incremental cost to emitting GHGs. this measurement clearly depends upon 4-13 . allowance prices would tend to fluctuate as markets respond to new information and as unanticipated events unfold. or discount rate.

1996.72 0. average values for a particular region are commonly used. CA: 2008. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database.66 0.91 0.55 Region Name Alaska Systems Coordinating Council Electric Reliability Council of Texas Florida Reliability Coordinating Council Hawaiian Islands Coordinating Council Midwest Reliability Organization Northeast Power Coordinating Council Reliability First Corporation SERC Reliability Corporation Southwest Power Pool Western Electricity Coordinating Council ASCC ERCOT FRCC HICC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP WECC References [1] Energy-Efficiency Planning Guidebook: Energy-Efficiency Initiative. Palo Alto. or states are published in the EPA Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database [5]. IEEE Tutorial Course.R. and Challenges. August 2009. CA: 2008. 4-14 . 2007.S. for an evaluation of the performance of an energy-efficiency program. Requirements. EPRI. [2] IEEE Power Engineering Society. 1017006. U.69 0. sub-regions. Optimal Power Flow: Solution Techniques. However.55 0. Released April 30.91 0. 2454. 1016273. Table 4-2 NERC Region Annual CO2 Output-Emission Rate (Ton/MWh) NERC Region Acronym CO2 OutputEmission Rate (Ton/MWh) 0. the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Palo Alto.Principles for the Evaluation of Transmission Energy-Efficiency Options the physical and operating characteristics (efficiency.45 0. [4] Energy Information Administration. [5] eGRID2006 Version 2. For quick reference. EPRI.71 0. Values of emission intensity specified by NERC regions. vintage) of the generation fleet. Table 4–2 presents emission-rate values for various NERC regions based on this database. type of fuel. EPA.83 0.1. [3] Characterizing and Quantifying the Societal Benefits Attributable to Smart Metering Investments. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.

foundations. and maintenance costs) Environmental studies (such as visual impact and rights-of-way) This section also provides some examples from across the United States of lines that have been upgraded to higher voltages. The goal of increasing the nominal voltage level of an existing ac transmission line is to reduce the transmission-line losses while increasing the power-transfer capacity of that line.LOWERING TRANSMISSION LOSSES BY RAISING TRANSMISSION-LINE VOLTAGE This section addresses the merits of voltage upgrades of transmission lines. 5 This section covers issues such as: • The forms of voltage upgrades: – – – – • • • • No line modification (increasing the voltage a few percentage points at select times of the year) Minor modifications to the transmission structures Major modifications to the transmission structures Reconstruction of the line (foundations unchanged) This section also covers some general issues regarding Capacity-increase benefits of upgrading a line to a higher voltage System voltage control. 5-1 . radio frequency interference (RFI). wind loadings. and lightning protection) Safety and code-compliance studies Economic studies (such as capacity. losses. Such projects can also be more acceptable to the general public than alternative projects. such as: – – – – – • Electrical studies (such as electrical clearances for phase-to-ground. phase-phase. Regulatory bodies look favorably on more-efficient use of resources by the utilities. such as the use of shunt elements Considerations needed for assessing the feasibility of the voltage upgrade of a transmission line A detailed punch list of some of the studies that need to be completed for the voltage upgrade. cost-per-mile. such as adding a new line. and electromagnetic interference (EMI) Mechanical studies (such as structural loading. corona.

licensing. We have witnessed an increase in the numbers of new generation units coming on line. We have seen loadings of overhead transmission lines becoming heavier and heavier. with some experts estimating a 40% growth in demand by 2030. but the overhead transmission infrastructure has lagged behind. They allow the utility to overcome any constraints or limitations on the system brought about by poor voltage performance. Utilities are now faced with the challenge of meeting this ever-increasing power demand from their customers. FACTS devices (also known as FACTS controllers) are power electronics-based systems that control one or more of the ac transmission system’s parameters— which include dynamic control of voltage. It is possible to increase the nominal voltage level of an existing transmission line and increase its power transfer. making them more achievable. and phase angle. This voltage increase or upgrade can range from • • • • No line modification (increasing the voltage occasionally) Minor modifications to the transmission structures Major modifications to the transmission structures Reconstruction of the line (tower below the waist and foundations unchanged) Voltage upgrades with minimal modifications to the existing transmission structures or the conductor are a desirable alternative to new construction. What can be done to the existing ac overhead-transmission line to improve its performance. and increase its power-transfer capabilities? Series capacitors and other advanced technologies. however. These projects are also more acceptable to the general public. they cost less. the time will lengthen and the cost will climb. current. There are. However.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage Introduction With the demand for electricity steadily increasing. impedance. In some situations. Typically. building new transmission lines takes time. Without additional transmission-system investment. Once approved. economic and regulatory conditions have made many utilities very reluctant to make additional investments in the overhead-transmission infrastructure. Megawatts are no longer sufficient. the transmission system is being asked to supply electricity in gigawatt proportions. making it more difficult for the available electricity supply to meet demands and facilitate full use of capacity diversity. Therefore. such as flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) devices have been employed to increase power transfer. The bulk-power transmission system infrastructure has not kept up with this growth. At the same time. simpler approaches to solving the problem. Overhead ac transmission lines represent a significant investment and source of revenue for their owners and operators. Regulatory bodies look favorably on more efficient use of resources by the utilities. It takes seven years or longer for engineering design. the delivery system is being severely challenged throughout the world. reduce losses. and construction of the average transmission line. If the project runs into any opposition. this problem can lead to supply shortages and involuntary customer interruptions. grid congestion will increase. 5-2 . modifications can be accomplished in less time than the construction of new transmission lines. and it has aged beyond all normal expectations. the owners and operators are looking for ways to operate their existing transmission lines more efficiently by squeezing every possible megawatt out of the existing infrastructure.

Certainly. VAR can be supplied or consumed by adjusting the generator’s field excitation. and this interaction defines how the line performs and the amounts of power it can transfer [1]. The real assistance to voltage control comes in the form of shunt reactors and series/shunt capacitors. If the transmission line is heavily loaded. The interaction between the overhead transmission lines in this path can be significant enough to require the limiting of the path’s rating. and some form of compensation (capacitors and reactors). and bus work). Extremes in either direction cause problems. made up of the owners of the interconnected systems. Shunt reactors are utilized to consume VAR. circuit breakers. and towers) substations (power transformers. transmission lines with lower resistance will carry more electricity than those with higher resistance. A transmission-path rating is determined by the maximum reliable power-transfer capability under any and all conditions. it consumes VAR. It is a sophisticated system to deliver electricity (power). and the voltage drops. which is described as interaction. whereas capacitors can also be used to produce VAR. 5-3 . Voltage control (voltage drop) becomes a major concern faced by the owners and operators of overhead ac transmission systems trying to force the maximum power flow over that system. Voltage Control Load growth stresses the transmission system when new facilities lag behind that growth. Grids are made up of multiple paths. Transmission lines have a resistance to the flow of electricity. Unscheduled Power Flow Overhead transmission lines operating in parallel with each other from what is generally referred to as a path. When a transmission line is lightly loaded. switches. insulators. FACTS devices such as SVC can provide a real-time control of transmission-line power flow. all interconnected and forming a grid reaching from the generator to the customer. which do not share well. It is a balancing act. In a grid configuration. But these measures only provide transitory relief. and the voltage goes up. This rating is normally established by the mutual agreement of regional transmission organizations. The transmission lines interact with the system. it produces VAR. hardware. Taps on a transformer can also produce some voltage control by raising or lowering the voltage.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage General Operational Issues Figure 5–1 Multiple Transmission Lines Make up the Grid Overhead transmission systems are composed of transmission lines (conductors.

They are. but because of loop flow it goes to California. This process becomes a risk assessment of all the available options and alternatives. the insulation to ground and between phases has to be increased. Loop flow is a phenomenon also referred to as unscheduled power flow. Each transmission line will be different. with almost infinite possibilities for modifications. To prevent audible noise and interference with radio and television signals. Consequently. Exactly how much this capacity increases is dependent upon many variables. Voltage-Upgrade Concepts The goal of increasing the nominal voltage level of an existing ac transmission line is to reduce the transmission line’s losses while increasing the power-transfer capacity of that line. The final selection will involve a balance of performance. But once it has been assembled. the 115-kV line would be increased to 230kV or to 345kV. the spare parts. the surface gradient of the conductor has to be kept below certain levels. reliability. but not equally. Feasibility of Upgrade When upgrading the voltage level of an overhead ac transmission line.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage The limiting factors are thermal overload. Following this logic. included here because they are germane to the decision process under discussion. The thermal rating of a line is defined by the conductor’s ability to dissipate heat. The first step is to select the target voltage level for the upgrades. and Idaho before reaching Utah. Exacerbating this situation are the multiple paths. How will the proposed voltage upgrade interact with the transmission system? Each proposed line modification will affect the transmission system it is interconnected with in some manner. and it causes utilities to curtail power transactions to avoid overloading the system. the decision process can take place. The stability rating of a line is defined by the power transfer within the voltage-angle limits. A few simple calculations can be performed using the following equations. this level will be two or three times the existing line’s nominal voltage rating. Consider that an 115-kV line would be in a 115/230/345-kV system. however. congestion. This is unscheduled flow. power flowing through a transmission line (neglecting the resistance of the line) is defined by Equation 5–1. and the facilities to connect it to without additional expense. It would be best to select a voltage level that is a standard within the utility’s transmission system. instability. and poor voltage performance. Such a selection would assure that the utility would have experience with this voltage level. These operating conditions may limit the path’s rating below its maximum design rating. which are very well known and can be found in any number of texts on power flow over a transmission line. which can cause bottlenecks. Documentation for the original design and construction can be challenging. It is measured in watts (W). due to the numerous existing line designs. Power flows through all the parallel paths of the grid. and loop flows. both in accessibility and in completeness. and costs. Normally. Simply put. This phenomenon requires detailed investigations of the transmission line and detailed studies of both the transmission system and the proposed line upgrades [2]. A power transaction may call for power to go directly from— say—Arizona to Utah. The maximum power that a transmission 5-4 . Some “back-of-theenvelope” calculations can be made to determine if the selected line will provide the expected capacity. Oregon. it is important to understand the physical properties of the transmission line.

5–3 Where ZS = Surge impedance L = Positive sequence inductance C = Positive sequence capacitance 5-5 . P = VS • VR X W Eq. making them smaller. The utility would be able to increase its power transmission without building additional lines. but a lot of work has been done over the years with compact line design [1]. A quick method to calculate a rough approximation of the existing transmission line’s loading limitation would be to use the surge impedance loading (SIL) of the line. ZS = L C Ω Eq. Because X is a function of the relationship between conductor size and phase spacing (defined in detail in many power system texts).and receiving-end voltages at relatively the same value. the power limit is roughly the square of the system voltage. and wider rights-of-way (ROW). The public opposition to higher voltages is because of the increased visual impact. and power flow increases. Taking advantage of the new computer programs. The existing conductor might have sufficient surface area in this geometry. This development has led others to look at lower-voltage transmission lines and ask: why not apply compact theory to these lines and raise their voltage levels? The compact designs may allow the structures to use longer insulator strings in closer proximity. 5–2 Where: V is the line voltage and ZS is the surge impedance of the transmission line. ROW might be able to handle the increased voltage without requiring additional width.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage line can transmit is directly proportional to the product of the sending-end and receiving-end voltages. more power flows on the transmission line. Zs is defined by Equation 5–3 and is measured in ohms (Ω). more insulation. Doubling the voltage of the transmission line will quadruple the power limit of the line. when the voltage is increased. As the voltage is increased. there is no “free lunch. Of course. so is the power flow. SIL = V2 ZS Eq.” Traditionally. X remains about the same. SIL is the power delivered by a lossless line to a load resistance equal to the surge impedance of the line (see Equation 5–2). increasing the voltage requires greater phase spacing. 5–1 Where: P = Real power transfer on the transmission line VS = Magnitude of sending end-bus voltage VR = Magnitude of receiving end-bus voltage X = Series reactance of the line Given that utilities work hard at keeping the sending. designers have been able to reduce the margins in line designs. If the line reactance (X) can be reduced.

Increasing line current is discussed in other EPRI publications and technical literature [7]. and phase shift along the transmission line. Access roads are in place. Conductors. It is really a feasibility study to establish and identify all the constraints affecting this particular transmission line as part of the transmission grid. The public is used to seeing the existing line. Much of the hardware can be reused. modified line. Examples of savings are: • • • • • No additional ROW costs are incurred. the engineer can develop a very rough approximation of how much the power can be increased by changing the nominal voltage level of the ac transmission line. Voltage. Power-flow limitations can be relatively simple. especially if it can be accomplished without substantially modifying the line or affecting the reliability of the system. the next step is to conduct a more rigorous study to determine the inherent nature of the specific ac transmission line.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage Using these three equations. Upgrading an existing ac transmission line to transfer more power can be accomplished by two basic methods: increasing the voltage or increasing the current (thermal). and foundations are in place. limiting the power flow over the ac transmission line. 5-6 . But it might be a little more complicated than that. This report will focus on increasing the voltage aspects of the transmission line. As a rule. they don’t distinguish the difference between the old transmission line and the new. They can also be a complex issue. and public opposition is lessened because the utility is not building a new transmission line that visually impacts the area. If this upgrade seems attractive. such as in short transmission lines in which the maximum current flow is determined by the thermal limits of the line’s conductor (a function of that current). towers. current. The costs associated with upgrading an existing line are much less than those for constructing a new line (industry studies place it between 30–70% savings). Permitting time is reduced. Increasing Capacity Strategies Increasing the power-transfer capabilities of the existing ac transmission lines is a very attractive alternative to new construction.

Together. and effectively. Some redefinition/redesign of the project might be required (physical modifications or reduced electrical performance) as this evaluation progresses [2].Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage Upgrading an Overhead Transmission Line Figure 5–2 Replacing Structures Planning. reliably. Overhead ac transmission-line upgrades will evaluate the following factors: • Electrical – – – – • – – – – Electrical clearances Corona fields Radio/TV interference Electromagnetic fields (EMF) Structural loading Foundations Wind loadings Lightning protection 5-7 Mechanical . and Operating Departments must work together to assess transmissionline upgrades. they will develop a detailed evaluation of the line. Each brings its own area of expertise to decide if the line can operate at a higher voltage level safely. Engineering.

If the overhead ac transmission line is constructed to facilitate operation at a higher voltage. This section reviews the key issues that must be addressed when considering raising an ac line’s nominal operating voltage. raising the ac transmission line’s voltage is well understood [2]. or permanently by new transformers or reterminations to higher-voltage busbars in the substations. spacing between conductors to the tower. it can be reterminated directly to the higher-voltage busbar. however. phase spacing. These include but are not limited to: • • The impact of phase-to-phase spacing. Perhaps its designers included generous safety factors for tower loadings. More likely. An individual transmission line can have its operating voltage raised temporarily by use of transformer load tap changers. Overhead Transmission-Line Upgrading For the most part. and conductor heights. and from conductor to ground at mid span Limiting switching surge overvoltages if they tend to be a significant factor in operation at higher voltage 5-8 .Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage • Safety – – – Public Construction Operation and maintenance Cost per mile Losses per mile Maintenance Capacity Visual impact (aesthetics) Property value Health Safety Physical size of rights-of-way NIMBY (not in my backyard) • Economic – – – – • Environmental – – – – – – Any project that increases the nominal voltage level of a transmission line will have to address issues such as these. its designers did not anticipate future conditions changing sufficiently for a utility to consider modifying the operating voltage of the line in this manner. But what of the transmission line built to the utility’s standard ac transmission-line design criteria? It was designed and constructed to meet a specific set of design criteria (nominal voltage) for that project’s scope. such as 115kV to 230kV.

and Insulators A physical inspection of the line is necessary to establish the actual condition (poles. This inspection should look for and identify • • • • • • Encroachment of the ROW Compromised clearances Construction adjacent to ROW (built after line) Construction within ROW (built after line) Modified structures (not shown on P&P) New highways. Physical Inspection Figure 5–3 Inspection of Hardware.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage • • • Insulation coordination—including re-insulation. hardware. 5]. and electrical characteristics of the selected existing ac overhead transmission line need to be investigated and studied to determine how the transmission line was designed. constructed. and roads built after line (not shown on P&P) 5-9 . Conductor. Inspection is necessary to verify that the actual route of the transmission line agrees with the plan and profile (P&P). streets. and operated. the insulator arrangement at the tower. This information is also needed to determine whether or not the line is acceptable for voltage upgrading [3]. mechanical. and its impact on spacing Raising the towers Terminal equipment upgrades or replacements Considerations of the Existing Overhead Transmission Line The environmental. and conductor) of the components [4.

Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage

• • •

Reconductored sections of the transmission line Obvious changes to the line and its surroundings Damaged structures, insulators, hardware, or conductor

Mechanical Design Criteria The investigators should assemble all the physical data available for the existing overhead transmission line. Typical data that should be collected for the line: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P&P of the line Altitude of the ROW Detailed structural tower drawings Photos of structures Conductor type (size, stranding, and name) Shield-wire type and size Insulator type and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) class number or transformer rectifier (TR) number (as appropriate) Associated hardware National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) edition used for line design Electrical design criteria Mechanical design criteria Tower grounding configuration Tower foundation resistance Operation and maintenance records Latest inspection records

Electrical Design Criteria The investigators need the original electrical design criteria for the existing overhead ac transmission line. It should include (but not be limited to): • • • • Maximum voltage (kV) Nominal voltage (kV) Number of phases Frequency (Hz)

5-10

Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage

• • • • • • • •

Basic impulse level (BIL – kV) Three-phase fault current (root-mean-square, or rms symmetrical amps) Structure configuration Structural material Minimum insulator leakage distance (in/cm) Minimum phase-to-ground clearance (in/cm) Minimum horizontal phase-to-phase clearance (center-to-center) (in/cm) Minimum vertical clearance from finish grade to energized conductor (in/cm)

Environmental Data

Figure 5–4 Weather Stations Installed Along the ROW Provide Valuable Data

The existing overhead ac transmission line was built in the real world, and many factors were considered in its design. They included: • • • • • • Elevation above mean sea level (MSL) Maximum outside ambient air temperature (°F/°C) Minimum outside ambient air temperature (°F/°C) Maximum relative humidity (percent) Minimum relative humidity (percent) Atmospheric pollution level 5-11

Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage

• • • • • •

Maximum wind design speed (miles per hour/foot-pound-second, or mph/fps) no ice (define temperature) Gust Factors NESC loading criteria Maximum design ice loading (define wind and temperature) Soil resistivity (ohm-meters) Soil criteria (net-bearing capability, dry density, buoyant density, frost penetration, and foundation stability)

Standards Investigators should be aware that existing transmission lines were designed and constructed in accordance with the existing industry standards in effect at the time of the design and construction. Standards such as Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ANSI, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and the NESC are published with a date for the time of publication. The NESC is continually revised and upgraded, as are the other standard bodies. The latest NESC has provisions for compact overhead ac transmission lines that may be beneficial for voltage-upgrade projects. Investigators should obtain copies of the standards in effect when their transmission line was designed and constructed. These standards should be reviewed and compared with the current standards and all changes noted.

Investigations and Studies
Gathering data about the existing transmission line is important, but that is only part of the decision-making process for this type of project. A physical inspection will determine if the transmission line is a good prospect for a voltage upgrade [3]. If a large percentage of the midspan ground clearances do not meet code, the structures are severely damaged, or if some other big-ticket item shows up, there isn’t much reason to go any further with this line. But if the line is found to be in good shape, the project can move to the next phase. The substation termination is another issue needing to be studied. To make the project economically justifiable, there must be a termination point for the new voltage level. Otherwise, it will require an expensive equipment replacement in the substation. The bus must also have sufficient capacity to accept the new transmission line. There are many references available from EPRI concerning the substation [8, 9], its voltage levels, and its equipment for the interested reader. What is Expected Once the transmission line has passed the initial selection process for a possible voltage upgrade, there are several questions that should be asked to define not only the upgrade, but what is expected from that upgrade. They are: • • What voltage level will be selected for the transmission line? Is this upgrade to be a temporary or a long-term solution?

5-12

Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage

• •

What is the power-transfer rating of the existing transmission line? What is the limiting factor of the existing transmission line? – – – – Thermal Voltage drop System stability Other

• • •

What will be the limiting factor of the transmission line after the voltage upgrade? What is the expected increase in power flow needed to meet project requirements? What are the future load projections for the line (with and without the voltage upgrade)? – – – Baseline Peaking Emergency

Are these future loads reasonable with respect to voltage-upgrade modifications to the transmission line?

System Studies The next phase of the investigation process will examine how the modified transmission line will function electrically. The modified line must perform as required, and not adversely affect the operation of the overall transmission system, or there is no reason to continue. Interconnection studies should be performed at this point. These studies are used to establish the line’s operational constraints. They will establish: • • • • • • • • Stability limits Switching surge Lightning performance Insulation coordination Power-flow limits Voltage drop Voltage collapse Corona-induced noise

System traits will also be identified. Such points as open lines, loop flows, or congestion points may place operating limitations on a transmission line based on geographical areas, and they may change daily due to changes in the system’s overall capacities.

5-13

Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage

Electrical Analysis It is important to understand how the initial design criteria were used to develop the original transmission line, and how can they be applied to the voltage-upgrade project. In effect, the modified transmission line has become a “compacted” design. The clearances have been reduced, whereas loadings have increased. A detailed engineering analysis needs to take place in both realms (electrical and mechanical). Electrically, the points to consider are: • • • • • Insulator leakage distance Probability of flashover Radio noise limits Lightning trip-out rates Ground-level EMF

Mechanical Analysis Mechanically, the engineering analysis determines: • • • • • • • • Adequate tower/foundation strength to support heavier insulators Space to allow for longer insulators Space for increased electrical clearance to ground Mid-spans having sufficient ground clearance (sag) Shield-wire spacing and clearance Possible replacement of shield wire with optical ground wire (OPGW) (fiber optics) Sufficient room to accommodate greater phase spacing ROW clearance at its edge for any blowout under maximum expected wind conditions

Detailed Engineering Design The initial electrical and mechanical feasibility studies have proven that the selected transmission line is a suitable candidate for the voltage upgrade modification. At this point, the project should be released to the Engineering Department. A detailed engineering design of the project is begun. This phase may locate problems missed in the preliminary studies, which will have to be dealt with if and when they develop.

Results
Transmission-line design is a complex subject—encompassing electrical, mechanical, and civil engineering factors balanced against regulatory processes, economics, and environmental concerns. There is always a tradeoff between the cost of the line and the energy to be transported. These concepts have been fine-tuned over the years for the design and construction of new overhead transmission lines. Recently, the theory for compact transmission-line design 5-14

An example of the application of voltage upgrade for reducing transmission losses is presented in Section 13. EPRI. CA: 2006. Palo Alto. Palo Alto. the regulators. Phase Conductor and Shield Wire Corrosion. EPRI. EPRI.Lowering Transmission Losses by Raising Transmission-Line Voltage [1] has made possible the scheme of increasing the voltage level to increase the power limits of the transmission line. Inspection and Assessment of Conductor Corrosion. CA: 1992. EPRI. AC Transmission Line Reference Book – 200 kV and Above. PacifiCorp has upgraded some 46-kV lines in the Salt Lake City area to 138 kV. Overhead Transmission Inspection and Assessment Guidelines – 2007. 1013784. CA: 2007. EPRI. CA: 2007. 2.6-kV transmission lines to 115 kV. Substation Voltage Upgrade. 1013984. It is a modification that is very attractive to the utilities. 1013893. The process of increasing the voltage rating is a technology that is well-understood in the industry. Feasibility of Increasing Transmission Line Capacity by Voltage Upgrade. CA: 2007. EPRI. Palo Alto. PacifiCorp has upgraded 115 miles (185 km) of 230-kV transmission lines to 345 kV. 1010626. 1011974. Otter Tail Power Company has upgraded about 180 miles (290 km) of 41. 5-15 . EL-6474. 1013892. EPRI. Palo Alto. It has been successfully applied by many utilities [3]. Palo Alto. Palo Alto. Palo Alto. Substation Voltage Upgrade. Risk and Rewards of Incremental Transmission Upgrades. Also. Vol. CA: 1989. The list of utilities upgrading existing transmission lines continues to grow. CA: 2005. and the public. EPRI. CA: 2008. Palo Alto. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Transmission Line Reference Book : 115–345 kV Compact Line Design. EL-6474. EPRI. Third Edition. CA: 2007. Both the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Baltimore Gas & Electric have upgraded 115-kV transmission lines to 230 kV. Palo Alto. 1016823.

.

LOWERING TRANSMISSION LOSSES BY APPLICATION OF ADVANCED OR LOWER-LOSS CONDUCTORS AND BY BUNDLING This section discusses ways to improve the energy efficiency of transmission systems through a number of options. the reduction of carbon emissions) A simplified economic analysis and methodology. identification of baseline conditions. both from a loss perspective and from the perspective of the associated mechanical aspects of conductor options. such as: • • • • Replacing an existing phase conductor with one of larger diameter of the same type Replacing an existing phase conductor with one of the same diameter but with lower resistance Replacing an existing phase conductor with advanced conductor designs Bundling of existing phase conductor(s) with additional conductor(s) per phase 6 This section covers issues such as: • • • • Conductor thermal rating and the challenges to achieve the transfer of power up to the thermal limitation of the transmission line's design The effects of conductor heating on long-term loss of tensile strength and sag (for safety reasons) The definition of objectives. based on loss factor. such as structures and accessories. load factor. segregated into those which could be readily estimated (such as structure reinforcement and conductor cost) and those which might be difficult to quantify (such as the levels of maintenance required) The monetary value of energy savings from such efforts. and evaluation of the benefits of reconductoring options for transmission loss-reduction The choices of conductors. including the monetary values of capacity savings and the monetary values of associated externalities (specifically. and— when available—operational (line-current or power-flow variation) and physical characteristics of the line A number of cases using the above methodologies and economic analyses • • • • 6-1 . comparison of different conductor characteristics The cost factors involved in reconductoring.

In the United States.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Background In simple terms. or composite) including insulators. weather conditions. transmission-line designers restrict the maximum allowable conductor temperature to an amount that limits the loss of strength to no more than 10% during the lifetime of the transmission line. The idea is to restrict both the sag (for safety reasons) and protect the conductor from stress and strain. The ground conductor is usually one or two wires above the phase conductor attached near the top of the structure. In Canada. dampers.” The conductor is described as being suspended in a catenary (sag curve) or parabolic curve. structures. and hardware. It is required by code requirements and utility standards. Conductor Thermal Rating The transmission engineer’s challenge has always been to achieve the transfer of power up to the thermal limitation of the transmission line’s design [3]. more power would reach the end user over the existing transmission line. which is usually established first. It is a major concern because of the effect conductor heating has on long-term loss of tensile strength and sag. and economics. a shield wire. The thermal rating is defined to protect the transmission line by avoiding conductor and hardware failures under maximum wind and/or ice loads and to maintain minimum ground clearances. The thermal rating is a function of the conductor’s characteristics. in most cases. it is specified by the NESC. The thermal rating of bare overhead conductors is determined by the maximum continuous current-carrying capacity of the conductor. loadings. Physical factors play a key role in determining the curve. The section between two rigid support structures is referred to as a “span. concrete. an ac overhead transmission line is a long flexible set of conductors forming three phases and. The phase conductor can be one or more conductors per phase. 6-2 . If that could be done. steel. the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) specifies the standards. In addition. as specified by regulatory bodies in standards around the world. This curve defines clearance. and the maximum operating conditions of the conductor. terrain. such as type of conductor (diameter and material). They are supported by structures (wood.

but are not limited to: • • • • • • • • Voltage rating Current loading Voltage stability Losses Weight and diameter of conductor Tension loading Thermal rating Wind and ice loading 6-3 .Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Thermally Limited Lines Only a relatively small percentage of transmission circuits are thermally limited. It also defines those structures in relationship to ice. bulk-power control scheme would make thermal limits and power disturbances a thing of the past. the utility decides the specific power-transfer and voltage level required for the transmission line. inductance. but perhaps the most significant decision is the selection of the line’s conductor. There are also regulatory and environmental constraints to consider. Routing of the line will also determine more design characteristics of the transmission line by defining the terrain and ambient conditions. it would increase the efficiency of the system to full utilization of the existing infrastructure if it were possible to identify and overcome the thermal limitations of a relatively small portion of the total grid. as well as others. In other words. The conductor makes up about 30% of the cost of a transmission line. and networks interact. It also establishes the structure heights. wind. intelligent. Characteristics to consider include. Stability. Intelligent technology seeks to address these issues. Initially. The choice of conductor determines losses due to resistance. because the maximum sag of the phase conductor is a function of the physical characteristics of the conductor used. Rating practices vary from utility to utility. Design Considerations Designing an overhead ac transmission line is a complex process [1]. the structures are dependent on the size and type of conductors used. causing additional problems. voltage limits. but these circuits limit the useful transfer capabilities of the whole network by roughly 10–20%. Conductor Characteristics The conductor-selection process balances operational considerations against cost. and/or loop flows must be dealt with before ever reaching the thermal limits of the transmission line. and the tension loads they must support. We are seeing the emergence of the next-generation of technology that will lead the industry on its way to a reliable and secure grid [8]. It should also be kept in mind that transmission lines are located in networks. in effect. A successful. and it establishes many of the utility’s conventions and assumptions for that line. and reactance.

Aluminum. along with the best strength-to-weight ratio. corrosion resistance. Figure 6–1 Normal Ruling Span Sag-Variation Diagram Continuous Current Rating A steel core can withstand temperatures of around 200°C (392°F) without changing its physical properties. the combination of aluminum and steel found in ACSR conductors can be operated at 100°C (212°F) for normal operation. starts having problems when the temperature goes above 90°C (194°F). on the other hand. Increasing conductor diameter to reduce electrical resistance will increase wind and ice loadings. It also requires stronger structures and foundations. for the best possible cost. For emergencies. but it will increase the longitudinal forces that break conductor strands. 6-4 . or selfdamping—but there is always a tradeoff. The designer has a wide variety of conductor types to choose from—with such features as tensile strength. but at the expense of increased electrical losses over the line’s lifetime and increased corona-induced noise. Therefore.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling The engineer’s goal is to choose a conductor that demonstrates the best conductivity-to-weight ratio. Reducing conductor diameter (weight) will allow savings for structures and foundations. Increasing conductor tension during stringing will reduce sag clearances. it can be operated at temperatures of between 125°C (257°F) and 150°C (302°F). while meeting the requirements for the project. high conductivity. but these are short-time measures.

Normal operating conditions (steady-state thermal rating) are based on calculations defining the maximum allowable continuous current that produces the maximum allowable continuous conductor temperature for a set of very specific weather conditions. which would have the same diameter. which cause the temperature of the conductor to increase. IEEE Standard 738. it can be increased by: • • • • • • Operating the existing transmission line (conductors) at a higher temperature while monitoring the sag in real time Raising the current limit of the conductor while monitoring the conductor temperature in real time Raising the height of the transmission line’s phase conductor Bundling (adding conductors to each phase) the conductors of the transmission line Replacing the existing conductors with a larger diameter-conductor Replacing the existing transmission line’s conductors with advanced conductors. it produces heat (I2R losses). Power-flow Limitations If the power flow is limited by the transmission line’s thermal rating. The specific weather conditions are very conservative. These calculations are defined in the IEEE Method for Calculations of Bare Overhead Conductor Temperatures and Ampacities Under Steady-State Conditions.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Figure 6–2 Conductor Heating/Cooling When power (current) goes through a transmission line. It assumes the conductor is at thermal equilibrium for that maximum allowable conductor temperature. but would be able to operate at higher temperatures (higher current) 6-5 .

conductor characteristics. If the wind conditions exist.61 m/s) in the sun with a 40˚C (104°F) ambient temperature. System operators often prefer a fixed maximum rating for transmission lines because it is easy for them to manage.1%.219 m/sec) allows the line rating to be increased by 18. Increasing the Height of the Conductor Figure 6–3 Installing Bayoneting on a 115-kV Transmission Line 6-6 . this approach allows the utility to increase the power transfer over existing lines. The accepted method of determining an overhead conductor’s rating has always been based on local weather conditions. and the utility’s design criteria. with interesting results. on-line tools that are easy to apply are also required to assist the operator to make use of the resulting loading benefits. The utility has to do a lot of research first and know the condition of the line before applying higher criteria to increase the rating. It doesn’t improve the transmission line’s losses. with increased ratings. It should be pointed out that. Transmission-line conductor ratings are generally calculated using a wind speed of 2 ft/sec (0. This method is a conservative approach. The interested utilities gather weather data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service and install weather stations along transmission corridors. but climates differ widely. but today’s advanced computer systems are producing real-time dynamic ratings. With weather-dependent dynamic ratings applied.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Interaction of Wind and Conductor Temperature Some utilities have been investigating the interaction of wind and conductor-temperature elevation. but it does allow the utility to utilize an installed asset more efficiently. O&M is very important to keep the reliability of the system intact.2% and 5 ft/sec (1. Increasing the wind speeds to 4 ft/sec (1. with research-grade sonic anemometers to gather real-time data. a 25˚C (77°F) ambient temperature rise and a conductor temperature of 75˚C (167°F).524 m/sec) and increases the rating by 25.

and installing steel support units. the shield wire and the conductor (or the shield wire alone) are raised on extensions attached to the top of the structure (typically. This task can be accomplished with the line energized or with minimum outage times. wood poles). data6-7 . Monitoring Sag in Real Time Moving up the scale in technological complexity. the phase conductor is then raised to the top of the existing wood pole. sensors have been developed and combined with computer programs that provide intelligence about the transmission lines. sections might have limited ground clearance due to the occurrence of many unforeseen events since the line was constructed.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling A simple approach aimed at increasing transmission-line capacities is to raise the height of the line. and forces. As a result. but they do allow the utility to utilize an installed asset more efficiently. Utilities have found that. Assuming the structure is sound. in many cases.” It consists of a smart camera with a target. One method of improving clearance is called bayoneting. Being able to increase the transmission line’s ground-line clearance while keeping the line energized is a tremendous benefit to a utility. these methods don’t improve the transmission line’s losses. The length of the extensions is determined by the clearance needed to meet code. Figure 6–4 Installing PhaseRaiser on a Transmission Line Another method for improving ground clearance without replacing structures is called “PhaseRaiser.” This is a system that allows a transmission line’s ground-line clearance to be increased by cutting the pole. The structures in question are inspected to determine their condition and whether they can support the additional weight. If only the shield wire is installed on the bayonet. a device has been developed called the “Sagometer. transmission lines are limited by segments rather than by the entire line. This system has been installed at many voltage levels by utilities across North America. raising it hydraulically. Imagine being able to increase a transmission line’s power-transfer rating by 18% or more just by being able to monitor the sag of the line in real time! EPRI started a collaborative research project [9] several years ago to develop a system to monitor transmission-line sag in real time. Again. stress.

Like the other methods. British Columbia Hydro. 6-8 . The camera sends this information to the system operator. there are other monitoring devices available for installation on conductors to monitor their physical condition. The camera is located on the transmission structure of the segment in question. Inc. National Grid Transco (UK).. and temperature monitors can be installed. and communications system. with funding from the California Energy Commission. The camera records the sag of the conductor and calculates the ground clearance in all light conditions. A target is placed in the mid-span of the phase conductor. This recording is done inside the camera. Pacific Gas and Electric. giving the actual condition of the line as more power is transferred across it. this technology doesn’t improve the transmission line’s losses. and the California Energy Commission. Southern California Edison. Figure 6–5 Installing Sagometer Camera and Target on Line In addition to the Sagometer. Load cells.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling logger. Sagging-Line Mitigator The Sagging-Line Mitigator (SLiM) is a new class of line hardware installed permanently on the transmission line. Northeast Utilities. Public Service Company of New Mexico. It has been field-tested as part of an EPRI Tailored Collaboration (TC) demonstration project [7] with San Diego Gas and Electric. Consolidated Edison. Many utilities use computer programs to model what is taking place on the transmission line and help operators determine exactly how much power can be transferred over the line without impacting the system or the critical ground clearance. but—again—it allows the utility to utilize an installed asset more efficiently by increasing the line’s capacity. It was developed by Material Integrity Solution. It can be set to alarm the operator only when the conductor reaches a preset sag dimension. radiation monitors.

In effect. it becomes a permanent part of the transmission line. Bundling the Phase Conductor An existing single conductor per phase can be combined with a new conductor. which increases sag. It is ready for the next temperature excursion. This procedure has the advantage of reducing the electrical characteristics (impedance. It is accomplished by stringing the new conductor below or parallel to the existing conductor. and admittance) of the transmission line. which reduces losses. allowing higher line-transfer capability when it is needed most. Also. As the conductor heats. adding a second conductor of the same diameter can save money over removing and replacing the existing conductor with the installation of a single conductor of twice the diameter. This is known as bundling. inductance. This eliminates the excess sag in the transmission line. The passive design (no motors or electronic controls) of the SLiM device and its ruggedness encourage utilities to treat it like typical transmission-line hardware.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Figure 6–6 SLiM Device The EPRI TC confirmed that the SLiM reduces the effective length of the conductor during hightemperature conductor conditions. and the conductor always remains within acceptable sag and tension limits. its length increases. the SLiM returns to its original geometer. SLiM changes its geometry to decrease the line segment’s length. When the temperature returns to normal rating. Figure 6–7 Bundled Conductor 6-9 .

and ice loadings on the structures. These are aluminum-based conductors combined with advanced materials. The loss of strength increases with the temperature. For many years. But aluminum really didn’t gain wide acceptance until World War II made copper scarce and expensive. Stranded-aluminum bare conductor for overhead lines was introduced about 1895. 6-10 . as long as the temperature of the aluminum strands stays below 100°C (212°F). Bundling the conductor will increase the conductor weight (vertical loads). Today it is estimated that over 80% of the existing transmission lines are constructed with ACSR conductor. Aluminum conductors are very stable over time. depending on the specific design of the conductor [4].Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Bundling the conductors increases the thermal capacity. The towers require lateral strength to withstand these forces placed on the line. however. and the aluminum-core steel-reinforced (ACSR) conductor soon became the standard for transmission-line construction. which didn’t give the engineer a lot of options. Utilities have found that they can replace the ACSR conductor in an existing overhead ac transmission line with little or no modification to the transmission structures making up the transmission line. The addition of this stranded-steel core gave the aluminum conductor the tensile strength it needed. These high-temperature. Bundling conductors usually requires substantial reinforcement of the tower structures and possibly also the concrete footings of the towers. There are. Advanced Conductors Copper was the material of choice for transmission lines at the beginning of the 20th Century. low-sag (HTLS) advanced-technology conductors are able to carry much higher currents continuously without exceeding sag clearances. Temperatures above this point harden strands and lose tensile strength. The structures on the transmission line need to be inspected to determine if they can support the additional loads of either the second conductor or the increased-diameter conductor. transverse (wind) loads. HTLS conductors are capable of continuous operation at temperatures ranging from 150°C (302°F) to 250°C (482°F). Somewhere around 1908. which make possible lighter-weight higher-capacity composition conductors. but we are again seeing another transition taking place with the newer conductors coming onto the market. which improves the sag limitations. That situation has changed with the introduction of advanced materials and alloys. disadvantages. They do this without increasing sag at mid-span or reducing the conductor strength normally associated with ACSR conductors exposed to high temperatures. the engineer could select a variety of conductor sizes but had a limited choice in the materials or composition of the conductor. a stranded-steel reinforced-aluminum conductor was introduced.

or aluminum-clad and are normally “high strength. It can carry 1. Southwire has developed a Galfan coating for the ACSS.5 to 3 times the current of an ACSR conductor. Aluminum conductor steel-supported (ACSS): It consists of fully annealed strands of aluminum (1350-H0) stranded around a stranded-steel core. As a matter of fact. • Metal Matrix: 3M introduced the first metal-matrix conductor in 2005. Twenty-one miles of this conductor are being installed and tested in Kansas.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-1 Comparison of Available Conductors Homogeneous Conductor Copper Nonhomogeneous Conductor Aluminum-Core SteelReinforced (ACSR) Aluminum Alloy Conductor SteelReinforced (AACSR) Aluminum Conductor Steel-Supported (ACSS) Advanced-Materials Conductor Aluminum Conductor Composite-Reinforced (ACCR) Aluminum Conductor Composite-Reinforced/ Trapezoidal Wire (ACCR/TW) Aluminum Conductor Composite Core (ACCC) Advanced Alloys Aluminum Conductor Fiber-Reinforced (ACFR) Thermal-Resistant Aluminum Alloy Conductor FiberReinforced (TACFR) Zirconium HighTemperature Aluminum Alloy Conductor Invar Steel– Reinforced (ZTACIR) Gap-Type Ultra Thermal–Resistant Aluminum Alloy Conductor SteelReinforced (GTACSR) All-Aluminum Conductor (AAC) All-Aluminum Alloy Conductor (AAAC) Aluminum Conductor Alloy-Reinforced (ACAR) Aluminum Conductor Composite Core/ Trapezoidal Wire (ACCC/TW) With the introduction of composite materials to transmission conductors. at its 6-11 • • • . It also has a high capacity for damping aeolian vibration. It has the same sag characteristic at 210°C as ACSR has at 100°C. ACSS is capable of operating at very high temperatures (over 200°C). glass. designed and manufactured by Ultera (a joint venture of Southwire and NKT cables). This is an aluminumcore composite-reinforced (ACCR) conductor. The steel core wires may be aluminized. as these projects illustrate. Carbon-Fiber Conductor: Composite Technology Corporation introduced a composite-core conductor using carbon fiber.” having a tensile strength about 10% greater than standard-steel core wire. Seven utilities now have this conductor installed on their transmission systems. In addition. and epoxy for the core. which improves the conductor’s ability to withstand corrosion. allowing for 28% more aluminum conductor to be wrapped around the core for greater currentcarrying capability. the industry has the ability to tailor both the physical and the mechanical properties of these composite conductors to suit the specific purpose of the installation. galvanized. Superconducting Conductor: High -temperature superconductor (HTSC) cables are also a reality. American Electric Power installed a 200-m HTSC cable. it gets stronger when heat is applied to it. It sags about 10% as much as the samesize ACSR conductor.

the TW conductor has the same area as the standard ACSR round-wire conductor. Korea. Usually. • Trapezoidal wire of equal diameter: In this design.” American Superconductor Corporation started production of HTSC cable in 2005. the use of compact trapezoidal strands results in a resistance reduction of about 20% for the same diameter as the original conductor. EPRI performed a TC demonstration project [4] with Center Point Energy. steel-supported/trapezoidal wire (ACSS/TW) (Southwire of Georgia. The HTLS conductors selected for the project. Arizona Public Service. Hydro One. Although this conductor is limited to operation at moderate temperatures. Rockwell Automation and SuperPower. USA) Gap-type aluminum conductor. This design provides a conductor with a smaller overall conductor diameter and results in lower wind and ice loads while maintaining the same ampacity. replacing existing round-wire conductors with TW conductors of the same diameter allows utilities to reduce line losses of up to 20% without increasing structure 6-12 .0 kA and 69 MVA. together with their suppliers. Hence. This design provides up to a 20% increase in aluminum area. The cable is able to carry 150 times the current as copper cable of the same dimensions. With all of these advanced conductors coming into the marketplace. Inc. are both working on this technology. This design reduces space requirements and uses one half the quantity of superconducting materials. They knew they needed to install advanced conductors to increase their system’s ability to transfer power. The goal was to evaluate the performance of a selection of advanced conductors over a number of years. NY this year. the TW bare conductor has an overall diameter equal to the standard ACSR conductor. 34.5-kV underground cable in Albany. The Triax cable is energized at 13. formerly LG Cable). DOE has been working with manufacturers to develop the next generation of HTSC 2G. Japan) Zirconium-type aluminum conductor.. Utilities are a conservative group.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Bixby substation in August of 2007. The venture is known as “the Albany project. which results in a higher current-carrying capacity and lower resistance. Trapezoidal-Wire Conductors – ACSR/TW or AAC/TW A trapezoidal wire (TW) cable is a concentric lay-stranded conductor. SuperPower. and San Diego Gas & Electric. Sumitomo. composite core (ACCC) (CTC of California. trapezoidal-wire conductors are available in two different designs: • Trapezoidal wire of equal area: In this design. Inc. steel-reinforced (GTACSR) (J-Power System. and National Grid have installed the world’s first “In-Grid” HTSC 350-m. invar steel–reinforced (ZTACIR) (LS Cable. USA) Aluminum conductor. and they need to be convinced that they will not be affecting their reliability. and it incorporates all three phases of a power line through a single cable.2 kV and rated 3. The big problem was which one to use. utilities were facing a lot of decisions in a very short time. the BOC Group. To aid the utilities with these decisions. were: • • • • • Aluminum conductor. composite-reinforced (ACCR) (3M of Minneapolis. USA) Aluminum conductor. consisting of a strandedsteel central core with one or more layers of trapezoid-shaped aluminum wires.

In this case. Engineering judgment is often required in selecting the most appropriate method of upgrading existing lines. suppose that because of transmission limitation on a particular line. losses can still be reduced. A comprehensive treatment of reconductoring technology. that reducing congestion by adding capacity to the congested line usually implies that more power is moved over a longer distance. If some increase in conductor diameter over the original is possible. losses might increase rather than decrease. 8. implying that the additional transmission capacity provided by the new conductor/s should not be utilized. the current magnitude over the reconductored line has to be maintained as closely as possible to the current magnitude on the existing line. Selecting a line-upgrade method to either increase transmission capacity or reduce transmission losses is a complex matter. with a consequent increase in losses. retensioning the existing conductor. The options to improve transmission-system efficiency by reconductoring are: • Replace the existing conductor with a conductor of larger diameter but of the same type. There are different ways to accomplish the same goal. however. even when losses on that particular line increase. Nevertheless. but rather to analyze the applicability of reconductoring technology as an option to reduce transmission losses. along with numerous case studies and application examples. This point is discussed in more detail in Section 13.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling transverse loading. in reconductoring projects. and the increase in rating can be 20% or more. Evaluation of Reconductoring Options for TEE Improvement Transmission-line upgrades by reconductoring have been extensively applied in transmission systems. Design Constraints on Structure Loads Existing structures and foundations were designed for certain maximum transverse wind loads and—in the case of strain structures—for maximum tension loads. Some relevant aspects of thermal upgrade of transmission lines are summarized here for completeness. Releasing the line limit might cause a reduction in total system losses. Note. • Replace the existing conductor with an advanced conductor. the resistance reduction can be in excess of 20%. • Replace the existing conductor with a conductor of the same diameter but with lower resistance (TW conductor). 13]. For example. There might be situations in a power system in which increasing the capacity of certain transmission lines would reduce overall system losses. This section is not intended to replicate the detailed material presented in these reports. with limited structural reinforcement. with the primary objective of increasing transmission capacity. Unless the existing structures are to be replaced. In order for reconductoring options to effectively reduce losses. and there are a number of technical and economic conditions to consider. Under certain conditions. and other additional benefits can be accomplished. • Bundle the existing conductor with an additional conductor per phase. or reconductoring the line with a new 6-13 . 11. it is worth evaluating the effect of taking advantage of the increased capacity achieved. If so. in some cases. the reduction in line losses is proportional to the reduction in conductor resistance. are provided in previous EPRI reports [2. reconductoring is a feasible option for reducing transmission-system losses in a costeffective manner. power flows over less-efficient paths.

The reference conductor is an ACSR 795-kcmil Drake. and others Table 6–1 compares the characteristics of different conductor types of the same diameter. any attempt at increasing everyday installed tension is unlikely to succeed. However. Two different types of conductors can be applied: • ACSR/TW: Conventional ACSR conductors with trapezoidal aluminum strands • HTLS conductors: ACSS. and that it has operated for many years without any structural or foundation failures.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling conductor. if a review of structure and foundation capacity indicates that the line was conservatively designed. the governing loads are primarily related to maximum conductor tension. as described above. If many of the line structures must be replaced. the cost-effectiveness properties of the solution are lost. However. the governing transverse loads are primarily a function of the conductor diameter. The use of advanced conductors with the same diameter has the primary advantage of minimizing structure modifications. a review of the existing structures and operating records of the line is required. allowing a significant reduction in losses. For angle and dead-end structures. the diameter of the replacement conductor must not exceed 10% of the existing conductor in order to avoid tangent structure modification. it is possible to employ modern conductors having lower resistance for the same diameter. or with. However. For tangent structures. minor structure modifications. substantial reinforcement of tower structures and footings is required. ACCR/TW. On the other hand. ACSS/TW. Therefore. The high cost of reinforcing structures makes these options less likely to be cost-effective. must be done without greatly exceeding the original design limits on structure loading. Before undertaking any upgrading project. 6-14 . Besides. Such large load increases would typically require structure reinforcement or replacement. larger conductors significantly increase strain-structure tension loads and increase transverse wind/ice conductor loads on suspension structures. the applicability of these techniques is more restricted. ACCR. The replacement conductor’s maximum tension should not exceed the original conductor’s tension unless these structures are to be reinforced. Reconductoring Options Use of Larger Conductor or Bundling By replacing the existing conductor with one of larger diameter. it is possible to reduce line resistance to a great extent. ACCC/TW. If structural failures at angle or dead-end structures have occurred. it may be possible to replace the existing conductor with a new larger conductor without. the reduction of line resistance is limited to 20–25%. Reconductoring Without Significant Structure Modifications: By replacing the original line conductors. Bundling the existing conductor with a second conductor of the same diameter reduces line resistance by 50%. because it is not always practical to implement the required structure modifications.

it would have approximately the same sag as the ACSR Drake. if the Suwanee conductor is operated at 1000 A. and the conductor losses will be high. HTLS conductors are intended for upgrading lines that are thermallimited. the use of an HTLS conductor having the same diameter as the existing one. In such cases. and therefore the desired loss-reduction will not be achieved. the cost of the resulting electrical losses is likely to be significant. and operated at a higher temperature (180°C). but its lower resistance would result in a rating that is on the order of 1000 A (9. on the other hand. If the line operates routinely at line currents that approach its thermal limit. for example. Reconductoring with HTLS conductors may result in a cost-effective option in particular cases in which extra capacity is needed to cope with N-1 contingency overloads. However. line losses will be reduced by 18%. It allows almost the same amount of loss-reduction (for the same current) as the HTLS counterparts. an existing line with a 795-kcmil ACSR Drake conductor. If a contingency occurs. The reconductoring option in such a case has a dual effect: it reduces losses and improves reliability. In fact. and so will the sag (the conductor will sag less). because contingency conditions are occasional and last for a relatively short time. Hence. If. 6-15 . For the same weather conditions. Operation of lines at high temperatures is a clear indication that electrical losses are significant during periods of high load and corresponding high conductor temperatures. operated continuously at 905 A. the evaluation of benefits should consider not only the savings from loss-reduction but also the avoided cost of implementing alternative options to handle overloads at N-1 conditions. cross wind at 2ft/sec. which is the current capacity for standard weather conditions (ambient temperature 25°C. If this original conductor is replaced with a Suwanee ACSR/TW conductor (which has the same diameter) and operated at the same current level of 905 A.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-2 Characteristics of Equivalent Different Type Conductors Consider. the lower resistance of the HLTS conductor would result in significant loss savings under normal operating conditions. Hence. the natural choice for a replacement conductor is an ACSR/TW. increases the line rating by 50% or more. In such cases. It can be concluded from the values in Table 6–2 that if the objective of reconductoring is merely to reduce losses. losses will be approximately the same as with the original Drake conductor operated at 905 A.. full sun). the impact on energy losses will be minor. the HLTS conductor will be operated at a high temperature. at a much lower price. without any significant change in structure loads. An illustrative example of this reconductoring case is presented in Example #4 in the next section. Hence.5% higher). there are will not be issues with sag clearances. the Suwanee ACSR/TW conductor is operated at a temperature of 75°C. the conductor temperature will be lower.

others. The major cost factors of a typical line upgrading include at least some of the following [8]: • • • • • • • • • Replacement and/or reinforcement of tangent/suspension structures Raising of suspension structures Replacement and/or reinforcement of tension/strain structures Purchase of new conductors Stringing. can be difficult to quantify. if the upgrading cost for tangent structures appears to be reasonable for the required increase in thermal rating or voltage. if the original design allowed for ground clearances that greatly exceed the minimum requirement. it may be possible to use conductors with higher sags without any physical modification or expense. then consider the cost of modifying angle structures and dead-ends. Structures and Foundation Modifications Modifications of existing structures should be considered as a two-part process. Similarly. if the structures were designed to withstand much larger transverse and/or longitudinal forces than are produced by the existing conductors (with high safety factors). This difficulty in estimating maintenance is particularly true for those upgrading methods with which the utility has little or no experience. First. can be quite readily estimated. consider only the tangent structures. Second. and do a detailed clearance study of the line for the most economical conductor diameter. assuming that angle structures will have to be either rebuilt or replaced if the conductor diameter or tension levels are changed. reconductoring can be accomplished without the expense of structure modification. if the study of tangent structures shows that necessary structure modifications can be accomplished for less than 50% of the cost of replacing the existing structures with new ones. and clipping of new or existing conductors Replacement or addition of insulators and hardware. accounting for changes in code or loading since the line was built. Stocking of additional hardware and material Addition of wind-motion control devices Increased maintenance associated with higher operating temperatures Some of these factors. such as structure reinforcement and conductor cost.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Cost of Upgrading In comparing alternative methods of line upgrading. such as increased levels of maintenance. Line -upgrading costs are very dependent on the design details of the existing line. sagging. Determine the cost of modifying the tangent structures on the line as a function of the conductor diameter. a more detailed analysis is justified [8]. the designer must consider all of the cost factors and evaluate the likelihood that each upgrading method can meet the power system’s needs and will be able to fulfill all the technical and reliability constraints. 6-16 . For example. As a rough rule of thumb.

In any event. Replace the existing conductor with an advanced conductor. Unlike the case of ACSR conductors. the cost of this operation would be reduced accordingly. The cost of installing the second conductor in either a vertical of a horizontal bundle costs only slightly more than installing a new conductor on the same structure. For trapezoidal wires. One important factor that should be considered is the cost and burden associated with stock managing of additional hardware and material that is different from what is commonly used in the utility. and clipping a new conductor. Bundling of new and old conductors doubles loading on the structure. Operation and Maintenance Costs Upgrading an existing line with larger conductors increases the forces on structure components. and shorter inspection intervals may be needed. trapezoidal conductors need a different compression deadend than that used for standard round-wire conductors. 1 conductor per phase 2 bundled conductors 3 bundled conductors $ 20. sagging. For instance. Reconductoring with special conductors may cost somewhat more than using standard conductors. if it can be reused. so the price range is more limited. assuming the same amount of aluminum.000/mile The old conductor may have significant scrap value if it is all aluminum. The following table provides some general estimates of the cost of replacing a conductor with another of the same diameter and similar price. Bundle the existing conductor with an additional conductor per phase.000/mile $ 40. because the use of higher installation tensions and special handling may incur a contractor premium. 6-17 . Reconductoring with advanced conductors may be very attractive. some advanced conductors are manufactured by only one firm.000/mile $ 30. is approximately 5%. but the aggressive utilization of new materials and products can add to maintenance and repair activities. Manufacturers normally issue price lists for their products that can be used for comparison and screening purposes. Replace the existing conductor with a conductor of the same diameter but with lower resistance (TW conductor).Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Conductor-Replacement Costs The following options for reconductoring to improve TEE have been described: • • • • Replace the existing conductor with a conductor of larger diameter but of the same type. The labor cost of reconductoring with a larger conductor is roughly the same as the usual cost of stringing. Table 6–2 provides cost ranges of various conductors relative to those of the ACSR conductor. the premium for trapezoidal strands over circular strands. The added cost is due to the possible need to pre-stress the new conductor and the need to work “around” the existing conductor.

The maximum temperature limit of 250°C for which some manufacturers are rating their HTLS conductors will cause connectors to experience internal temperatures in excess of those that traditional mineral-oil-based inhibitor compounds will tolerate. some examples of reconductoring options are developed. Therefore.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling HTLS conductors normally require special hardware. these monetary benefits are used to determine some economic metrics that are used to assess the economic performance of different reconductoring options. These case studies are not intended to exhibit the detailed engineering process of reconductoring technology. losses of the transmission line under study are determined with the line-current magnitude alone. A synthetic base inhibitor has been developed that will perform in the temperature range in which the HTLS operates [3]. support clamps. Approach The following considerations and hypotheses are followed in the simplified economic analysis of case studies. The energy losses of the transmission line are evaluated on an annual basis by using loss factor: • 6-18 . not with a power-flow model of the entire system. the cost to be considered in the economic evaluation should be the incremental cost over the original design. the benefits of loss-reduction must completely offset the total cost of implementing the solution in order to be cost-effective. and that the option for further improving TEE is to select a conductor with less resistance than the conductor proposed in the original project design. In addition to the hardware accessories. • The transmission line under study is evaluated in a stand-alone fashion. That is. it is assumed that the replacement of the existing conductor has already been decided upon for other purposes than reducing losses (for example. and terminations. In the following examples. but rather to illustrate the applicability of these technological options to improve the energy efficiency of transmission systems. The third category represents special cases in which the use of advanced conductors may solve a reliability issue (overloads at N–1 conditions) while providing loss savings during normal operating conditions. special attention needs to be given to selecting an appropriate inhibitor for HTLS compression joints. the monetary values of capacity savings. In this category. the reduction of carbon emissions. Examples of Reconductoring Alternatives In this section. to increase transmission capacity). It was stated in Section 4 that the benefits of loss-reduction technological measures are determined by three major components: the monetary value of energy savings. and the monetary values of associated externalities—specifically. The mineral-oil base of such inhibitors begins to break down at 162°C. such as connectors. In the second category. The case studies are grouped into the following three categories: • • • Category #1: Primary Objective: Reduce losses–full investment Category #2: Primary Objective: Increase transmission capacity–marginal investment Category #3: Dual Objective: Reduce losses and improve reliability The first category represents cases in which the reconductoring is decided upon with the sole objective of reducing losses.

Indeed. The estimated cost of replacing the structures is $150k per tower. 40-mile-long transmission line passing through mountainous terrain. 6–1 Eq. line load factor is determined based on the available information. which is defined as: LD = average current magnitude [A] maximum current magnitude [A] Eq. In cases of reconductoring with larger conductors. This assumption is valid because in high-voltage (HV) transmission lines.15 ⋅ LD + 0. Hence. line reactance is reduced by 3% and line impedance by 3. but substantial changes in structure will be needed to support this larger conductor. Costs of structure reinforcement are roughly estimated in some cases and just assumed in others. It is based on an actual study intended to increase the capacity of an existing transmission line. • • • Case #1: This case corresponds to Category #1. if a conductor of the same type with a diameter of 20% larger is used. the basic results from the original study are used to evaluate options for reducing line losses.85 ⋅ LD 2 Where LD is the line load factor. In this case. 70% of the towers will have to be replaced.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Loss Factor . It is assumed that the current on the replacement conductor is equal to the current on the existing one. It is a 138-kV. The preliminary study also shows that the transverse load capability of the existing tangent structures is such that the diameter of the replacement conductor can be up to 10% higher than that of the existing conductor with minimal reinforcement of tangent structures. 6–2 • Some case studies are based on real installations for which information about line operations (line-current or power-flow variation) and physical characteristics are available. A coefficient to account for this variation is considered in these cases.LFS = 0. whereas the costs for modification range from $15k to $20k. For example. For those cases. variations of conductor resistance only minimally change transmission-line reactance. the increased diameter may affect line impedance to some extent. and the remaining 30% will need minor modifications.2%. if everything in the system is kept unchanged. The basic engineering analysis in the original study indicates that the line can be upgraded with a 795-kcmil ACSR Drake. the current over the line will not change. Two conductor-replacement options for loss-reduction are considered in this study: • • Option #1: Reconductoring with a 667-kcmil MYSTIC/TW ACSR trapezoidal conductor Option # 2: Reconductoring with a 795-kcmil ACSR Drake conductor 6-19 . The existing conductor is a 477-kcmil ACSR Hawk. Conductor costs are based on manufacturer price lists.

ambient air temperature 25°C. Table 6–4 provides an estimate of the investment cost for each option. and the line current is the same as in the existing line.0438 658 Option #1 ACSR/TW MYSTIC/TW 667 0.858 656 0. This value has been estimated based on the results of the preliminary engineering study described above.0114 909 40. 6-20 . It allows the utility to reduce line resistance by 40%.913 856 0.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6–3 describes the characteristics of these two conductors.t existing conductor [kcmil] [in] [lbs/Kft] [ohm/kft] [A] [%] Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Hawk 477 0.108 1097 0.0% * Rating conditions: 2ft/sec.. but the reduction in line resistance that can be achieved with this conductor is around 28%. the diameter of the ACSR trapezoidal Mystic/TW is only 6% larger. Because of the small increment in diameter.0139 798 28. this conductor can be installed with minor modifications of structures.r. On the other hand. sun. It also shows the operational parameters of the line (load factor. Table 6-3 Conductor Data – Case #1 Reconductoring Option Parameter Type Code name Aluminum area Diameter Weight AC resistance at 75°C Ampacity at conditions* Resistance reduction w. It is 30% heavier than the existing Hawk. peak coincident factor).3% Option #2 ACSR Drake 795 1. Table 6–5 describes the economic and emission parameters considered in this example. conductor temperature 75°C The ACSR Drake conductor is 67% larger in diameter and 29% heavier than the existing Hawk conductor.

247 987. The year peak load of this line is 80% of its rated capacity at normal conditions: that is. 658 A*0.5 2.000 20.1 Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Hawk Option #1 ACSR/TW MYSTIC/TW 1. so it is assumed that the line load factor is 0.8 = 526 A.5% 75 0. as will be demonstrated later in the sensitivity 6-21 .7 3.1 245.5 12.500 0. This factor plays a crucial role in the costeffectiveness of reconductoring solutions.000 20.000 Table 6-5 Operational and Economic Parameters – Case #1 Parameter Load factor Peak coincident factor Year of analysis Interest rate Energy cost Energy cost escalation rate Capacity cost CO2 emissions per kWh CO2 value CO2 value escalation rate [yr] [%] [$/kWh] [%/yr] [$/kW-yr] [tn/MWh] [$/tn] [%/yr] Unit [p.u.80 2.8 30 7% 0.500 0.000 Option #2 ACSR Drake 3.9 20.627 211.0% The peak coincident factor considers the coincidence in time of line peak load with respect to system peak load. The variation of line power flow is not known in this case.] Value 0.5.5 0.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-4 Project Cost – Case #1 Reconductoring Option Item Type Code name Conductor cost Structure cost/upgrades Stringing cost Engineering and other costs Installation and hardware costs Scrap value of existing line Total investment Levelized investment cost [$/ft] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/ft] [K$] [K$/yr] 3.9 20 2.

capacity. whereas the present value is an indicator of the value or magnitude of an investment. Nevertheless. until the line rate is reached. However. or yield of an investment. in which the stream of inflows due to energy. the IRR is an indicator of the efficiency.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling analysis.001 40% 4. demand.813 Option #1 ACSR/TW MYSTIC/TW 19.701 11.030 10. It is also assumed that the line peak load increases at an annual load-growth rate of 2%. Table 6-6 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #1. It can be observed that the total present value 1 of both solutions is less than that of the existing conductor. 1 6-22 .113 15. and emission costs in each option individually.05 Option #2 ACSR Drake 16. pay-back period. economic performance metrics. and emissions reductions surpasses the investment cost of reconductoring. Table 6–6 presents the analysis results in terms of energy. So in both cases. It is also observed that the monetary value of the CO2 savings of the considered parameter ($20/tnCO2) is marginal in this case.3% 3. capacity. it is observed that the savings are of the same percentage as the reduction in conductor resistance. and emission savings are discounted to yield the present value of the total savings and added to the investment (the investment is negative flow) to determine the NPV. The alternative yielding the higher NPV is the preferred one. quality.939 7874 17. Indeed. Another way to compare these two mutually exclusive alternatives is to determine the NPV. The economic performance of the proposed solutions is presented in Table 6–7.33 Note that it is the total present value of all the costs associated with an option: that is.945 7087 28. the NPV evaluated in this case does not allow comparison of Options #1 and #2 with the base case. As expected. and IRR show that only Option #1 may be economically sound. capacity. Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Hawk Average annual losses Annual energy-loss savings Average annual emissions Annual emissions savings Annual energy and emissions savings Average peak-demand reduction [MWh/yr] [MWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] [MW] 27. and emissions savings. the investment plus the present values of the yearly outflows due to energy. the monetary value of the total savings due to energy.

the more sensitive the IRR is to the component). 6-23 . and cost of CO2.89 Option #2 ACSR Drake 41.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWh-yr] 49.) Another factor that has significant influence is the cost of energy. energy cost. energy cost escalation rate. The parameters considered in the sensitivity analysis are: line load factor. Indeed.5 165.6 233.83 [$/tn CO2] 29. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 6–8. The influence of the other parameters is less significant.87 99.2 5. capacity cost. as the load factor increases.81 Sensitivity Analysis In the economic analysis.7 1118.4 1. The base case for the sensitivity analysis is the solution presented in Table 6–7. The relative degree of sensitivity of IRR to each component is indicated by the slope of the curves (the steeper the slope of a curve. (Energy losses vary with square load factor.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-7 Economic Analysis Results – Case #1 Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Hawk PV (energy+cap.949 952.+CO2+investment) Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that the economic performance of the reconductoring solution is most sensitive to line load factor.8 1579.0 31% 69 26. it is useful to determine how sensitive the economic performance of the solution (expressed by means of the IRR) is to several parameters of concern. so that proper consideration may be given to them in the decision process.28 4. For example. The values of the considered parameters are varied one per turn around the value they have in the base case.987 1345.199 Option #1 ACSR MYSTIC/TW 37. the IRR changes by +43%.58 15 11% 231 89. by changing the line load factor +30%. so do the energy losses.

In this case. Then. The peak demand is about 5000 MW. the lines with higher losses at peak conditions are identified. Instead. the first selection of candidate lines for reconductoring is based on the identification of long lines with relatively high load factor. such time series of line power flows are not available. and 138 kV. winter intermediate. winter peak. As described in the previous example. line load factor is the component that impacts economic results the most. losses in the transmission system are around 200 MW. This case study is based on an actual transmission system of a mid-size utility that serves the northeast region of the United States. The representative scenarios are: summer peak. or snapshots. Hence.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% IRR [%] 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% -50% -30% Load Factor Energy Cost -10% 10% 30% Capacity Cost CO2 cost 50% Parameter Variation [%] Energy Cost Escalation Rate Figure 6–8 Sensitivity Analysis of Option #1 with Respect to Several Parameters Case #2: This example also corresponds to Category #1. line load factor and line energy losses over a one-year period are determined in order to select the best 6-24 . Long transmission lines that are most heavily loaded during longer periods of time are good candidates for reconductoring. The generation capacity is 6000 MW. summer base. The transmission system is comprised of the following voltage levels: 765 kV. are used to determine line load factor and to identify the best candidate lines. a set of six power-flow scenarios. 345 kV. summer intermediate. The best way to determine the real load factor of a transmission line is by means of hourly resolution time series of line power flows. As a first screening. 500 kV. which can be obtained from either historical data or the results of production-cost–simulation software. At peak demand. and winter base.

45 miles long. 1272-kcmil ACSR Bittern. 81 miles long. The following two lines have been selected from the first screening process: • • Line A: 345 kV. 1 conductor per phase Figure 6–9 shows the variation in current for these two lines for the six study scenarios. Figure 6–10 shows the variation in line losses for the same power-flow scenarios. 1431-kcmil ACSR Bobolink.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling candidate line for reconductoring. 1 conductor per phase Line B: 345 kV. 1200 1000 Current [A] 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Scenario Line A Line B Figure 6–9 Variation of Current over Two 345-kV Lines of the Study System – Case #2 12 10 Losses [MW] 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Scenario Line A Line B Figure 6–10 Variation of Losses for Two 345-kV Lines of the Study System – Case #2 6-25 .

conductor temperature 75°C The diameter of the ACSR/TW PEE DEE conductor is the same as the existing conductor.6-kcmil PEE DEE/TW ACSR trapezoidal conductor Option # 2: Reconductoring with a 2154-kcmil POWDER/TW ACSR trapezoidal conductor Table 6-8 Conductor Data – Case #2 Reconductoring Option Parameter Type Code name Aluminum area Diameter Weight AC resistance at 75°C Ampacity at conditions* Resistance reduction w.85 in this case.0 1. as current magnitude on this line is higher in all the scenarios. the load factor of each line is estimated.6 1. sun. it is 0. whereas for Line B. even though Line A is shorter. The resistance is almost 18% lower than that of the ACSR Bobolink. and it is only 3% heavier.6% The characteristics of these conductors are presented in Table 6–8. except for the load factor. Therefore. replacement with this conductor requires reinforcement of tangent towers. This conductor can be installed without modifications or reinforcements of structures or footings.8% Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 2154 1. 6-26 . Table 6–9 provides an estimate of the investment cost for each option.3% larger in diameter and 26% heavier than the existing conductor.0152 1300 Option #1 ACSR/TW PEE DEE 1758. Two conductor-replacement options for loss-reduction are considered: • • Option #1: Reconductoring with a 1758. Hence. Assuming typical duration for each of the six analysis periods.t existing conductor [kcmil] [in] [lbs/Kft] [ohm/kft] [A] [%] Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Bobolink 1431.427 1658 0. ambient air temperature 25°C. the ACSR/TW Powder conductor is 12. * Rating conditions: 2ft/sec. it is the one with higher demand and energy losses. On the other hand. which is 0. The load factor for Line A is about 0.85.602 2498 0.5. the best candidate line for reconductoring is Line A.r.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling It can be observed that.0104 1601 31..0125 1416 17. The economic and emission parameters considered in this example are the same as those in Case #1 (Table 6–5).427 1610 0.

so in both cases the monetary value of the total savings due to energy.5 12. the monetary value of CO2 savings for the considered emission parameter ($20/tnCO2) is of much less significance than the savings from energy losses.000 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 5. demand. and emissions savings for the two reconductoring options considered in this example.4 Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Bobolink Option #1 ACSR/TW PEE DEE 4. Option #2 has the minimum total present value (PV).000 20.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-9 Project Cost – Case #2 Reconductoring Option Item Type Code name Conductor cost Structure cost/upgrades Stringing cost Engineering and other costs Installation and hardware costs Scrap value of existing line Total investment Levelized investment cost [$/ft] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/ft] [K$] [K$/yr] 3500 0. IRR and pay-back period.1 3500 0. capacity.62 0 20. 6-27 . It can be observed that the total present value of both solutions is less than that of the existing conductor. and emissions reductions surpasses the investment cost of reconductoring.000 Table 6–10 presents energy.25 220.750 1027.5 3550 286. The economic performance of the proposed solutions is presented in Table 6–11. that the economic performance of Option #1 is superior. however. As in Case #1. so it can be considered as the most-efficient one in terms of total savings. Note. as can be inferred from the economic metrics.

Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-10 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #2 Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Bobolink Average annual losses Annual energy-loss savings Average annual emissions Annual emissions savings Annual energy and emissions savings Average peak-demand reduction [MWh/yr] [MWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] [MW] 85.124 32% 4.88 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 116.484 16.8 2168.953 70.627 3210.519 Option #1 ACSR/TW PEE DEE 128.73 6 23% 222 34.+CO2+investment) Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap.9 3839.166 1814.34 Table 6-11 Economic Analysis Results – Case #2 Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Bobolink PV (energy+cap.138 58.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWh-yr] 151.3 353.88 6-28 .893 95.257 18% 2.59 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 65.4 628.58 3 41% 110 16.635 15.436 Option #1 ACSR/TW PEE DEE 78.299 30.75 37.09 [$/tn CO2] 18.3 3.769 27.1 7.

Two options are considered in this case. 6-29 . A 230-kV. more advanced conductors like ACCC/TW and ACSS can yield designs with shorter and fewer structures due to higher strength and lower sag variation. instead of the conductor considered in the original design. so that modifications in tower design are avoided. It is based on a real reconductoring project of a utility in the Northeast region. Line A losses for that scenario are 9. The cost of rebuilding the line is around $1.5% of the annual system losses. The characteristics of these conductors are presented in Table 6–12. Option #1 reduces Line A losses at peak conditions by about 2 MW. which is 1% of total demand losses. representing 4.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling It is important to note that. The existing line is very old. Indeed. The energy loss-reduction achieved with Option #1 is 16. the utility is planning to tear down most of the existing towers and completely rebuild the line segment. in order to get a more-significant reduction in system total losses. we assume that the location and characteristics of the existing tower cannot be modified. 40-mile-long transmission line is to be reconductored in order to increase transmission capacity to alleviate transmission bottlenecks and improve system reliability. In this case however. The first option is to use a trapezoidal conductor of the same diameter as the ACSR Lapwing. Therefore. The objective in this example is to analyze the option of using a more energy-efficient conductor in the new line.6-kcmil ATHABASKA/TW ACSR trapezoidal conductor Option # 2: A 2154-kcmil POWDER/TW ACSR trapezoidal conductor In new lines. which is about 1. The original reconductoring project proposes to replace the Drake conductor with a larger ACSR conductor: a 1590-kcmil Lapwing.95 GWh.6% of the total energy served. Case #3: This example is of Category #3. total system losses at maximum peak load conditions (summer peak) sum up to 203 MW.5 million/mile. The options analyzed in this case are: • • Option #1: A 1946. The second options is to use a moderately larger TW conductor that allows for further reduction in losses with moderate changes in tower designs. Annual energy for the entire system is 1121. the impact on total system losses is small. so in order to install the larger conductor. although the reconductoring options considered in this study case are economically sound (especially Option #1).6 GWh. The existing conductor is an ACSR 795-kcmil Drake. a number of lines must be reconductored.5 MW.

The resistance is almost 18% lower than that of the ACSR Lapwing.6% * Rating conditions: 2ft/sec.602 2498 0.504 1790 0.073 1358 Option #1 ACSR/TW Athabaska 1949.060 1502 18. the ACSR/TW Powder conductor is 6. The stringing cost and scrap value of the existing conductor are not considered in this analysis because they are taken into account in the original reconductoring project. conductor temperature 75°C The diameter of the ACSR/TW ATHABASKA conductor is the same as the proposed conductor. This conductor can be installed without modifications of the original tower designs.504 1838 0. ambient air temperature 25°C.. 6-30 . The conductor cost in each case is the difference in cost with respect to the Lapwing conductor. so it is possible that the towers designed for the Lapwing conductor will be able to bear the increased ice and wind transverse loads. Table 6–13 provides an estimate of the investment cost for each option. Hence.r. only the incremental cost of selecting the TW conductor instead of the Lapwing conductor is considered. strain structures may require some modifications because of the increased weight. and it is only 3% heavier.0550 1601 31. The increment in conductor diameter with respect to the Lapwing is small.0% Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 2154 1.5% larger in diameter and 40% heavier than the existing conductor. However. On the other hand. sun.t existing conductor [kcmil] [in] [lbs/Kft] [ohm/kft] [A] [%] Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing 1590 1.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-12 Conductor Data – Case #3 Reconductoring Option Parameter Type Code name Aluminum area Diameter Weight AC resistance at 75°C Ampacity at conditions* Resistance reduction w.6 1.

1000 900 800 700 Current [A] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Hours Figure 6–11 Line-Loading Duration Curve – Case #3 6-31 .000 An hourly resolution time series of historical line loading is available for this case.26.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-13 Project Cost – Case #3 Reconductoring Option Item Type Code name Conductor cost Structure cost/upgrades Stringing cost Engineering and other costs Installation and hardware costs Scrap value of existing line Total investment Levelized investment cost [$/ft] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/ft] [K$] [K$/yr] 1704 86. the line-loading factor determined from this time series is very low: 0.5 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 1. Figure 6–11 shows the line-loading duration curve in terms of current magnitude.5 2520 203. It is observed in this graph that this line is heavily loaded for only a few hours.1 3500 3500 Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing Option #1 ACSR/TW Athabaska 1. Indeed.9 30.

the load factor of this line is very small. Option #2 has the minimum total PV. however. Note. so are the energy and emissions savings. It can be observed that the total present value of both solutions is less than the total present value of losses that would be obtained with the Lapwing conductor.73 6-32 . so it can be considered as the most efficient one in terms of total savings. which is 0. and emissions savings for the two reconductoring options considered in this example. however.614 Option #1 ACSR/TW Athabaska 10. Thus.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling The economic and emission parameters considered in this example are the same as those in Case #1 (Table 6–5). It is assumed that the maximum current for the new conductor will initially be 80% of the Lapwing conductor rating: that is.352 12. except for the load factor. IRR and pay-back period. the rate current of the conductor considered in the original reconductoring design.26 in this case. that the economic performance of Option #1 is superior. as can be inferred from the economic metrics. because the investment is relatively very small.66 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 9438 3176 8494 2859 25% 3. and emissions may justify the replacement of the existing conductor with a trapezoidal conductor instead of the conventional ACSR Lapwing. capacity. demand.345 2269 9311 2042 18% 2. The economic performance of the proposed solutions is presented in Table 6–15. the monetary value of the total savings due to energy. Table 6–14 presents energy. and consequently. One would expect in this case a value of IRR much higher than in the previous cases. As in the previous examples. the monetary value of CO2 savings for the considered emissions parameter ($20/tnCO2) is of much less significance than the savings from energy losses. Table 6-14 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Case #3 Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing Average annual losses Annual energy-loss savings Average annual emissions Annual emissions savings Annual energy and emissions savings Average peak-demand reduction [MWh/yr] [MWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] [MW] 11.

339 524.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling Table 6-15 Economic Analysis Results – Case #3 Reconductoring Option Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing PV (energy+cap.+CO2+investment) Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap. a 1020-kcmil ACCC/TW Drake conductor would yield a rating of 704 MVA at a conductor temperature of 180°C.882 374. Nevertheless.94 [$/tn CO2] 42. For example. the emergency rating of the conductor is a thermal capacity at 100°C and normal weather conditions: that is. the maximum tension cannot exceed that of the existing ACSR Drake conductor by more than 20%. Consider a single-circuit. Assume that according to the utility reliability criteria and procedures.190 Option #1 ACSR/TW Athabaska 22.1 47. Although the contingency is not likely to occur often (once in a few years).7 421.05 Case #4: This case corresponds to Category #3.0 66.8 590. The system analysis indicates that this line needs to carry up to 700 MVA as a result of certain contingencies.8 2. if it does occur. and the replacement conductor will need to sag at the maximum required capacity (700 MVA) no more than the existing conductor does at 100°C. 1115 A (444 MVA). 230-kV transmission line with a one-bundle 795-kcmil ACSR Drake conductor per phase.15 Option #2 ACSR/TW POWDER 19.91 7 19% 54 63. as a 6-33 . The line needs to be thermal-updated in order to cope with this situation.9 4. One possible solution is to use an HTLS conductor. The inspection and preliminary engineering analysis indicate that there are some restrictions for reconductoring: the maximum loading over the structure should not exceed that produced by the original conductor by more than 20%. it is likely to persist for several days.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWhyr] 29.87 4 30% 33 38.39 71.

7 ft (9. Certainly. 6-34 .5 ft (8. so the constraints about maximum wind and ice load are also met.6% less than that of the ACSR Drake. The resistance is 22. so it would operate at a bit higher temperature to carry the required 700 MVA. the effects of these short periods of high losses on the performance of the energy-efficiency solution can be neglected. However. Note that in this case the economic evaluation must consider the benefit of improving reliability. a reduction of 22. However. whereas the sag of the ACCC/TW Drake at 180°C is 27. The diameter of this conductor is the same as that of the existing ACSR Drake. the sag of the original ACSR Drake at 100°C is 30.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling result of its greater aluminum cross-section and its ability to operate at 200°C for an extended period of time.6% in line losses will be achieved. because this is a dual-effect solution. as can be concluded from Table 6–16. During the emergency conditions that the upgrading solution is designed for. it would comply with the sag and tension restrictions. Table 6–16 Sag-Tension Table for Four Different Conductor Types of the Same Diameter (Courtesy of CTC Cable Corporation). so if the line is loaded at normal conditions in the same way as with the existing conductor. Another possible option is the ACCR Suwanee conductor. the losses on the conductor will be high. These benefits are the avoided cost of procuring other means of coping with overloads caused by contingency conditions. The low-sag characteristics of this conductor allow it to comply with sagclearance restrictions. The capacity of this conductor at 180°C is 692 MVA.3 m).4 m). because the occurrence of these conditions is of low probability. The maximum tension is about 20% greater.

One phase of the transmission line is diverted to the temporary fourth conductor. The de-energized fourth conductor is then used to pull in a new conductor over the travelers installed on that phase condition. a temporary structure is built alongside each tower. decreasing the current. For example. these losses can be significant. Advanced technologies can also be applied to 6-35 . g. One such method can be summarized as follows: a. Summary Power loss in ac transmission lines is a huge concern for the owners and operators of transmission systems. which lowers the transmission line’s losses. which also allow increased power flow. but it cannot handle higher current values as do the ACCC/TW Drake or ACCR Suwanee. Power is restored to the newly strung phase. f. Over the section of line to be restrung.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling One possible way to isolate the costs associated only with loss-reduction would be to determine the cost of a reconductoring option that would yield a similar reduction in losses but not be able to withstand the emergency conditions. and the travelers are again replaced by clamps. Losses can be reduced by decreasing the distance the power travels. and the temporary phase is disconnected and de-energized. The most viable option for reducing losses is to reduce the impedance. Electrical-power losses increase with the length of the transmission line and the square of the current. Nondisruptive Reconductoring There is a large cost to removing critical circuits from operation long enough to reconductor.8/ft. These conductors have a reduced resistance characteristic. A mechanism has been devised to replace conductors.14/ft. The above process is repeated for the remaining two phases. a Suwanee ACSR/TW conductor allows a similar reduction in losses. The transmission of power through the line causes loss of electrical power in the form of heat because of the impedance of the conductor. and the phase conductor remaining in place is subsequently isolated for restringing. In a large network. or decreasing the impedance of the line itself. one phase at a time. the temporary structure and the fourth phase conductor are removed. e. b. The cost of the Suwanee is $2. because there will be substantial coupled currents and voltages during restringing due to close proximity to energized. c. whereas the cost of the ACCC/TW Drake is $7. current-carrying conductors. This process must be undertaken carefully. Over that section. It can also be accomplished by the application of one of the new HTLS advanced conductors or ACSR trapezoidal-wire conductors. When completed. This can be accomplished by replacing the existing conductor with a larger-diameter conductor of the same type but with a lower resistance. from which a fourth phase conductor is strung. d. conductor clamps are replaced by conventional stringing travelers. This can be done live. HTLS conductors also have lower thermal elongation properties. while sustaining service on the circuit being reconductored [5]. Other methods for nondisruptive reconductoring are described in [6].

the HTLS conductor is operated at the same current as the existing conductor. It also increases the thermal capacity of the transmission line. taking advantage of the increased capacity achieved—with the result that losses may also increase rather than decrease. The third project category applies to very specific cases in which additional capacity is required to handle infrequent overload conditions—caused. proper definition of objectives. EPRI. However. Therefore. In these cases. Feasibility of Increasing Transmission Line Capacity by Voltage Upgrade. the main emphasis of line thermal upgrades by reconductoring is to increase the capacity. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Transmission Line Reference Book : 115–345 kV Compact Line Design. Traditionally. for example. EPRI. because the economic benefits from loss savings must fully offset the investment cost. Bundling reduces the line’s impedance. identification of baseline or reference conditions. EPRI. 1017448. Demonstration of Advanced Conductors for Overhead Transmission Lines. EPRI. An HTLS conductor of the same diameter as that of the existing conductor can be used in such cases. whereas its lower resistance allows it to reduce losses. because it is able to operate at a higher conductor temperature. there is always the temptation to increase the transfer loading. Under normal operating conditions. 11]. Palo Alto.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling the transmission line in the form of sensors and monitors [10. It is more difficult to analyze the cost-effectiveness of these types of projects. The second project category corresponds to reconductoring projects that have been decided upon for purposes other than loss-reduction. Three types of projects have been identified in this section to help analyze reconductoring options for loss-reductions: The first project category comprises projects that are evaluated with the sole objective of reducing losses. with loss-reduction having a lower priority. CA: Opportunity Brochure. There is a conflict between reducing losses and increasing transfer capability. CA: 2005. Palo Alto. 1015488. 1013984. and evaluation of benefits is crucial to determining the cost-effectiveness of reconductoring options for transmission lossreduction. 1016823. Of course. from the point of view of transmission energy-efficiency improvement. Palo Alto. which lowers the line’s losses. AC Transmission Line Reference Book – 200 kV and Above. Third Edition. It is only desirable if the reinforcement is economical. which could require the reinforcement of those structures. when losses are reduced. Another option is bundling the existing conductor with additional conductors per phase. the benefits from lossreduction need only to compensate for the incremental cost in order for the solution to be costeffective. carrying much higher currents. Palo Alto. 6-36 . CA: 2007. Palo Alto. Improved Method for Live Line Reconductoring. 1011974. reconductoring options can be considered with the main objective of reducing losses. CA: 2008. by N–1 contingencies. which raises the line’s power-transmission capability. CA: 2008. Simplified economic analyses show that in some cases such implementation is cost-effective and economically sound. The disadvantage of bundling is the added weight and loadings to the transmission line’s structures. EPRI. but for which a more energy-efficient conductor can be selected to further reduce losses.

D. Sagging Line Mitigator (SLiM) Full Scale Demonstration. Concepts. ALCAN. Increasing Power Flow Through Transmission Circuits: Overhead Line Case Studies and Quasi-Dynamic Rating. Palo Alto. Increased Power-Flow Guidebook. Video Sagometer Application Guide. Palo Alto. O’Connell. Palo Alto. 1012533. S. TR-100191. Devine. CA: 2006. D. D. CA: 2001. Transmission Line Uprating Guide. 1000717. Palo Alto. CA: 2005. “Sag-tension Calculations Tutorial. and Benefits. 1011530. 6-37 . EPRI. 1010627. EPRI. Palo Alto. Douglass. CA: 2005. EPRI. Reichmeider. EPRI. Experience with New Methods for Live-Line Conductor Replacement. CIGRE B2-106. CA: 2000. Barthold.Lowering Transmission Losses by Application of Advanced or Lower-Loss Conductors and by Bundling [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] P. and L. 2006. Feasibility. 2005). EPRI. Instrumentation for Increasing Power Flow: Needs. CA: 2006. Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced Trapezoidal Wire (ACSR/TW) Catalog.” Paper presented to the IEEE TP&C Line Design Subcommittee (June 13. Jacobson. EPRI. 1012534. Palo Alto.

.

better alignment with contract paths. such as the possible use of optimal load-flow and state-estimator tools Use of conventional and common measures and equipment. albeit considering the break-even distance (which includes the cost of the ac/dc converters and their associated losses) • Other possible benefits that can be obtained from these approaches. 7 This section covers issues such as: • Some of the constraints that need to be satisfied before embarking on such projects as: generation limits. busbar voltage operating ranges. and line-transfer limits Measures and new components needed to divert the power flows to lower-loss lines: – – Switching out of service the higher-loss lines or equipment to force the power flows to lower-loss paths (and the possible reliability impacts of such measures) Changing the settings of transmission controllers and generator voltages and other operational steps (including daily and seasonal considerations).LOWERING TRANSMISSION-GRID LOSSES BY DIVERTING POWER TO HIGHER-VOLTAGE LINES This section discusses ways to improve the energy efficiency of transmission systems by diverting power flows to higher-voltage lines with lower impedance and higher transfer capacity. The same concepts can also be used to divert power to lower-loss paths of the same voltage. • – 7-1 . such as reduction of loop flows. such as: o Phase-angle regulators (phase-shift transformers) to change the angle between transmission points o Series compensation of the lower-loss transmission lines to reduce the series reactance of the desired path – Application of less-frequently used measures and equipment. and improved transient or voltage stability when diverting the power to higher-voltage lines. such as: o Series FACTS controllers o Conversion of ac line to dc. reactive power supports available.

The resistance of higher-voltage lines is generally less than that of lower-voltage lines. because the added current is smaller. At the same time.” in which line losses are dependent on the square of the current. and it might include one or more of the following reasons: • • • • Increase in power-transfer capacity Reduction of loop flows Confinement of power flow to a specific contract path Improved transient or voltage stability In order to determine which power to divert to low-loss paths in a transmission network. However. if power is diverted from a lower-voltage line to a higher-voltage line. reducing losses on that line. there are some constraints—such as generation limits. Higher-voltage transmission lines have lower apparent impedance than lower-voltage transmission lines. an optimal power flow is applied—with minimization of transmission losses as the primary objective. General Issues Redirecting power flow through an ac transmission network to achieve a minimum -loss condition requires that extra facilities be added to the network to force power into low-loss paths that are obstructed by higher relative impedance. busbar voltage operating ranges. but generally lower 7-2 . The justification for adding them to the transmission network would usually be dependent upon benefits other than loss-reduction. a lossy transmission line could be switched out of service to force the power that was flowing on it into lower-loss paths. adding losses on that line. A simple power-flow assessment would determine if a system-loss benefit could actually be achieved by switching out a lossy line. • In an ac electric grid. This natural flow pattern based on impedance does not necessarily correspond to a minimum-loss condition on the transmission grid. three loss-reduction benefits may be realized. so it is usual that more power flows on the higher-voltage lines. and so can any transmission controller (such as a phaseangle regulator that can divert power flow to another path). Generation can be changed. the current magnitude reduces at an inverse proportion to the increased level of voltage for the same power level. resulting in a net reduction of losses for the same power flow. there must be a way to control the power flow through the network. available reactive power support. In order to operate closer to a minimum-loss condition. A smaller amount of current is superimposed on the high-voltage line. These extra facilities are significant pieces of equipment. and line-transfer limits—that need to be satisfied. For a given power-flow level: • • A larger current is removed from the low-voltage line. the extra losses should be less than they were on the lower-voltage line. In principle. In other words. This was explained in Section 3 under the subsection entitled “Voltage-Upgrade Concepts. which have a cost component.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Introduction When power flows along a transmission line at a higher voltage. which also contributes to an overall lower loss benefit if power can be so diverted. power flow is determined by transmission line and transformer impedance between the sources of generation and the loads.

Use of an optimal load flow that minimizes losses and is combined with a state estimator would provide the application of on-going settings changes. The options would be to • Automate the process. using transmission controllers to divert power to lower-loss paths. The highest losses occur at the highest loads. This situation would be a burden to operators if they were required to adjust settings manually throughout each day as load and generation changed. In this way. and switches to achieve minimum-loss operation can be done repetitively as the power system progresses through the daily load cycle. Determining the settings to apply to transmission controllers. the central optimization can also include voltage control and reactive power management. Figure 7–1 A Modified Hierarchical Control Structure for Network Loss-Minimization and Coordinated Regulation of Transmission Network Voltages with Optimal Power Flow (PF) 7-3 . generators. then fixed settings could not be used. as well as network settings and switching for system-loss operation. the higher busbar voltage so generated will contribute to reducing system losses. as the process in Figure 7–1 implies. However. Fix the settings for a seasonal full-load condition. However. if transmission controllers are also required to facilitate specific operating schedules. so fixed settings would be a compromising way to operate.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines losses would not generally be achieved by such a drastic measure. An advantage is to use the transmission line as a capacitor bank to support voltage at one of its terminating busbars by disconnecting it at the other end. • A process for the on-line determination of minimum system loss. The central optimization could include the optimal power flow for loss optimization that is based on the current system’s condition delivered from the state estimator. has been developed from proposals by EPRI’s Green Transmission Group. as shown in Figure 7–1 [1]. such as ones needed to minimize widely fluctuating loop flows. A disadvantage of doing this is the lowering of transmission reliability as a consequence of removing a line from service. so that the settings and switch conditions for minimum transmissionsystem losses would be repetitively adjusted without requiring the close involvement of the operator.

and then the phase-angle tap changer is run back to a position in which 7-4 . the transmission line has to be opened so that power flow through it is reduced to zero. This benefit quickly disappears if the line is too short. so that converter station losses at each end dominate the losses. These might include: • Reducing the series inductive reactance in the lower-loss path. for which lower losses are possible. as they are alternatively called—are relatively common in electric networks.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Means for Diverting Power Flow Figure 7–2 345-kV Series Capacitors Diverting power to lower-loss transmission paths in the transmission network requires a means to do it. if they are available. The off-line ° 60 switching is applied. However. the series reactance of the transformers to the higher voltage will add to the line reactance. An on-line range of ±30 is considered maximum. so that the benefit of its lower losses will still be gained. This adjustment will force power down that line. With the ac transmission line. Any greater range requires a series connection of phase-angle regulators or off-line switching in 60° steps. then there is opportunity to use them for transmission-line loss-reduction. hence counteracting the benefit the higher voltage provides. the apparent series reactance is naturally reduced. If power can still be diverted or forced onto the highervoltage line. Phase-Angle Regulators Phase-angle regulators—or phase-shift transformers. Increasing the phase angle of the ac voltage across the ends of the higher-voltage transmission line. The ° amount of on-line phase-angle adjustment is limited. They usually have on-line tap changing to adjust the phase angle. a benefit from lower losses may still be realized. • • The possible equipment and strategies that can be applied for diverting power are discussed under the assumption that such facilities are costly and that they are in-service on the transmission network for other reasons than for loss-reduction. They increase or reduce the voltage phase angle applied across a transmission line in which it has been located. converting to HVDC transmission. Lower line losses are inherently realized when operating as HVDC transmission using the same conductors. If this path is a higher-voltage path. However. If the off-line switching is applied when a 30° limit is reached. and thereby regulate the power flow through the line it is controlling.

Other series-capacitor banks on a transmission line may be composed of several modules that can be switched in and out in a greater number of steps. It is believed that their relatively high cost is a major factor in limiting the number of installations. 7-5 .Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines power flow through the transmission line is at a desired level when it is switched back in. If there are two switchable modules on a transmission line. and shunt controllers to control ac voltage (and combinations of both) [2]. FACTS controllers include both series controllers to control power and reactive power flow. This is clearly not a convenient way to operate a power-system network. thereby reducing the series reactance of this path. their potential still applies. A significant challenge of applying series compensation on a transmission line is the risk of negative damping to shaft torsional modes of oscillation on thermal generators. Some series-capacitor banks are configured as one single module. It is not usual to switch series-capacitor modules for system loss-minimization. FACTS Controllers For nearly two decades. Then the on-line phase-angle taps are run to the setting in which the required power flow through the line is reached. Series Compensation Series compensation of high-voltage transmission lines is a common practice on relatively long lines. Series capacitors may have limited control. However. for completeness. A series capacitor has a negative reactance that can subtract from the positive inductive reactance of a transmission line. there are three possible steps. and a few units are in service. the concept of FACTS controllers has drawn a significant amount of interest under EPRI’s leadership. Having series capacitors located on a high-voltage transmission line means that the greater power flow that can be attracted to the line may provide the advantage of potentially lower losses. Phase-angle regulators may also have a voltage-magnitude transformer to compensate for the voltage reduction that a phase-angle shift requires. there have not been very many installations of these controllers to date on electric transmission networks. but it is how the phase-angle regulators of Manitoba Hydro are managed in order to control loop flow around the Great Lakes. So. and they are either in service or out of service—resulting in a two-step condition. but unfortunately. resulting in three levels of reactance and three levels of power flow for that particular transmission line. the FACTS controllers that can be used for diverting power flow are briefly summarized here. It is the FACTS controller with series controllers that can significantly divert power flow. Care needs to be taken in the system design with series capacitors so that subsynchronous resonance is not generated in any torsional mode of oscillation on a nearby thermal generator shaft for any combination of modules in service.

Only a few TCSCs are in service (in the United States and Brazil). A thyristor-controlled reactor (TCR) is in parallel with the series capacitor. also in parallel with the capacitor (See Figure 7–4). Figure 7–4 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of a TCSC Module 7-6 .Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Thyristor-Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) Figure 7–3 345-kV Thyristor-Controlled Series Capacitors (Courtesy of WAPA) A thyristor-controlled series capacitor (TCSC) is a capacitor in series with the transmission line. Variable capacitive and inductive reactance is achieved with controlled operation of the TCR. A TCSC module is usually connected in series with a conventional series capacitor. Their main purpose is to provide damping of electromechanical modes of oscillation [3]. and both are protected against transient and temporary overvoltages by a metal-oxide varistor.

It is not prone to causing subsynchronous resonance [4]. as shown in Figure 7–5. It can only inject a series ac voltage in the transmission line that is in quadrature with the line current. but which can be controlled independently to the line current. Figure 7–5 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of an SSSC 7-7 . This allows a larger variation of the apparent series line reactance than is achieved with a series capacitor.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC) A static synchronous series compensator is a voltage-sourced converter connected in series with the transmission line through a coupling transformer. The dc side of the voltage-sourced converter is connected to a capacitor that provides the voltage source.

Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Unified Power-flow Controller (UPFC) Figure 7–6 Inez Unified Power-Flow Controller (Courtesy of AEP) The unified power-flow controller (UPFC) injects a series voltage into the transmission line through a coupling transformer like the SSSC. A 160-MVA UPFC is located at American Electric Power (AEP)’s Inez substation in Kentucky [5]. as well as generate a voltage phase-angle shift with voltage control. It is an ideal controller for diverting power into or out of an ac transmission line. Consequently. real power—as well as reactive power—can be injected in series into the transmission line through the coupling transformer. it can act to change the apparent series impedance of the transmission line it is inserted into. But it couples a second voltage-source converter (VSC) to the dc-side capacitor. as shown in Figure 7–7. Figure 7–7 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of a UPFC 7-8 . In this way.

If the converters are voltage sourced. 7-9 . Figure 7–8 Single-Line Diagram Depiction of an IPC Configured as an APST with a Capacitor for Boosting Power Flow Back-to-Back HVDC Converter Figure 7–9 Rapid City 200-MW Back-to-Back HVDC Converter Station The ultimate power-flow controller is a back-to-back HVDC converter. An IPC of this configuration has been installed at the Plattsburgh substation in Vermont [6]. a capacitor is switched in parallel with the phase-angle regulator.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Interphase Power Controller (IPC) The interphase power controller (IPC) is a conceptual design in several forms. then they can independently control ac voltage on each side of the installation. providing that a thermal limit is not encroached upon. This is a high reactance that is connected across a conventional phase-angle regulator. To buck the power flow. One configuration is designated an assisted phase-shifting transformer (APST). and if rated large enough. or phase-shift transformer. thereby increasing the overall power-flow capacity through the transmission line. as shown in Figure 7–8. If necessary. The phaseangle regulator remains a conventional configuration. If inserted at or near the center of impedance in an ac transmission line. the power flow through the back-to-back converters can be controlled as a function of voltage phase angle on each side to contribute synchronizing power. a reactor is switched in. and its controllability is maintained. The parallel reactance shares a portion of the power flow with the phase-angle regulator. The back-to-back HVDC converter has unlimited phase-angle regulation. To boost power flow through the transmission line. the overall power-transfer capacity can be increased to a theoretical maximum of double.

The loss-saving potential following an ac to dc conversion can be visualized from the following example in [8]: Consider a single-circuit 230-k V line using a 1272-kcmil conductor. Option C: Tripolar.5 times the resistance of one conductor. Hence. with the same load-duration curve. AC Transmission Line Converted to DC For a given power flow through an ac transmission line. Hence. For the same amount of transferred power. Figure 7–11 shows the variation of losses as a function of the transmission line for the same level of transfer power (360 MW).Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines HVDC Transmission There are a number of HVDC transmission systems installed in ac transmission networks. Table 7–1 presents the amount of losses for each option. in which all three phase conductors are active. which is in parallel to the 500-kV ac series-compensated Pacific HVAC Intertie. Figure 7–10 compares loss in the transmission line for different power-transfer levels. but only on the transferred power. It should be noted. with the third phase switched to be in parallel with one of the active phase conductors to lower line losses. It can be observed from this figure that conversion of ac to dc for reducing losses can be effective on relatively long transmission lines. There are a number of different configurations that can be applied for a single-circuit conversion [7]. offset loss-reduction is gained in the dc circuit. with the third phase conductor used as a metallic return to avoid use of ground return. The Pacific HVDC Intertie. Because in this configuration. current would flow down one conductor and return in parallel on the other two. These include: • • Option A: Bipolar. which could participate in what might extend to a Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC) loss-minimization program. this third phase conductor can be switched in as a metallic return if one of the other phase conductors is removed from service. the line losses are reduced if converted to HVDC. With suitable controls and switches. and the other two sharing the return current (Option B). a net reduction in losses is achieved. This mode of operation will reduce losses by 25% and will again achieve redundancy on loss of either a bridge or line conductor. is a prime candidate for loss-minimization.85% of the transmitted power per terminal. the net resistance would be 1. DC voltage is 20% above the 230-kV line-to-ground crest voltage. however. Losses at the converters are estimated at 0. It can be observed from these results that if the dc alternative is to supply the same maximum power as the ac circuit. for short transmission-line terminal losses. that terminal losses are not dependent upon transmission-line length. There is also the Intermountain Project. the current over the conductors will be less than in ac operation mode. with one conductor carrying full current. for a transfer level of 360 MW. Option B: Bipolar. 7-10 . dc voltage is 225 kV. The circuit is converted to a bipolar configuration. resulting in lower line losses than those achieved with a bipolar configuration. • No commercial conversions of an ac line to dc have been implemented to date.

Circuit [MW] [A] [kW/mile] [kW] 225 360 800 76.08 400 0.[kW/mile] 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Power Transfer [MW] AC losses DC losses Figure 7–10 Line Loss As a Function of Power Transfer for the AC to DC Example 7-11 .Circuit [kV] [A] [ohm/mile] [MVA] [MW] [kW/mile] DC .9 360 242.5 350 Line Losses .120 230 1005 0.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines Table 7-1 AC to CD Conversion Example Voltage Current Resistance Power Power factor Real Power Loss/mile DC Voltage Real Power Current Loss/mile Terminal losses AC .8 6.

using available generation. However. Installation of powercontrolling equipment specifically to divert power flow to achieve a lower-loss state is normally not cost-effective. It requires power-controlling equipment to do this. power-controlling equipment such as phase-angle regulators.0 20. and reactive power sources. and dc links. Summary There are loss savings for a power-transmission network if power can be diverted to lower-loss transmission lines.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines 50. voltage optimization could also be included.0 45. switchable series capacitors.0 0. or improve system 7-12 . little effort is undertaken to operate them in a coordinated minimum-loss condition.0 15.0 40. series capacitors. Once the optimal power-flow optimization function is developed and a mechanism to link to the settings of the power-flow controllers and voltage controllers has been worked out. such as to increase power flows. with control of the powerflow controllers.0 5. The owners of such controllers acquired them to fulfill a specific role. and then applied to this system network model. tap changers.0 10. and back-to-back links are installed for various reasons. An optimal power flow would need to be developed with system loss-minimization as its objective. In some power-transmission networks. However.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Line Length [mile] AC losses DC losses Figure 7–11 Line Losses as a Function of Line Length for the AC to DC Example Evaluation of Potential Loss-Reduction In order to determine how effective existing power-flow controllers are in diverting power to lower-loss paths—thereby reducing losses in the power-transmission network—a realistic power-system network model is required. This network model would initially be undertaken without generation rescheduling. reduce loop flows. confine power to a path.0 Transfer level: 360 MW Line Losses [MW] 35. HVDC transmission lines.0 25. It should contain power-flow controllers such as phase-angle regulators. so that only the benefits of the lossminimization achievable on the power-transmission network would be evaluated. then several different system network models should be studied to ensure that the loss-minimization is consistently achieved.0 30.

IEEE Working Group 15. F. A few series-connected FACTS controllers also exist in some networks. EPRI. “Commissioning and Operative Experience of TCSC for Damping Power Oscillation in the Brazilian North-South Interconnection. Gyugyi. IEEE PES Winter Power Meeting (1996). Hinners. and J. A Special Publication for System Planners (2006). might constitute an impediment to achieving a minimum-loss operation goal. 96 WM 120–6 PWRD. Kovalsky. J. R. because it has a large number of phase-angle regulators. New Orleans. and A. Palo Alto.05. D. Other regions have a relatively large number of phase-angle regulators dispersed throughout their systems. The electric power transmission network of the WECC is a prime candidate region for lossoptimization. Palo Alto. References [1] [2] [3] IEEE. M. L. The technical process for determining minimum-loss operation can be developed. Schauder. which could be applied effectively for diverting power to lower-loss paths. However. L. L. Gama. DC Capability of AC Transmission Lines. F. I. 1012414.” PowerPoint Presentation to EPRI Green Circuits Members Meeting (2008). C. Paris (2000). and HVDC transmission systems. CA: 2008. R. Henderson. which can be used for network loss-reduction.. an on-line optimal power-flow procedure and controller is needed to adjust settings frequently or continuously. S. series capacitors. Smith. “Convertible Static Compensator: Project – Hardware Overview.” Paper No. LA (April 11–16. Angquist. E. B. Zelingher. L. Transmission System Application Requirements for FACTS Controllers. 1999).” Paper presented at the 1999 IEEE T&D Conference and Exposition. Lemay. Kirby. K. C. “Green Transmission Demonstration. S. Edris. and K. Fardanesh. 2511–2517. Schauder.Lowering Transmission-Grid Losses by Diverting Power to Higher-Voltage Lines stability. “The Plattsburgh Interphase Power Controller. G. G. Beauregard. Noroozian. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 7-13 . so that a minimum transmission-network loss state is maintained.” CIGRE 37 Session. and the rules under which they operate. CA: 2006. the restraints of long. M.and short-term market contracts. B. Shperling. To take advantage of existing power-flow controllers. R.13. EPRI. Graham. and M. Power Electronics-Based Transmission Controllers Reference Book (“The Gold Book”): 2006 Progress Report. M. Sen. Brochu. 1013979. Ingestrom. Gvozdanovic.” Proceedings of the IEEE PES Winter Meeting (2000): pp. Dave. “Static Synchronous Series Compensator: A Solid-State Approach to the Series Compensation of Transmission Lines. C.

.

Such comparisons can be used to determine if the corona loss-reduction is desirable and if it merits the efforts to reduce it. and protrusions The concepts that can be applied to reduce or eliminate the corona loss (such as voltage reduction). Atmospheric conditions are also a factor. gaseous effluents. which reduces with increased altitude and is also inversely proportional to absolute temperature. The critical corona-onset level. A transmission line—whether ac or dc—is designed so that. and protrusions. sharp corners. edges. snow. which contrast corona losses against transmission losses. is an electrostatic discharge that occurs on transmission-line conductors when the electric field intensity. 8-1 . it is below the critical corona-onset level. is above a certain critical level. such as rain. their practical limitations. and light. which is also a function of pressure and temperature. the critical corona-onset level varies over a range defined by possible extremes in atmospheric conditions for the location of the transmission line.CORONA-LOSS REDUCTION This section discusses the concept of improving energy efficiency by reducing the electrostatic discharge (corona) losses of the phase conductors. at the conductor surface. electromagnetic interference. As a consequence. or sleet The physical characteristics of the conductor (including bundling) and its hardware. such as dimensions. as it may occur on transmission-line conductors and on hardware that is connected to the conductor. with the most severe corona occurring with higher air density. Air density tends to be proportional to atmospheric pressure. • Introduction Corona. and the need to coordinate with other drivers such as line/system loading and reactive power flow Examples of different lines. 8 This section covers issues such as: • The fundamentals of corona and how it is affected by various factors: – – – • The “onset” voltage. edges. Other corona effects include the generation of audible noise. under which no corona will occur The atmospheric conditions. There are a number of resulting corona effects—of which power loss is an important one— discussed in this report. is impacted by physical dimensions such as the diameter of the conductor. as it is applied here. when operating at its maximum continuous operating voltage. sharp corners.

We also know that reconductoring or adding conductors to form a bundle can reduce or eliminate corona and corona loss. This subject is discussed separately in Section 6 of this report. snow. The degree of corona will vary with environmental conditions and the voltage applied. One expression for corona loss PdB (in decibels).4]. 4]. because the reconductoring or bundling lowers conduction losses. 345 kV). Rain. and is given as 8-2 . This alone is not considered a sufficient reason for reducing losses. A reduction in ac voltage will lower the corona and associated losses. then the only mechanism available to reduce corona loss is to lower ac voltage when it is effective to do so. and that rated voltage stays the same (for example. developed by the BPA for the most severe conditions with precipitation [3. If lowered when the line is heavily loaded. 8–1 Where: n d E K1 is the number of subconductors in the conductor bundle is the diameter of the subconductor in cm is the average bundle gradient in kVrms/cm = 13 for n < 4 = 19 for n > 4 K2 is a term that adjusts corona loss for rain rate (RR) mm/hr. However. is: Eq. 115 kV. during conditions of light load and heavy corona loss. The lowered voltage will cause increased system losses because load current must increase to transfer the desired power flow. 230 kV. or sleet increases corona activity by one or two orders of magnitude [1.Corona-Loss Reduction Reduction of Corona Loss in Existing Transmission Lines Corona loss for an existing transmission line will be present if line voltage is operating near or above the critical corona-onset level. the result may be counterproductive. With the assumption that conductors on the transmission lines remain unchanged. Transmission lines designed for higher voltages are generally more prone to corona. lowering the ac line voltage may reduce corona loss more than system losses increase. The most severe corona occurs when it is raining and the line voltage is high.

8–4 The total loss for a line in W/m is the summation of the losses for all the conductor bundles. this procedure has not been implemented in an actual power system. To practically operate an on-line corona loss-minimization scheme. Presumably. Corona loss-minimization.676). 8-3 . the signal would have to be sent to the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) to initiate the selective voltage reductions. and to what voltage. transmission lines or areas whose voltage can be lowered under light-load conditions would need to be identified—along with the means by which the voltage adjustment could be made. for RR < 3.6).6 mm/hr is altitude in meters (m) Eq. This expression is based on 60 Hz. there would be just a single transmission line with autotransformers at each end.5. This would be a central control. and reactive power-flow issues would have to be part of the computational algorithm to determine the best operating voltage for the grid. 8–2 Eq. to reduce corona loss. On-line monitoring in the area would then be needed to determine whether corona-generation levels are high enough to warrant voltage reduction. but would be undertaken over the area across which the grid extends. for RR > 3. The lowering of voltage would not be undertaken for a single line if that line is part of a grid at a common voltage. Alternatively. this would be the highest voltage transmission for the network in the area of concern. and the OLTCs on those transformers would be adjusted to raise and lower line voltage for corona loss-minimization. we can determine when it is effective to lower voltage. If so. Grid voltage at that level would be lowered in a coordinated manner. The on-line monitoring could be done by weather stations or corona-sensing detectors that can pick up radio interference levels and forward the data to where the computational algorithm is located. if effective to do so. line/system loading. This process is accomplished through the operation of the on-line tap changers (OLTCs) on the transformers that support the grid transmission. log (RR/1. it would have to be carefully computed and adjusted automatically through the OLTCs. Instead. From these expressions (Equations 8–1 to 8–4). In its simplest form. corona power loss is determined with this expression for 60 Hz. providing automated access to its voltage-control mechanism was possible.6 mm/hr = 3. Then take into account that loss is proportional to frequency. For results at other frequencies. It cannot be expected that the operating voltage of the grid level or transmission line would be manually reduced or raised in a coordinated manner for corona loss-minimization by the system operators. when lower voltage levels are ordered. To the best of our knowledge. Presumably. 8–3 The corona loss in watts per meter (W/m) is determined from the antilog expression: P = 10PdB/10 Eq. except for a case in which only one transmission line was to be regulated.Corona-Loss Reduction K2 K2 A = 10.log (RR/3. corona loss can be determined with Applet CL-1 Transmission Line Corona Loss [1].3 + 3. control could be local.

Corona-Loss Reduction

230-kV Corona-Loss Example To explore whether it might be practical to lower ac line voltage for corona loss-reduction, the above corona loss expressions are applied. As an example, the transmission line is a common 230-kV, H Frame configuration, with the following parameters: Conductor: Bundle: Pheasant, d = 3.04 cm (1.196 in), Resistance = 0.0963 ohm/mi Rated current = 1200 A n=1 AC electric field gradient at the conductor at 242 kV: E = 15.8 kV/cm The parameters for Equations 8–1 to 8–4 are: E= d= 15.67 kV/cm at 240 kV, and = 15.02 kV/cm at 230 kV. Note; E must be determined by a separate calculation, such as use of Applet No. CC-1 in [1]. 3.04 cm

K1 = 13 n= 1 25.4 mm/hr (heavy rain) A= 300 m RR = 0.1 mm/hr (light rain or light snow), = 3.0 mm/hr (medium rain or heavy snow),

At rated current and 230 kV, there is 478 MVA flowing through the line. This is designated as 1.0 per-unit line loading. To measure the impact of corona loss versus line ohmic loss, the difference between them is plotted as a function of per-unit line loading for light, medium, and heavy rain when operating at 240 kV and reduced 10 kV to 230 kV. This 10-kV reduction in line operating voltage reduces corona loss, but it increases ohmic loss for the same line loading. When corona loss minus ohmic loss is positive, the reduction in line voltage reduces overall transmission loss. This result is shown in Figure 8–1. The length of the three-phase, singlecircuit transmission line is 100 miles. The results presented in Figure 8–1 indicate that during rainy conditions and light load on the transmission line, there is a potential corona loss benefit if the operating voltage is reduced by an appropriate amount. On the other hand, during fair weather or very light rain conditions, there is minimal benefit in terms of corona loss-reduction, for the simple reason that corona loss is very slight under these conditions.

8-4

Corona-Loss Reduction

Corona Loss Decrease minus Ohmic Loss Increase in kW

Per unit line loading

Figure 8–1 Corona Loss Minus Ohmic Loss Increase for a 230-kV Transmission Line When AC Operating Voltage Is Reduced from 240 kV to 230 kV

However, it would seem that for a specific transmission line or transmission voltage level, the study—as outlined herein—should be conducted to determine if the corona loss benefits are more significant than this example indicates. The portions of time when there is no rain, light rain or snow, medium rain or snow, or heavy rain or snow should be estimated— along with the corresponding load durations on the transmission line or system. These figures can then be used to determine how much corona-loss energy savings could be achieved through ac voltage reduction over a specific time frame (such as a year, for example). If corona-loss energy savings are deemed to be significant, they must be evaluated against the cost of deploying the communication system, environmental data-collection system, transmission load-monitoring system, and controller to effect the desired benefit. Extending this example further, consider that the percentage of time the 230-kV transmission line used in the example is under foul-weather conditions for 10% of the time. In addition, assume that 50% of the time the transmission line is lightly loaded enough so that voltage reduction is effective in reducing corona loss. This would mean that the operational corona lossreduction would be effective for only half of the time that foul-weather conditions prevail. If the average corona loss-reduction, under these conditions, is 200 kW/100 mi, then the energy savings possible is 200*8760*0.05 = 87,600 kWh of a year for 100 miles of transmission line. If the energy is valued at 10 cents per kWh, this savings is $8760 /yr for 100 miles of transmission line. This benefit must be balanced against the cost of having the facilities in place to realize the savings. It may be possible for this single-line application to put in place a local controller that would take in power flow on the line and perform corona-level monitoring at several places along the line (such as weather information or a radio interference-level detector) and determine if voltage can be lowered and by how much. Then signals could be sent to the 8-5

Corona-Loss Reduction

line’s voltage controllers to implement the computed line reduction. It is worth commenting that at light load, an additional benefit could be derived with a reduction in line-charging currents— and hence, losses—when the line’s voltage is lowered. This would be a supplementary benefit that could be integrated into the corona-evaluation algorithm. The loss savings can be more significant in higher-voltage lines, as demonstrated in the following example: 345-kV Corona-Loss Example The same procedure is followed in this example to determine the energy savings from operating a 345-kV transmission line at a reduced voltage during different weather conditions. The reduced voltage considered is the lower voltage permitted by the applicable reliability criteria for normal operating conditions. In this case, it is 95% of the nominal voltage (327 kV). Conductor: Bundle: Rail, d = 2.959 cm, Resistance = 0.108 ohm/mi Rated current = 1000 A n=2 Phase spacing: 25 ft (7.6 m) E= d= n= 16.4 kV/cm at 345 kV, and = 15.5 kV/cm at 327 kV 2.959 cm 2

K1 = 13 RR = 0.1 mm/hr (light rain or light snow), = 3.0 mm/hr (medium rain or heavy snow), 25.4 mm/hr (heavy rain) A= 300 m Line loading (1 pu): 1196 MVA Figure 8–2 presents the results for this case. It can be seen from this graph that, for a 100-milelong line under heavy rain conditions, there is a benefit from reducing the line voltage by 5%, provided that the line loading is below 0.9 pu.. For medium rain conditions, there is a benefit if the line loading is lower than 0.6, whereas for light rain conditions, there is no benefit at all when reducing the line voltage by 5%.

8-6

Corona-Loss Reduction

Figure 8–2 Corona Loss Minus Ohmic Loss Increase for a 345-kV Transmission Line When AC Operating Voltage Is Reduced from 345 kV to 327 kV

It should be noted that it might not be raining over the entire length of the line, and therefore a benefit might only be obtained for the section of line where it is raining. Further analysis should be undertaken to determine the minimum allowable length of line exposed to heavy rain (for a given PU loading) that would still make it feasible to lower the voltage. In the above graph, it seems that you would need at least 50% of the line to be under heavy rain conditions for a PU loading of 0.65 (the point at which the ohmic loss increase on the section of the line in clear conditions is equal to the total loss improvement on the section of the line exposed to heavy rain). For a 0.9 PU Loading, it appears that 85% of the line should be exposed to heavy rain to at least break even. The longer the line length, the more difficult it will be to have 50% or more of the line exposed to heavy rain.

Reduction of Corona Loss in New Transmission Lines
For new transmission lines, the design of the conductor and tower configurations is based on a complex procedure that has been well documented [1, 5]. The electric field gradient on the conductor surface is a design parameter that impacts the degree of corona that will be generated.

8-7

Corona-Loss Reduction

The selection of conductor for a new line is also based on a transmission loss-assessment. During the design process, an anticipated load-duration curve is used to determine line losses over time. The transmission tower design and conductor selected are determined by an optimization of the present value of the cost of losses and the capital cost of the transmission facilities. Often, corona loss is not included in the cost of loss-assessment for this line-design process. This cost is left out because corona loss is inherently taken into account through the separate selection of conductor surface gradient. Over the operating range of ac voltage for the transmission line, corona is maintained at levels that comply with acceptable levels of audible noise and electromagnetic interference. For new lines, corona loss may not enter into the design process at all. And if it does, it may be for fair-weather (minimum corona-loss) conditions only.

Summary
For most ac transmission lines in service, fair-weather corona loss will be relatively small in comparison to ohmic loss. However, under precipitation conditions in the form of rain or snow, corona loss can increase by several orders of magnitude, and so become significant. The example cases presented in this section demonstrate that corona loss can be reduced more than ohmic loss is increased by incrementally lowering the operating voltage during conditions of precipitation. Depending on the specific transmission line and network under consideration, operational improvements in corona loss might be possible during foul-weather conditions, and little or no operational improvements might be possible during fair-weather conditions. This determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Whether such operational improvements are cost-effective would depend upon the proportion of time the foul-weather conditions exist, the portion of the line exposed to heavy precipitation conditions, and the cost of equipment that must be judiciously put in place to adjust line voltage for minimizing corona losses. Note that this is a novel approach. It is being proposed in this report to reduce corona losses, but much more investigation would be needed to evaluate its potential implementation in actual systems.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] AC Transmission Line Reference Book – 200 kV and Above, Third Edition. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011974. AC Transmission Line Reference Book – 200 kV and Above, Third Edition. Section 8, “Corona and Gap Discharge Phenomenon.” EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011974. AC Transmission Line Reference Book – 200 kV and Above, Third Edition. Section 11, “Corona Loss and Ozone.” EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011974. P. Sarma Maruvada. Corona Performance of High Voltage Transmission Lines. Research Studies Press Ltd. 2000. Transmission Line Reference Book : 115–345 kV Compact Line Design. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016823.

8-8

and its use for ice melting.SHIELD WIRE LOSS-REDUCTION This section discusses the concept of obtaining improvements in energy efficiency by reducing transmission shield-wire losses. Shield wires are generally steel cables with relatively high resistance compared to the conventional phase conductors. Breaking the conductive path in the shield wires is known as shield-wire segmentation. 9 This section covers issues such as: • • • • • The concept of shield-wire segmentation (electrically breaking the shield wire at the tower) to reduce losses in the tower footing due to circulating currents on the shield wires The other benefits of shield-wire segmentation. 9-1 . so that there is an improved choice by positioning the phase conductors on the tower such that the mutual coupling is minimized [1]. which reduces line and structural loading Information on the typical lengths of each segment of conventional and optical ground wire (OPGW) A methodology for calculating ohmic loss-reduction. with losses accumulating in the tower-footing resistance and ground. Reducing these losses can be achieved by breaking the conductive path in the shield wires or by reducing the mutual coupling with the phase conductors. any induced currents in the shield wires can circulate through the towers to ground. The reduction of mutual coupling with the phase conductors is physically possible with doublecircuit transmission lines. as well as an economic assessment for the use of segmented shield wires and its use for a case study The merits of double-circuit lines for lowering circulating currents in the shield wires Introduction Power loss occurs in the shield wires of ac transmission lines through mutual coupling from the phase conductors of the transmission line. The shield wires are also insulated from the tower to avoid loop paths. such as ACSR. such as reducing the “step and touch” potentials at the towers. In addition.

Reduction in “step and touch” voltage. When an OPGW is used on a segmented shield wire. Hence. Each segment of shield wire may be grounded at one tower only. In certain countries. large blocks of ice form around the ground wire during extreme weather conditions. the length of insulated segments will be 15 to 20 miles [2]. Segmentation Method When shield-wire segmentation is applied. 9–1 From Equation 9–1. each fiber splice is accommodated with an optical isolator to an accessible splice box bonded to the tower. The power loss-reduction will be described in more detail later in this section. In this way. it is clear that reducing the ground-wire current will reduce the induced tower voltage. Each segment is terminated by dead-end strain insulators. This current is applied for a few hours up to a few days. where the induced tower voltage is given by Equation 9–1: VT = I gw × RTf Where: Vt = Induced tower voltage Igw = Induced ground-wire current RTf = Tower-footing resistance Eq. When a human or animal touches an energized transmission-line tower. is 2 to 3 miles. A general rule of thumb is that the “step and touch” potential is about 50% of the induced tower voltage. 9-2 . and hence the maximum distance between splices. Some power utilities in these countries apply a continuous current of between 50 – 100A to the ground wire in order to melt the ice. the maximum available continuous length. It will be insulated from all other towers by using standoff insulators. These are: • • Power loss-reduction. an arc would be formed in the air across the shield wire’s insulator at the tower. which reduces line and structural loading. Of course.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction The segmentation of a transmission-line ground wire has three benefits [3]. Because the mutual coupling of the line currents in the phase conductors is the significant factor. For a standard shield wire. usually at the center of the segment. if lightning should strike it. the resulting effect depends on the potential difference between the hand and foot (humans) and hoof and mouth (animals). However. If an OPGW is planned to be installed with a segmented shield wire. depending on the thickness of the ice. • Ice melting. losses in an unsegmented shield wire increase with line loading. there are little—if any—ohmic losses in the shield wire when it is segmented. enabling the charge from the lightning to discharge to ground. this technique is only possible if the ground wire is insulated/sectionalized. each segment may be 2 to 20 miles in length. maintenance on the communication circuit is accomplished safely while the transmission circuit is in service and energized. There is no circulating path for fundamental frequency current induced from the mutual coupling with phase conductors.

Shield Wire Loss-Reduction Figure 9–1 Example of Sectionalized Segment (OPGW) [3] Figure 9–2 Isolator and Related Components [3] 9-3 .

2 m)above the phase conductors at the tower. transmission and distribution systems were estimated at 7. (Most of the transformer losses occur in distribution. with each section measuring 5 miles in length. it can be said that the conductor power losses in a transmission system are in the range of 4–5%. showed conventional ground-wire losses of 29.5 ft (10.7 m).1–1% of the total power transmitted. which are generally much lower than phase currents.) So based on this information. Case Study Consider an example case for a 500-kV single-circuit transmission line. based on a 100-mile. Figure 9–3 500-kV Tower for Segmented Shield-Wire Analysis An analysis was undertaken to determine the approximate loss-reductions achievable by comparing line losses with and without segmenting the shield wires.8 m) and located 33. These losses were made up of 60% line losses and 40% transformer losses. The phase conductors were horizontally separated by 35 ft (10.3-cm) steel overhead ground cable were horizontally separated by 52 ft (15. The ac/dc line module of the EPRI TL Workstation can be used to determine the induced currents for specific conductor geometries and load currents.014% of the total power transmitted. This is a 6. because of the fact that the groundwire losses are a result of induced currents. The shield-wire power losses can be 0.5% loss-reduction and a decrease in losses of 0.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction Power Loss-Reduction Energy losses in the U. and two shield wires of ½-in (1. The difference is designated 9-4 .2% in 1995 [4]. Ground-wire losses can be calculated by knowing the resistance of the conductor and the induced current flowing in this conductor. 765-kV line carrying 1325 MW (1000A/phase). as shown in Figure 9–3. resulted in total ground-wire losses of 27. Further studies to determine the effect of sectionalization.S. Studies done by BPA [5].2 kW/mile.3 kW/mile.

The method of study for determining these losses is to represent the line segment in detail. Although no published results of the study were ever released. Design time for each structure would cost about $500. Hardware costs. Design.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction as “loss reduction” in kW/mi for various levels of power transfer. are estimated at $500 per structure. It can be inferred from the results presented in Figure 9–4 that loss-reduction varies as the square of the line power transfer (because shield wire losses are of ohmic type). A detailed assessment of energy losses would require an annual load-duration curve of line loading so that loss-reduction could be accurately integrated over the whole year. Assuming a crew cost of $600/hour. This particular example is similar to a study undertaken by one of the authors for a proposed 500-kV transmission line that was not approved for construction. and an installation time of between 2–3 hours. loss factor (as defined in Equation 6–1 in Section 6) can be used to determine annual energy losses. Costs In order to segment a ground wire. and hardware would therefore total $2800 per structure. The results are shown in Figure 9–4. The transmission line must be represented accurately with a frequency-dependent line model. and the difference between measurements is recorded for each case to obtain loss-reduction. it has to be insulated at each tower along the route of the line. the above results are indicative of the results obtained. which include insulators and spark gaps and other hardware required for the installation. Power flow is accurately measured at each end of the segment. using an electromagnetic transients (EMT) model. The segmentation would most likely need to be done while the phase conductors are energized. Figure 9–4 Loss-Reduction Benefit Derived from an Example of a 500-kV Transmission Line for a Range of Power-Transfer Levels. The EMT study is run in steady state for various line flows. Therefore. and both with and without shield-wire segmentation in place. including four persons and machines. labor. it will be $1800 for labor for the installation at one structure. 9-5 .

80 2. Annual energy losses are determined by means of the line loss factor.680.9 20 2. and emission savings minus the total investment cost. labor.0% 9-6 . capacity.5% 75 0. As in the case of reconductoring to reduce losses. the loss savings— and consequently the economic results—are very sensitive to line-loading factor and energy cost. in this case. In conducting a cost/benefit analysis study for ground-wire segmentation. Table 9–2 presents the results of this analysis in terms of loss savings and economic metrics. Table 9-1 Line Characteristics and Economic Parameters Parameter Line length Line maximum transfer level Line-loading factor Peak coincident factor Year of analysis Interest rate Energy cost Energy cost escalation rate Capacity cost CO2 emissions per kWh CO2 value CO2 value escalation rate [yr] [%] [$/kWh] [%/yr] [$/kW-yr] [tn/MWh] [$/tn] [%/yr] Unit [mile] [MW] [p. Cost/Benefit Analysis The cost/benefit analysis is realized with an approach similar to those followed in the evaluation of other loss-reduction options presented in this report.000. the utility needs to consider the local costs of energy.5 0. the NPV is the sum of the present values of cash inflows due to energy. The total investment cost is $ 1. The NPV determined in this case reveals that the loss savings surpass the investment and add value to the investor. It should be noted that.800 /mile.] Value 100 2000 0.u. and materials. A polynomial function of order two is used to approximate the loss-savings curve as a function of line-transfer level.8 30 7% 0. Table 9–1 presents the parameters assumed in this evaluation.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction A line with six towers per mile would incur a cost of $16. as explained above. Loss reductions at maximum line-transfer level are estimated from Figure 9–4.

15 117 46.5 426.16 3617 5.51 51.68 Phasing of Double-Circuit Lines to Minimize Shield-Wire Losses When there are two circuits on a single tower and a single shield wire.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction Table 9-2 Savings and Economic Analysis Results Item Annual energy-loss savings Average annual emissions Average peak-demand reduction Net present value Pay-back period (energy +cap +emissions savings) Internal rate of return (energy +cap +emissions savings) Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy + capacity + CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy loss-reduction Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 Unit [MWh/yr] [tn/yr] [MW] [K$] [yr] [%] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [$/kW] [$/MWh-yr] [$/tn CO2] Value 2911 2620 1.9 3.0 23% 355. 9-7 . as shown in Figure 9–5. it is possible to reduce the coupling to the shield wire by phasing the circuit on one side of the tower in reverse order to the phasing on the other side of the tower.4 71.

and therefore it could be considered a possibly effective method of transmission loss-reduction on in-service and existing double-circuit transmission lines.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction g a c’ b c a’ b’ Figure 9–5 Phasing the Conductors on a Double-Circuit Tower to Minimize Shield-Wire Loss The phasing arrangement shown in Figure 9–5 is sometimes referred to as “low reactance phasing. This method of shield-wire loss-reduction is usually of lower cost to implement than segmentation. The cost of rephasing an existing double-circuit transmission line is relatively modest. there is also significant shield-wire lossreduction if there are two shield wires on the tower. the low reactance phasing causes a slightly higher conductor surface gradient. The lower loss for the shield wire is the result of the significant cancelation of the induced currents from the top two phase conductors that the shield wire experiences because of the phasing. Other benefits of this phasing arrangement include better-balanced line voltages and currents. The study undertaken in [1] concluded that the cost of corona-loss increase was found to be smaller compared to the savings in resistive losses when 345-kV and 138-kV lines are moderately loaded. On the negative side. and slightly lower losses in the phase conductors [1]. Although Figure 9–5 is for a single shield wire. 9-8 . lower ground-level electric and magnetic fields.” because it generates a higher surge impedance loading than if the conductor phasing on one side of the tower is the mirror image of the phasing on the other side of the tower. lower ground-return currents. which leads to increased corona and corona effects such as corona loss.

For double-circuit towers. Keri. References [1] A. but it requires insulation hardware to be applied to a new or existing transmission line. Schneider. Segmentation is effective. Staff Report: PRICE MANIPULATION IN WESTERN MARKETS DOCKET NO. Bonneville Power Administration. Shih. Keri.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron/summaryfindings. “Shield Wire Loss Reduction for Double Circuit Transmission Lines.J. C. pp. No. . PAS–103. 1854– 1864 (October 1988). United States Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Vol. A. low-reactance phasing can significantly reduce shield-wire losses with minimal cost by retrofitting existing circuits or installation on new circuits. the benefits of low-reactance phasing are partially offset by increased corona loss from a resulting high conductor surface gradient. However. Nourai.H. Militaru. A. and C. Vol. PA02-2000. Sectionalized OPGW on Extra High Voltage Transmission Lines. “The Open Loop Scheme: An Effective Method of Ground wire Loss Reduction.pdf. Policy on Voltage Isolators for Optical Ground Wire Applications. No. A careful EMT study could determine the magnitude of the expected loss-reduction. This method needs to be carefully evaluated to determine if the savings in reduced shield-wire losses warrant the cost of retrofitting or installation.Shield Wire Loss-Reduction Summary Two methods of shield-wire loss-reduction are presented. Nouri. http://www. and J. 4.F. A.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems. 200303-26. [2] [3] [4] [5] 9-9 . AFL Telecommunications.” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.12 (December 1984).ferc. 3.

.

a helicopter. chemical emissions. sleet. This is particularly true for insulation made from ceramic. but it increases when contaminants are deposited on the insulator surface. When wetted.10 INSULATION LOSSES This section discusses the concept of obtaining improvements in energy efficiency by reducing losses associated with the line (and post) insulators. glass. dilute acids. based on the leakage current phase-toground voltage. glass. When there is light rain. and how they are affected by factors such as: – – – The presence and types of surface contaminants (such as salt. or any other hydrophilic material. or by means of a fixed spraying system Merits and considerations of applying grease to the insulators Comparison of insulator maintenance procedures Introduction Losses in the insulation of overhead transmission lines occur when there is resistive leakage current flowing across the surface of the line insulators [1]. fog. and nonceramic) • • • • • • • A method for measuring contamination on de-energized and energized insulators A method to estimate the insulator’s energy losses. The resistive leakage current is negligible with clean insulators. a tower (structure). or mist. and dust) The effects of light rain. This section covers issues such as: • The fundamentals of losses in the insulators of transmission lines attributed to the resistive leakage currents flowing across the surface of the line insulators. which can be used to calculate the annual cost of insulator losses Typical estimates of labor costs involved in cleaning insulators and applying silicone grease. sleet. an aerial bucket. the contaminant forms an electrolytic 10-1 . or mist The types of insulators (for example. or alkalis. the contaminant layer increases in conductivity because it becomes a layer of soluble salts. ceramic. fog. which can be used for the cost/benefit analysis A typical example using the above methods This section also provides these insights: Methods to clean the insulators from the ground. ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM).

which may arc and avalanche into a flashover. This uneven drying will result in a large voltage buildup across the dry bands. If the contamination layer is excessive. forming a continuous conductive layer.Insulation Losses film that covers the surface of the insulator. the leakage current that flows will heat the electrolyte. Figure 10–1 Example of Dry-Band Arcing on Glass Insulators Generally. and it is acceptable except for rare events when a flashover occurs. causing a line fault. 10-2 . the resistive leakage current will still flow if the contaminants and moisture are present. which (if it is not continually wetted) will dry out unevenly. An example of dry-band arcing on glass suspension insulators is shown in Figure 10–1. However. the line insulation is adequate for the environment it is designed for.

Insulation Losses Contamination Effects on Insulator Losses Typical sources of contamination that accumulate on the surface of an insulator are: • • • • Salt and sand. soil dust. which is used to characterize the environment based on ESDD and NSDD measurements. if near industrial sites Fertilizers. Environmental conditions such as heavy dew or rain can also wash away the contaminants on the insulator surfaces and reduce the magnitudes of leakage currents. which include: • • Insulator surface conductivity under natural contamination and wetting Equivalent salt deposit density (ESDD) and nonsoluble deposit density (NSDD) measurements (See Figure 10–2. if near the sea or ocean or in the desert Chemical emissions and waste products. and crop spraying. There are a number of ways that contamination deposits or leakage currents are measured on energized insulators. weed killers. Instrumentation and techniques are available to perform measurements. if near salted roads Weather conditions—and in particular.) On-line measurement of leakage current • 10-3 . if in agricultural lands Salt. moisture and temperature—can affect the formation of the electrolyte on the surface of the insulator and allow resistive leakage currents to flow.

There are a number of commercially available insulator leakagecurrent measurement systems [2. 4].Insulation Losses Figure 10–2 Pollution Severity Based on ESDD and NSDD Levels [6] Of these measurements. 3. newer technologies (like EPRI’s wireless leakage-current sensors) allow the possibility of mass deployment [5]. However. on-line leakage-current measurements of in-service insulators provide a direct measurement. Leakage-current measurement transducers are connected (attached) to the dead-end side of the insulator. 10-4 . A typical installation is shown in Figure 10–3.

Leakage currents vary on an hourly. As humidity varies throughout the day. To determine a reasonable base for estimating total line insulator loss. an extrapolated value of total leakage-current magnitudes would need to be made. Insulator Leakage-Current Losses The losses incurred because of insulator leakage currents are not constant. daily. it needs to be monitored using leakage-current monitoring instruments for a specific period of time (at least one year). it would be important to have several leakage-current monitoring sites along the line. Review of leakage-current measurements for a given installation make it possible. monthly. because they are affected by humidity and ambient conditions. to determine the relationship between the contaminationseverity class and the leakage-current magnitudes of the monitored insulators. the impact of different averaged leakagecurrent values would need to be estimated for the total insulator loss-assessment for the line. If the transmission line passes through different contamination zones along its route. if not. and yearly basis.Insulation Losses Wireless leakage current monitor Figure 10–3 Example of On-Line Leakage-Current Monitoring Using EPRI’s Wireless Leakage-Current Sensor It is important to know that the on-line field measurements of surface conductivity or leakage current vary significantly on a daily basis. Figure 10–4 shows the 10-5 . it may not always be practical to install a leakagecurrent measurement device on every insulator on a transmission line. Depending on the type of instrumentation. In order to properly determine the leakage current. so does leakage current. over time.

Figure 10–4 Example of Insulator Leakage Current During a 24-Hour Period Mitigating Line Insulator Losses [8] There are a number of ways that the effects of contamination can be mitigated to reduce the probability of flashovers and the magnitude of leakage current. Various methods to increase the surface-layer resistance are described below: Cleaning Cleaning removes the contamination from the insulator surface. It is not always present. This process can take the form of hand-cleaning or spray-washing (live or de-energized). In other words. The increase in humidity to a value above 75% (relative humidity) results in leakage-current activity.Insulation Losses leakage current measured for a 400-kV glass insulator string over a 24-hour period [7]. The surface-layer resistance is the main factor that determines the magnitude of the insulator leakage current. and it will not be the same on every structure. Figure 10–4 also shows an association between leakage activity and relative humidity. Insulator material has a significant impact on leakage-current activity. Spray-washing can be performed from 10-6 . the presence and magnitude of the leakage current varies. These leakage currents were measured in a low-to-medium contamination environment. Higher leakage currents can be expected if more contamination is present.

Insulation Losses

the ground, an aerial bucket, a tower (structure), a helicopter, or by a fixed spraying system. The washing medium can be water, vegetable oil (for example, corncob or walnut oil), dry ice, or solvent. All these methods are described in detail in the IEEE guide for cleaning Insulators (IEEE Std 957-1995). Ideally, insulator cleaning should take place at the end of a lengthy dry spell (that is, a period of very little or no rain), thus preventing wetting of a contaminant by natural increases in relative humidity, the first rains, or fog/mist. Washing of polymer insulators is generally not recommended. Hand-Cleaning Hand-cleaning is effective in removing accumulated contamination from insulators, but it is labor-intensive and requires an outage. Hand-cleaning can be done with rags, nylon scrubbing pads, or steel wool, which are often used in combination with solvents to aid the cleaning process. Care should be taken to rinse the insulators properly after cleaning to remove any steel wool or solvent residue. Hand-cleaning of polymer insulators is generally not recommended. Water Spray-Washing (De-energized) Spray-washing (de-energized) is an effective and less labor-intensive option than hand-washing. Under de-energized conditions, a pressurized spray-washing system is used to clean insulators with water. Details of procedures and equipment are provided in the IEEE Std 957. Spraywashing is effective for removing soluble salts from the insulator. It may not be as effective in certain industrially contaminated areas that contain such contaminants as gypsum, cement, or fly ash that have hardened on the insulator surface. Water Spray-Washing (Energized) Spray-washing under energized conditions is, in principle, the same as that done under deenergized conditions—except that a number of measures must be taken to ensure the safety of the operator and to prevent any flashovers during the cleaning event. The washing can be performed from the ground, an aerial bucket, or a tower (structure). Water spray-washing of polymer insulators is generally not recommended. Compressed Air and Dry-Cleaning Compound Insulator cleaning can also be done with a combination of compressed air and an abrasive drycleaning compound or dry ice. This method is applicable in situations where there is old hardened contamination on the insulators, or for the removal of deteriorated room-temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone rubber coatings from porcelain or glass insulators. It is, however, not suitable for use on polymer insulators or polymer-housed equipment because of the risk of damage.

10-7

Insulation Losses

Greasing Greasing generally provides a hydrophobic surface, and it also surrounds and encapsulates the contaminants. Two types of grease coatings are in general use: hydrocarbon and silicone grease. Hydrocarbon greases are used in mild to cold climates as an encapsulation agent. A high ambient temperature or warm insulator housings resulting from internal heating may cause the grease coating to slide off the insulator. As a result, hydrocarbon greases are generally not used in the United States, where high ambient temperatures prevail. Silicone greasing of the insulator changes the surface condition from hydrophilic (surface wets out into water films) to hydrophobic (water repellent). The application of silicone grease is normally done by hand or brush, but these methods often result in an uneven coating. A more even coating is possible with a spray application, but it is not possible to do this will all types of silicone grease. Greasing can only be applied to glass or porcelain insulators. This method is also labor-intensive, and it is not usually practiced on transmission lines. However, if grease is applied and is not replaced, the effectiveness is reduced. Over time, this situation can lead to insulator degradation and flashover. Coating with Silicone Rubber This coating has a hydrophobic and dirt-repellent surface. Hydrophobic surfaces reduce magnitudes of leakage currents caused by nonuniform wetting and, consequently, reduce contamination flashovers. Guidance for the selection and application of RTV silicone rubber coatings is provided in the IEEE standard 1523 – 2002. Material aging may cause loss in hydrophobicity and, in some cases, erosion damage to the thin coating after several years of operation. When damage occurs, surface cleaning and reapplication of the coating are required. Re-Insulation This measure consists of replacing existing insulation with different designs to reduce leakagecurrent activity. When replacing existing insulation with polymer insulators, the design and suitability of grading rings should be carefully considered.

Comparison of Insulator-Maintenance Procedures
The aforementioned maintenance procedures are normally implemented to improve reliability by reducing the risk of a fault resulting from insulator flashover. The remediation method is chosen based on maintenance interval and cost. Maintenance intervals will depend on the characteristics of the insulators in service and the contamination severity of the operating environment. Maintenance intervals are typically shorter for heavily contaminated environments. The risk of flashover associated with each maintenance technique is also taken into account in the selection. Because of the wide variety of insulator types, applications, environments, maintenance intervals, geographical locations, and voltage levels, it is not practically possible to provide a precise cost comparison of the various maintenance procedures. Table 10–1 describes the characteristics of these methods that are relevant for their selection [8]. Typical costs have been obtained from EPRI member utilities. 10-8

Insulation Losses Table 10-1 Characteristics of Methods to Reduce Insulator Leakage Current Options Cleaning Silicone grease Silicone coating Re-insulation Maintenance interval 6 months 1 year 5–10 years 30 years Risk High Medium Low Negligible N/A N/A $190 per insulator $2500 per 3-phase single-circuit tower Cost

Application to Reduce Losses
The described insulator-maintenance methods can be applied with the objective of reducing transmission-system losses, because they reduce insulator leakage currents and, consequently, insulator dissipation losses. The choice of corrective action will be influenced by applicability, accessibility, and cost. If the incidence of contamination-related flashovers is a factor, the mitigating action applied will most likely reduce the leakage current as well. To undertake a mitigating action solely for the reduction of insulator losses will need to be seriously investigated. It is very difficult to determine the leakage current over the lifespan of insulators (especially glass and ceramic), because there are many contributing factors—including cleaning of the insulator (rain), weather conditions, type of insulator, and insulator design. Therefore, leakage-current monitors need to be installed to compare the improvement achieved. The energy losses dissipated in the transmission insulators are determined by integrating the leakage current measured for the time period in question and then multiplying this integrated value by the line phase-to-ground voltage. Loss savings that can be achieved by applying one of the described maintenance options can be determined by comparing the losses with the existing insulator conditions, minus the losses after the application of the leakage-current mitigation option. It should be noted that the application of these maintenance options may not completely eliminate the leakage currents. This factor needs to be taken into account in the evaluation of potential savings. Example Consider a 100-mile, 230-kV, single-circuit transmission line. Each tower has three insulator strings, and there are five towers per mile. The conductor is an ACSR 1272-kcmil Bittern. The resistance of the conductor is 0.09 ohm/mile at 75°C. Assume that 20% of the line runs through a contaminated environment (300 insulator strings), with an average measured leakage current per string of 2.5 mA for this 20%. The remaining 80% of the line is assumed to have no leakage current. The average current across the entire line (1500 strings) would then be

AverageCurrent = current ∗

300 no _ of _ Strings _ with _ Current = 2.5mA ⋅ = 0.5mA 1500 Total _ no _ of _ Strings _ in _ Line
Eq. 10–1

10-9

Insulation Losses

Assume that leakage currents have been measured on a number of insulators along the route of the line and that, based on this measurement, the annual average of this current is 0.5 mA. The annual energy losses due to insulator dissipation will be as follows:
⎡ MWh ⎤ 230 insulator tower hr Iloss⎢ ⋅5 ⋅ 100 mile ⋅ 8760 ⋅ 1e − 06 = 1 ,745 MWh/yr Eq. 10–2 kV ⋅ 3 ⎥ = 1 mA ⋅ 1.73 tower mile yr ⎣ yr ⎦

Assuming that the maximum current per phase is 1000 A and the line loading factor is 0.5 (the corresponding loss factor is 0.29), the annual energy losses due to conductor resistance will be
⎡ MWh ⎤ hr 2 2 Rloss⎢ ⎥ = 3 ⋅ 100 A ⋅ 0.09 Ω ⋅ 8760 ⋅ 0.29 ⋅ 100 mile ⋅ 1e − 03 = 67,818 MWh/yr . yr ⎣ yr ⎦
Eq. 10–3

Thus, the insulator energy losses in these conditions are 1.3% of the conductor ohmic losses. Consider that silicone coating is applied to all line insulators, and that the coating lifespan is 10 years (they have to cleaned and recoated every 10 years). Assume also that when the insulators are coated with silicone, the leakage activity is as follows: (Note: This example should be used for illustrative purposes only because contamination and environment will impact the lifespan or effectiveness of the coating. In other words, the loss of effectiveness may not be linear over its lifespan.)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leakage current as a percentage of uncoated insulator 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The energy and emissions savings, as well as their monetary value, can be determined by considering such variations of insulator leakage-current over time. The upfront cost/benefit analysis is conducted by taking into account the investment cost of the silicone coating applied and the annual savings produced by leakage-current reduction. The horizon of the analysis is 10 10-10

Insulation Losses

years because, after that time, the effect of the coating in reducing leakage-current activity is negligible, and a new coating needs to be applied. In other words, the stream of cash flow repeats every 10 years. The total investment cost is:
Inv[$] = 190 $ insulator tower ⋅3 ⋅5 ⋅ 100 mile = $285,000 insulator tower mile
Eq. 10–4

Table 10–2 shows the economic parameters considered in this case. Table 10–3 presents the results of the analysis. It is observed that the present value of the silicone-coating option is less than the total present value of losses if nothing is done to the insulators. It should be noted that the impact on capacity cost has not been taken into account in this analysis, because the simultaneous maximum leakage current of all the line insulators and coincidence with system peak would be required to perform such an analysis. It should be cautioned that this is only a generic illustrative example. The results are highly sensitive to the average leakage current over the considered time period. Therefore, an appropriate method to estimate this current by measuring and sampling needs to be investigated and applied.
Table 10-2 Line Characteristics and Economic Parameters Parameter Year of analysis Interest rate Energy cost Energy cost escalation rate CO2 emissions per kWh CO2 value CO2 value escalation rate [yr] [%] [$/kWh] [%/yr] [tn/MWh] [$/tn] [%/yr] Unit Value 10 7% 0.80 2.5% 0.9 20 2.0%

10-11

This current is subject to wide variability over time. Once the total line losses resulting from insulation have been estimated.2 46.3 55% 624 37 9.2 1.9 353.6 431.14 5 11% 103.8 392. The only practical way to estimate the insulator losses is to measure the leakage current in a sample of insulators.+CO2+investment) Levelized energy savings Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 Unit [MWh/yr] [MWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/MWh-yr] [$/tn CO2] 114. an estimate of total line insulator losses can be made.6 Summary Contamination deposits on transmission-line insulators cause a leakage current that flows across the insulator’s surface between the tower and the energized conductor. which is largely a function of the amount of contamination deposited and its moisture level.86 664 785 Existing Insulator Conditions 872 With Silicone Coating 479. including changes in contamination severity along the line route. causing line losses. 10-12 . Based on the average value of insulator losses measured and computed over time for the total transmission line. a decision can be made as to whether a mitigation strategy needs to be applied that is cost-effective.Insulation Losses Table 10-3 Economic Analysis Results – Silicone Coating of Insulators Item Average annual losses Annual energy loss-savings Average annual emissions Annual emissions savings Annual energy and emissions savings PV (energy+cap.

The Measurement of Site Pollution Severity and its Application to Insulator Dimensioning for AC Systems. CA: 2009. Vosloo. Electra No. JP Reynders. CA: 2006. 1016921. 1979. IEC-815 FF Bologna.L. September 2006. WG 33-04. Ital y (2003). Guide to Maintenance of Insulators in Contaminated Environments. 64.Insulation Losses References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] R. TransiNor.pdf http://www. and AC Britten. and W. CIGRE. Conference. Light Non-Uniform Contamination.com/content/products/IPMBrochure.htm Future Inspection of Overhead Transmission Lines.com/main leakage. Palo Alto. Palo Alto. Bologna. C. 1017726.” IEEE Power Tech. The Practical Guide to Outdoor High Voltage Insulators. Macey.doble.ctlab. EPRI. Published by Crown Publications for ESKOM.E. www. EPRI. [8] 10-13 . “Corona Discharge Activity on a String of Glass Cap-and-Pin Insulators Under Conditions of Light Wetting. de Tourreil.

.

such as auxiliary equipment losses(for example. for larger transformers The options involved in improving efficiency— such as core design/materials—and the more-advanced designs—such as amorphous metals and superconducting designs The concept of the total owning cost (TOC) for assets such as transformers In addition. 2010 A breakdown of the losses in transformers. If so. Hence. high-efficiency levels imply larger investment costs. However. Manufacturers are able to provide a number of choices relative to transformer losses and efficiency. the decision of whether to purchase a low-cost less-efficient transformer or a more-expensive energy-efficient transformer is primarily an economic one. 11-1 . These approaches are based on common strategies for dealing with failed transformer-replacement options for substation-class transformers. and the importance of (the nearly constant) noload losses in achieving higher efficiencies The significance of low load factor in the loss evaluation The importance of other losses. and therefore it does not affect them financially. this section proposes approaches for evaluating the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using energy-efficient transformers. the cost of energy losses is a pass-through cost for the utilities. complete replacement. Today. This section covers issues such as: • • • • • • The DOE’s new rule specifying the minimum efficiency levels for distribution transformers manufactured for sale in the United States on or after January 1. and winding conductor size and material. As described before. rewinding. and early replacement due to efficiency. such as repair. improved manufacturer techniques and new types of core materials make it possible to produce cost-effective and energy-efficient transformers. which affect the variable-load loss. Introduction Losses in power transformers can be modified by adjusting design parameters (including core size and material). This consideration implies that there are no benefits that accrue to the utility if it decreases its system losses. fans). it may not be in the interest of a utility to invest in a transformer with low losses (higher purchase price).11 LOW-LOSS TRANSFORMERS This section discusses the concept of obtaining improvements in the energy efficiency of transmission systems with lower-loss transformers. which affect the constant no-load losses.

which is mainly the case in the distribution system. through appropriate regulatory instruments. Therefore. the cost of electricity is reduced—resulting in a lower tariff to customers. There are also other externalities that benefit society as a whole. it may be cost-effective to install a transformer with higher efficiency than the existing one. on or after January 1. These standards constitute minimum-efficiency levels for the transformers manufactured for sale in the United States. occur in the transformer’s winding and vary with load current. Most units are designed to meet individual utility specifications that involve significant differences in design requirements. The replacement of existing low-efficiency transformers and the use of high-efficiency transformers have mainly been focused on the distribution side. the costs of losses are so important that transformers are custom-built. on a large scale. such as the reduction in carbon emissions and resources depletion. on the other hand. These types of losses are common to all types of transformers. dry-type distribution transformers. The first type of losses occurs in the core of the transformer. such as age or under-capacity. For large transformers (above a few MVA). safety factors. 2010. because the major improvement is in the core. features. because the effect on system efficiency is more significant there. In large transformers. The standards are intended to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and that will result in significant energy savings and emissions reductions. there has been little standardization in the design and manufacture of power transformers [1]. other sources of losses can be identified.Low-Loss Transformers However. if the cost of losses is higher than the cost of investment for improving efficiency. Losses in Transformers Transformer losses can be divided into two main components: no-load losses and load losses. and standardized fairly easily. the effect on overall lossreduction is more important in transformers with relatively low load factor. Therefore. The DOE’s new rule on the Energy Conservation Program for commercial distribution equipment adopts energy-conservation standards for liquidimmersed and medium-voltage. They are tailored to the loss-evaluation figures specified in the transformer specification defining the unit. and their efficiency can be classified. reduction of losses is beneficial for electricity users. regardless of load conditions. or imported into the United States. there would then be an incentive to invest in highefficiency transformers. If. Historically. Indeed. utilities were allowed to earn a return on the capital investment made to reduce losses. The loss-reduction in a high-efficiency distribution transformer is principally achieved in the noload losses. and use of materials. on the other hand. 11-2 . Load losses. However. Transformers in the distribution system are relatively easy to replace. loss-reduction is not usually a reason for replacing existing large transformers. such as extra losses created by harmonics and the energy used for auxiliary equipment (mainly the cooling system). if a transformer is replaced for other reasons. labeled. regardless of transformer application or power rating.

size. mowing the shape of the conductor to reduce skin effect. The core losses are present whenever the transformer is energized. cost. This loss is known as the core loss. The magnitude of these losses increases with the square of the load current and is proportional to the resistance of the winding. 11-3 . laser treatment. Cooper conductors have lower losses. and using various shielding techniques to reduce the stray losses produced by leakage flux. consequently. The increased heat can result in increasing the resistance and. using structural materials that develop lower losses when penetrated by leakage flux. • Conductor eddy-current loss: This loss is caused by eddy currents that are induced in the winding conductors by alternating magnetic fields. Hysteresis losses are usually responsible for more than half of total no-load losses (50–80%). or grain orientation. Amorphous metal presents a random configuration of the molecules that causes significant reduction in hysteresis losses over silicon steel. bolts. generating heat. and resistance. and they are almost constant. hence. and they allow a proper balance among factors such as weight.Low-Loss Transformers No-Load Losses An unloaded transformer experiences losses resulting from the magnetizing current required to take the core through the alternating cycles of flux at a rate determined by system frequency. Lower resistive losses can be obtained by reducing the current densities of the conductors (increasing conductor cross-sectional area) and by reducing winding length. • Stray eddy losses: These losses are caused by eddy currents that are induced in structure components such as clamps. Eddy-current loss in winding conductors can be reduced by more finely subdividing the conductors. or iron loss. no-load loss. Load Losses The load loss of a transformer is that part of the losses generated by the load current and which varies with the square of the load current. Eddy-current losses can be reduced by building the core from thin laminated sheets. This loss falls into two categories: • Resistive loss: This loss occurs in transformer windings and is caused by the resistance of the conductor. • Eddy-current losses: These losses are caused by varying magnetic fields inducing eddy currents in the laminations and. cause the losses. Eddy-current losses usually account for 30–50% of total no-load losses. Silicon steel has a much lower hysteresis than normal steel. and channels by leakage fluxes. tanks. These losses depend on the type of material used to build a core. The choice of winding material (copper or aluminum) affects resistance losses. Hysteresis losses can be reduced by material-processing methods such as cold rolling. insulated from each other by a thin varnish layer to reduce eddy currents. Core losses are composed of: • Hysteresis losses: These losses are caused by the frictional movement of the magnetic domains in the core laminations as they are magnetized and demagnetized by alternation of the magnetic field.

with permission of ABB.’s Power Transformers Division. These factors are dependent upon the transformer loading throughout the year. Figure 11–1 illustrates the different sources of losses in a transformer and the physical components that mainly affect them. And because the equipment is used to increase the loading capacity. the excess loss can cause high temperatures at some locations in the windings. They are used for special cases in which harmonic components are significant. The auxiliary losses are very low compared to the other losses. special transformers can be designed to withstand additional losses and heating. eddy current. In these cases. Inc. K-rated transformers may cost twice as much as standard transformers. In a transformer that is heavily loaded with harmonic currents. and hysteresis losses because they depend on the square of frequency. Figure 11–1 Sources of Transformer Losses and the Physical Components That Affect Them [5] 11-4 . and they are not necessarily more efficient. The energy consumption of auxiliary equipment depends on the horsepower of the fans and pumps and the length of time they are running. Some transformers are designed to run the fans and pumps continually.Low-Loss Transformers Losses in Auxiliary Equipment These are losses caused by the use of cooling equipment such as fans and pumps to increase the loading capability of substation transformers. These transformers are identified as “K-rated” or “K-factor” transformers. the losses should be referred to the increased capacity to achieve a fair assessment of the transformer’s efficiency. Auxiliary-equipment losses can be reduced by limiting the operating time of the auxiliary equipment. Losses Due to Harmonics Harmonic currents produced by nonlinear loads increase both load and no-load losses due to increased skin effect. stray. This figure is reproduced from [5].

M–2 and M–3 are very thin for electric steel laminations. Amorphous-core transformers have been researched extensively. highest cost. M–5 and M–6.4% of the transformer rating. No-load losses typically account for a majority of total distribution transformer losses in lightly loaded conditions. and they have great promise for improving the efficiency of the distribution system by significantly decreasing no-load losses. Operating conditions in which distribution transformers are lightly loaded for extended periods throughout the year may provide the optimal conditions for amorphous technologies to be introduced [10]. depending on the needs of the utility. improving insulation between laminations and reducing no-load losses. and the application of controlled mechanical stress. Some common oriented. Core Material The most important step toward low-loss and high-saturable material was the invention of coldroll grain-orientated transformer sheets. and cutting and stacking problems resulting from a thickness in the range of 20–30 microns seem to make its application in power transformers prohibitive [6]. laminations are not cut or punched (as with traditional steel-core laminations). The application of amorphous steel is still limited to distribution transformers.23 mm). which is fundamentally based on two main factors: improved material characteristics (especially of core material) and development of advanced design tools. usually in a rectangular toroid shape. 11-5 . M–4. scratching. and lowest availability. The introduction of laser cutting for laminations has reduced burrs. hence expanding the size of the transformers capable of being produced and improving the actual manufacturing process [10]. the specific losses in the core have been drastically reduced [6]. Oriented steels used in transformers have a crystal structure that allows for improved magnetic properties in a given direction. Extreme brittleness.65 gm/cm3. (0. Also. For a typical standard-steel core transformer. mechanical sensitivity. respectively. recent advancements in the processing of the amorphous material has led to a wider ribbon. By continuous reduction of thickness. Instead. woundcore technology is applied. which is similar to the M–15 nonoriented steel [10]. in which the ribbon is rolled up (not stacked) and wound. no-load losses average about 0. Table 11–1 provides data on the magnetic properties and application types for amorphous metals used in transformer applications and standard oriented silicon steels.007 in. surface polish.Low-Loss Transformers Options to Improve Transformer Efficiency There has been impressive progress in transformer technology in recent decades. The most significant innovation for reducing losses in the transformer core is the use of amorphous steel. improved grain size and orientation. Because of the thin and brittle nature of the amorphous ribbon material. However.15– 0. having a nominal thickness of 0. M–3.009 in. M–2 through M–6 have a density of 7. (0. The M–2 and M–3 grades have the highest efficiency.steel grades are M–2.18 mm) and 0.

HTSCs use liquid nitrogen as a cryogen to cool the transformer windings. which makes them especially attractive for applications in which weight is crucial (for example. Besides. however. and adding some dielectric strength also helped to reduce load losses by improving heat evacuation and increasing the conductor area. HTSC transformers may be suitable in cases in which load factor is very high. high-speed trains) [10]. 11-6 . The possibility of using liquid nitrogen allows utilities to reduce the expenditure for cooling plants by an order of magnitude.4 T Negligible eddycurrent contribution Motors High-frequency inductors Current transformers Oriented M–2 Oriented M–4 Oriented M–6 0. the substance is inert and nontoxic. essentially allowing a better packing density of the winding and reducing losses caused by eddy and circulating currents [6]. Superconducting Transformers High-temperature superconductors (HTSCs) are resistance-free conductors made of ceramics that have superconducting characteristics at much higher temperatures than low-temperature superconducting materials that exhibit superconducting properties at -450 F.5 T 0. These transformers have smaller weight and volume and are more resistant to overload.5 T 53% 71% 76% Electrical distribution and power transformers Large-turbine generators Conductor Material The introduction of continuously transposed conductors (a single conductor subdivided into several flat subconductors that are regularly transposed) influenced the windings design. making the winding thinner. conductors based on ceramic material embedded in silver can be manufactured at lengths of several hundred meters. winding design and insulation improvements.51 W/lb at 1. allowing operation at higher temperatures. which is a precondition for their use in transformers [6]. Core Loss (W/lb) at 60 Hz Eddy-Current Contribution to Core Loss @ 60 Hz and 1.5 T Material Applications Distribution and power transformers Metglas 2605SA1 (as cast) 0. Also. their large-scale commercial application will depend on further steps to reduce cost. At present. The use of HTSC transformers on a large scale will become more attractive as cooling systems improve and the cost of liquid nitrogen production falls.66 W/lb at 1.Low-Loss Transformers Table 11-1 Properties of Common Amorphous Metals and Electric Steels [10].41 W/lb at 1. Another important factor is progress in the processing of long lengths of HTSC s [10].5 T 0.09 W/lb at 1.

will depend upon the transformer loading pattern. Therefore. and a seasonal variation. manufacturers can optimize the design of insulation structure and check losses and vibrations in structural parts with complicated geometry. In order to precisely evaluate transformer load losses over its life-cycle. until the installation become fully loaded and has to be relieved or reinforced. the loading conditions of the transformers connected to radial feeders mostly follow load pattern. should restrict maximum predisturbance loading to below the rated power in many typical applications. if considered. As more precise calculations and simulations of performance can be conducted. This means that the spare capacity. Another important factor that influences transformer loading conditions is that transformer installations must provide sufficient power capacity for back-up services in case of disturbance. as well as thermal performance. and ambient operating temperatures with variable ambient conditions. A certain overload for a limited period of time is permissible in case of a fault. Voltage distribution under transient conditions can be determined by calculation of the frequency and time domain for different voltage shapes and winding arrangements. The loading may prevail for several years before the load current approaches the transformer’s nominal current. considering load losses at rated conditions. This variation is then further combined with a long-term trend of generally rising loading over a number of years. In distribution systems. tolerance and security margins can be substantially reduced. Clearly. it would be more practical to apply a simplified computation to evaluate transformer losses by disregarding temperature variations and.Low-Loss Transformers Advanced Design Tools The use of powerful computer-simulation methods and mathematical models— such as 2D and 3D finite elements methods— allows more precise prediction of electrical and mechanical stress. The load variation in a transmission transformer generally has a daily variation. transformers in transmission and distribution systems usually have a power rating that is considerably higher than the load just after installation. including heat transfer and vibrations. This. load losses will be less significant. consequently. Savings Potentials No-load losses are practically constant (disregarding variations in voltage) during the entire time the transformer is energized. The effect of load losses is more complicated. the energy savings that can be achieved by using more-efficient transformers will depend on the relative impact of no-load and load losses over the total losses during a specific period of time (usually expressed on a yearly basis). in view of the considerable uncertainties of future conditions. However. In 11-7 . tap-changer settings. This situation has to be taken into account when loading conditions are defined for the evaluation of loss evaluation and loss capitalization. during the first period after installation. the ratio of back-up loading over predisturbance or normal conditions is in many cases larger than the ratio of permissible overload over rated load. These tools can also precisely determine short-circuit effects and capabilities. in turn. a weekly variation. a calculation needs to be conducted that takes into account detailed load variations. Hence. the evaluation of the potential energy savings can be conducted by straightforward calculations if the characterization of the fed load is available. Indeed. However. in order to meet future needs. With such advanced tools.

It can be observed that.Low-Loss Transformers transmission systems.CF = transforme r peak load transforme r rated load Eq. Hence. the loading of the different system components does not necessarily follow the load pattern. determining the loafing pattern of a transmission transformer in future years is challenging.LFS = 0. inter-area power flows. 11–2 Eq. 11–1 Eq. new generation. One option is to use a production-simulation model with a detailed representation of the transmission grid to simulate system operation. the prospective transformer loading pattern could be estimated from historical data (assuming that future transformer loads will follow the same patterns) and scaling load values with a given escalation factor. and wheeling. 11–3 Total energy losses can be expressed as a percentage of the total energy that flows through a system in a specific period of time. on the other hand. by means of the following equation: %E loss Where: % NLL + %LL ⋅ CF 2 ⋅ LFS = CF ⋅ LD Eq. as expected. Energy-Saving Potential A qualitative observation of how load patterns and percentages of no-load losses (NLL) and load losses (LL) affect total energy losses is presented below: The total energy loss over a year is: E loss ( kWh yr ) = NLL ( kW ) + LL( kW ) ⋅ LFS ⋅ CF 2 ⋅ 8760 hr yr Where: NLL: No-load loss LL: Load loss LFS: Loss factor . 11–5 Figure 11–2 shows the variation of total transformer loss with respect to the load factor for three different values of no-load loss percentage (%NLL). Another option is to estimate transformer loading variation by a power-flow study. considering a number of representative scenarios and taking into account the expected evolution of the power system within the period of analysis (transmission reinforcement. load forecast. Alternatively. generation dispatch. 11-8 .85 ⋅ LD 2 LD is the load factor. which is defined as LD = average transform er demand maximum transform er demand [ ] Eq.15 ⋅ LD + 0. 11–4 %NLL: Percentage of no-load loss with respect to rated power %LL: Percentage of load loss with respect to rated power CF: Capacity Factor . if these options are not feasible. the impact of the NLL-reduction on the total transformer loss is more significant for low-load factor. demand response programs). it also varies with network topology.

) NLL=0. because the principal improvement is in the core. Indeed. The use of transformers with advanced cores is more efficient for reducing losses in cases in which the transformer is not fully loaded over time.2% NLL=0.3 0. and that total transformer loss varies linearly with respect to NLL and LL percentages. Figure 11–3 shows the variation of the percentage of total load with respect to the C F for the different values of load loss percentage.8 0.u. It is observed that the impact of reducing load losses is more noticeable if the transformer is loaded near to its maximum capacity.Low-Loss Transformers 12 10 8 %Eloss 6 4 2 0 0 0.9 1 Load Factor (p.7 0.1% NLL=0.6 0. the lower the load factor.1 0. The following table shows an example of NLL and LL for different transformers with different core materials [11]. The equation of %Eloss (Figure 11–3) shows that the influence of LL on the total transformer loss is strongly dependant on the capacity factor (CF).5 0. and the more significant the impact of the high-efficiency core in the loss-reduction.05% Figure 11–2 Percentage of Loss Versus Load Factor for Different Values of No-Load Loss (NLL) The loss-reduction that is achieved in high-efficiency transformers is mainly in NLL.4 0.2 0. It can be observed that the lossreduction in advanced-core transformers is much more important in the core losses than in the copper losses. the greater the influence of core loss on the total losses of the transformer. 11-9 .

which is the typical case under peakdemand conditions. the design may accept higher winding losses in favor of more exotic core materials to keep the NLL down. It is observed that the effect of LL-reduction in the total transformer load is more noticeable when the CF is high. This equation shows that power loss varies linearly with NLL as well as with LL. Figure 11–4 depicts the variations of the transformer power loss (%Ploss) with respect to the variation of the CF.4% Figure 11–3 Percentage of Loss Versus Capacity Factor for Different Values of Load Loss (LL) Thus. 11-10 . A substation transformer that is lightly loaded for most of its life will have a larger no-load penalty.4 0.2 0. This is a huge driver in what makes every power transformer design unique. and that the influence of the latter is significantly affected by the C F. 11–6 Where the variables and parameters are the ones defined previously. Peak-Demand Reduction Potential The demand losses of a power transformer expressed as a percentage of the maximum power flow through it can be evaluated as follows: %Ploss = %NLL + %LL * CF2 CF Eq.8 0.5 0. the optimal design of a substation transformer is a trade-off between improvements in core losses and in winding losses.9 1 Capacity Factor (p.7 0. For such a transformer.6% LL=0.6 0.u.Low-Loss Transformers 6 5 4 %Eloss 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 0.3 0. parameterized for three different values of LL percentage.8% LL=0.) LL=0.

2% NLL=0.2 1.15 1.95 1 1.9 0.8 0.9 0. Therefore.05 1.25 1. improving NLL has less influence on reducing system peak demand than it does on reducing transformer LL.6 0.3 Use Factor (FU) NLL=0.25 1.85 0. 1 0.4% Figure 11–4 Percentage of Power Loss for Different Values of Load Loss (Ploss) On the contrary.85 0.2 1 % Ploss 0.05% Figure 11–5 Percentage of Power Loss for Different Values of No-Load Loss (Po) 11-11 .6% LL=0.4 0.05 1.6 0.95 1 1.9 0.15 1.1% NLL=0.7 0. as illustrated in Figure 11–5.3 Capacity Factor (CF) LL=0.8 % Ploss 0.4 1.8% LL=0.5 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.8 0.2 0 0.2 1. the effect of reduction in the NLL on the total transformer loss is less important under high C F conditions.1 1.Low-Loss Transformers 1.

Low-Loss Transformers Conventional Evaluation of Loss Capitalization and Optimal Transformer Design In order to perform an economical analysis of a transformer. 11–8 ( ) Eq. The TOC method consists of determining the capitalized cost of the transformer’s losses over its lifetime and weighing that cost against its purchase price. The TOC is evaluated using the following formula: TOC = TC + A ⋅ NLL + B ⋅ LL Eq. The transformer that meets the transformer purchaser’s technical specifications with the lowest TOC becomes the most costeffective transformer. the total capitalized cost of the transformer. Usually. the A and B factors can be determined as follows [9]: A = PWF ⋅ (SC + EC ⋅ AF ⋅ 8760 ) B = PWF ⋅ SC + EC ⋅ LF ⋅ CF 2 ⋅ 8760 In these formulas. EC: Levelized annual cost of energy in $/kWh 11-12 . including such factors as transportation and sales Utilities assign an equivalent present value for the LL. 11–9 PWF = (i + 1)n − 1 i ⋅ (i + 1) n : Present worth factor n: useful life of the transformer in years SC: Levelized annual cost of system capacity in $/kW. The manufacturer then starts the complex design process to obtain a transformer design that performs best. Eq. In the case of substation transformers.and NLL-evaluation factors (A and B). the loss-evaluation figures A and B are submitted to the transformer manufacturers in the request for a quotation. The most widely used technique for economic evaluations of transformers is the so-called total owing cost (TOC) method. it includes the capacity cost of generation and transmission. 11–7 Where: TOC: stands for total owing cost NLL = no-load loss in kW A = capitalized cost per rated kW of NLL (A factor) LL = load loss in kW at the transformer’s rated load B = capitalized cost per rated kW of LL (B factor) TC = the initial cost of the transformer. it is necessary to calculate the life cycle of the transformer over its life span: that is. using the same formula. Based on the transformer loss-evaluation guide developed by the Transformer Committee of the IEEE [8].

In substation transformers. A sensitivity analysis of the previous equations shows that the interest rate and the A factor have a negative correlation. Usually. The levelized C F is then determined by a three-step process: 1) determine transformer peak load for each year. factor B is one third to one fourth the value of factor A. and 3) take the present worth of each peak load and levelize it into the transformer’s lifetime.97/watt and B=$1. the capitalized cost of transformer auxiliary losses can be added to the TOC formula. They range from a low of A = $2/watt to a high of $13/watt. whereas the most influencing parameter on the factor B is the load [15]. and with changes in operating conditions resulting from congestion or transmission security constraints. 2) project peak load into future years (if necessary). Energy price and lifetime present a direct correlation. Transformer loading can change substantially with changes in network topology resulting from transmission-system reinforcement. Transformer Loading If the load of the transformer is considered to grow at a constant growth rate (such as can be true in the case of a distribution transformer). a long-term period is assumed for transformer economic evaluation (20–30 years). transformer loading stabilizes after some years as loads approach transformer rated capacity. transformer loading.64/watt [18]. This means that a higher interest rate leads to a lower A factor. used by utilities to evaluate transformer bids. whereas interest rate presents the same behavior as that for factor A. Higher values correspond to users who have updated their numbers recently. The value of auxiliary losses is the same as the calculation of the NLL. Factors A and B. with the incorporation of new generation facilities. it may not be possible or practical to determine the peak load for each study year by means of power-flow studies. In some cases. In such cases. referred to the transformer rated power. as determined by Equation 11–2 CF: Levelized capacity factor. Generally. This is the levelized peak load per year over the lifetime of the transformer. The uncertainty in the future price of the transformer in the future is important if the economical study reveals that the replacement should be made some years ahead. the transmission loading over the years may not follow the load growth pattern. The parameter that impacts factor A the most is the energy price. For example. are widely dispersed nationally. except that the actual or estimated operating time is taken into account [8]. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation uses the following values for A and B coefficients: A = $6. considering that the loading pattern will not change substantially. Load and energy price have a direct correlation in factor B. and transformer lifetime. a close equation could be used to evaluate the levelized CF. The determination of coefficients A and B is difficult because it is subject to a number of uncertainties. the principal ones being cost of energy. 11-13 . the transformer peak load for the first years is determined by power-flow studies and it is then projected for the following years. Typically.Low-Loss Transformers AF: Transformer availability factor (the portion of time that the transformer is predicted to be energized) LF: Annual loss factor. based on their current outlook for energy and capacity costs [16]. 8760: hours per year For large transformers.

the estimated transformer price is very difficult to obtain. and reduced emissions. and subsequent material selections make each case a one-of-a-kind design. Transportation is also a big issue for large power transformers. and the manufacturer integrates them into the cost of transformer design. 1 The use of advanced materials and manufacturing processes for the core and winding to reduce losses (for example. For feasibility studies of loss-reduction measures. a more efficient transformer will be heavier and have a higher investment cost. Cost estimates are even more uncertain if the transformer replacement is evaluated for future years. These losses are affected mainly by the material quality (core steel) and the design (magnetic flux control). Indeed. the cost of environmental externalities should be included. 1 11-14 . but also all other costs incurred in a transformer installation (such as transportation and foundations). deferred infrastructure. this variation is not linear. thus reducing LL but requiring a larger core (and with corresponding increases in NLL. not only transformer cost should be included in the total investment cost. short-circuit forces will set the amount of copper needed to withstand those forces. a wide range of transformer designs with lower losses can be achieved. large transformers have unique characteristics. The designer evaluates options to improve transformer efficiency to a level that makes economic sense. by increasing the cross section of the winding conductor and/or the core. As was stated in Section 3. Cost of Environmental Externalities The above expressions of A and B coefficient do not account for the environmental cost of losses. the customer provides the values of A and B. Therefore. in the evaluation of options for more-efficient transformers. The designer works out the best compromise between the initial cost and the power-loss expenditure. For lowerimpedance transformers. a very high-efficiency transformer can be economically justified while yielding great benefits in energy savings. laser-scribed steel to reduce NLL and finely divided transposed cable to improve LL) also increases the transformer’s cost. However. and the reduction in pollution and carbon emissions. There is clearly a relationship between transformer cost and the amount of transformer losses. Basic parameters like voltage ratio and impedance. in which the cost of losses is included. the decision for the implementation of any particular project to enhance transmission energy efficiency should be based on a benefit/cost analysis from the point of view of the overall interests of society. The quantity of material will be higher. Indeed. the investment in generation and transmission infrastructure. by increasing the conductor size. and it is therefore difficult to establish typical transformer prices. as discussed in Section 4. In the case of substation transformers. because flux density does not vary). emission costs need to be included in the A and B factors. which include the benefits from reducing the cost of energy losses. because more material is needed to reduce NLL and LL. In general terms. seeking to optimize losses. the cost of the transformer is usually based on a competitive tendering process.Low-Loss Transformers Transformer Investment Cost and Efficiency A transformer’s final price is an outcome of the design process. If the TOC is to be used to evaluate design alternatives. Besides. for the integral evaluation of highefficiency transformers as an option to reduce transmission losses in a cost-effective manner. There is a balance in the degree to which copper and steel quantity can be augmented—for example. Therefore. and so will the transformer cost. the loss evaluation. A transformer’s efficiency is inversely proportional to its total losses. Increasing the weight of the transformer may significantly increase the transportation cost (up to 30% of the transformer price).

power transformers are a major concern. It requires an intimate understanding of corporate risk tolerance. Assets management consists of decision-making processes that have the goal of deriving the most value from utility assets within the available budget. the various decision alternatives that are available (including testing). such as substation transformers. its failure will result in a loss of service—including considerable expenses associated with lost revenue. age. The decision to replace or repair an important asset such as a large transformer is quite complex. The framework takes a life-cycle costing approach that enables corporate financial managers and regulators to assess the multi-year financial impacts of maintaining specific classes of power-delivery infrastructure assets. however. and the basic data needed to support the decision model. and the prevailing business and regulatory environment. because each unit serves a large number of customers. It is clear from the above discussion that the economics of transformer management—and consequently transformer replacement— is a complex process. the replacement decision and options are determined by a utility’s assets-management division. In a recent report [13]. The Cigre report [14] presents a guide to help transformer assets managers perform economic evaluations of proposed solutions. the cost of NLL will be too high to consider keeping the unit. The older the transformer (iron losses have improved to one-fifth their value in the past 80 years). the easier will be the effort to justify the cost of the new transformer. A simplified general approach for evaluating replacement with higher-efficiency transformers is presented below. Several reports suggest that if the unit is more than 35 –40 years old. replacement. EPRI has conducted an intense investigation related to asset-management in the electricity industry. In some cases. or other collateral costs. A significant focus of EPRI’s asset-management research in recent years has been on developing a rational basis for selecting repair or replacement options for specific classes of equipment by balancing the risks of equipment failure against the costs of continued maintenance or capital replacement. it can generally be said that replacement of existing transformers with higher-efficiency transformers is only economically feasible if the replacement decision has already been made for other reasons—such as failure (that cannot be repaired). 11-15 . Assets managers have responsibility for valuable and technically complex assets such as transformers that are crucial to the operating and financial performance of a utility. in comparison to the significantly lower losses of a modern unit [6]. EPRI presents a decision framework that enables utilities to generate business cases for asset-management policies. A body of literature on asset-management theory and practice is available. current investment strategy. replacing old transformers with high-loss steels before end-of-life may be economically sound. The risk-cost of continuing to operate the asset under the existing conditions is of major importance. which will vary significantly from one utility to the other. or under-capacity.Low-Loss Transformers Transformer-Replacement Options Because large transformers are expensive pieces of equipment. Table 11–2 presents a situation in which the option of using a more-efficient transformer can be evaluated. Usually. The analytical tools presented in the above report share a basic framework for decision-making that specifies the evolution of the condition of the asset population over time. Therefore. Considerations about the use of higher-efficiency transformers as an option to replace existing units should be embedded into the utility’s asset-management procedure and practice.

refurbishment) • New lower-efficiency transformer • New higher-efficiency transformer Replace with a new moreefficient transformer at a different point of life than the existing unit Less life-cycle cost • Externalities: CO2 value • Early replacement to improve efficiency • No No Less life-cycle cost • Break-even point • Externalities: CO2 value A) Replacement Decided In this case. maintenance. or the need for higher capacity. less-efficient transformer or a more-expensive. as presented above. environmental considerations. energy-efficient transformer. the unit replacement has already been decided upon for different reasons—such as completion of life. The TOC procedure. failure or damage that cannot be repaired. the decision is whether to purchase a low-cost. and spare optimization can be conducted. Rewinding a transformer can result in increased life and reduced losses if the windings are replaced with a larger conductor or an 11-16 . or to repair it now and replace it later. In this situation. Reinsulation can result in longer life and increased capacity if insulation with a higher temperature capability is used. but also transportation risks. A more comprehensive evaluation. the possibility of applying different repair options will depend upon the damage to and conditions of the existing unit. rewinding. including not only price and loss capitalization. The options are: • Full repair: – – – Reinsulation Rewinding Refurbishment • New transformer Clearly. interchangeability. applies to this case. B) Failure or Trouble Unit The decision in this case is whether to replace the trouble transformer with a new unit.Low-Loss Transformers Table 11-2 Description of Options for Transformer Replacement Transformer Replacement Decided? Decision to Take the Unit Out of Service • Decision-Making Criterion • Situation • • • • • Options Failure (no repair ) Age Under-capacity Failure Trouble unit Yes Yes New lower-efficiency transformer • New higher-efficiency transformer • Less life-cycle cost • Externalities: CO2 value • No Yes Repair (reinsulation.

the economic analysis consists of evaluating: • • • TOC of the replace-now option TOC of the repair-now-and-replace-later option (more than one repair option can be considered) Comparison of the TOCs of the different options In order for the LCC comparison analysis to be consistent. In this case. although the absolute values would be different. It involves weighing the increased life-span and reduced losses resulting from replacing the existing unit against the cost of replacing it. however. The unit may have a scrap value. The following formulas can be applied: • Option 1:Replace now. The economic analysis is performed by comparing the life-cycle cost (LCC) of each option. The cost of replacement is dependent on whether the unit is to be replaced with a new unit or to be repaired. nuts. there is no cost associated with salvage. either to repair it or replace it. If the unit is to be replaced rather than repaired. the TOC formula (Equation 11–7) is modified to include the salvage value of the existing transformer. In the LCC analysis . the extended lifetime of the repaired unit needs to be estimated to determine the timing of the later replacement. Refurbishment involves minor replacement of transformer parts such as connectors. Thus. Note. if the option is to repair now and replace later. Therefore. the same analysis period should be considered for the different options. The TOC formula is used to determine which option is the most cost-effective. The LCC analysis in this case is based on the assumption that the transformer is taken out of service. and it is not included in the analysis. The scrap value is subtracted from the cost of a new unit. if one chooses the replace-now option).Low-Loss Transformers advanced conductor design. and bushings. Refurbishment is intended to extend transformer life and is usually done on-site. Therefore. gaskets. However. however. the scrap or residual value of the old unit needs to be included in the TOC formula. this value may well be offset by the cost of disposing of the potentially contaminated parts and clean-up services. The scrap value is dependent upon the condition of the older unit and whether the unit can be sold and recycled. The cost of rewinding can be significantly less than the cost of replacing an existing transformer with a new unit. that the remnants of a failed unit can have both positive and negative implications on the repair or replace decision. the salvage cost can be considered at the time the repaired transformer is replaced by a new unit. the costs of reinstalling the transformer is the same for both alternatives. 11–10 11-17 . Comparing transformer costs using present values or capitalized cost does not change the comparison. In the case of unit repair. the TOC for the replace-now (RN) option is TOCRN = Cost of new transformer – salvage value + (Cost of NLL of replacement) + (Cost of LL of replacement) Eq. The decision of whether to replace a transformer with a new unit or to repair it is an economic one. The analysis period can be considered as the lifetime of a new transformer (that is.the present values for capital and energy are calculated by taking the present value of the capitalized TOC. In this case.

it includes the capacity cost of generation and transmission. 11–11 Where: TOCRL: total owing cost of the replace-later option RC: cost of repair N: expected lifetime of the repaired transformer n: total analysis period (the useful lifetime of a new transformer NLLRT = no-load loss of the repaired transformer in kW LLRT = load loss of the repaired transformer in kW at the transformer’s rated load ART = capitalized cost per rated kW of NLL for the repaired transformer (A factor) BRT = capitalized cost per rated kW of LL for the repaired transformer (B factor) TCNT = cost of purchasing a new transformer in year N SVET = salvage value of the repaired unit in year N transformer K Nn = n−N : multiplier to lower the investment cost of the new transformer in year N n A RT = PWFRT ⋅ (SC + EC ⋅ AF ⋅ 8760 ) : no-load factor for the repaired transformer B RT = PWF RT ⋅ SC + EC ⋅ LF ⋅ CF 2 ⋅ 8760 : load factor for the repaired transformer ( ) A NT = PWF NT ⋅ (SC + EC ⋅ AF ⋅ 8760 ) : no-load factor for the new transformer installed in B NT = PWF NT ⋅ SC + EC ⋅ LF ⋅ CF 2 ⋅ 8760 : load factor for the new transformer installed in year N In these formulas.Low-Loss Transformers • Option 2: Repair now and replace later. SC: levelized annual cost of system capacity in $/kW. ( year N ) PWF RT = PWF NT = (i + 1)N − 1 i ⋅ (i + 1) N : present-worth factor for the lifetime of the repaired transformer (i + 1)n − 1 (i + 1)N − 1 i ⋅ (i + 1) n − i ⋅ (i + 1) N : present-worth value of the period (n–N) for the new transformer installed in year N. TOC RL = RC + A RT ⋅ NLL RT + B RT ⋅ LL RT + + A NT ⋅ NLL NT + B NT ⋅ LL NT 1 (1 + i) N (K Nn ⋅ TC NT − SVRT ) + Eq.) 11-18 . (In the case of substation transformers.

The breakeven point is determined by calculating the PV of the TOC of the replacement. 8760: hours per year Table 11–3 describes the costs considered in Equations 11–10 and 11–11 for the calculation of TOC [9]. Losses from year N+1 to n are the same in both alternatives. The TOCs calculated for these various replacement times are then 11-19 . Also. which is the point in time in the transformer’s remaining life when it becomes cost-effective to do the replacement.Low-Loss Transformers EC: levelized annual cost of energy in $/kWh. present value will be less than in the “replace-now” option when the capital cost of the new transformer can be sufficiently delayed. assuming various times of replacement. C) Early Replacement to Improve Efficiency The objective in this case is to evaluate whether it is cost-effective to replace an existing transformer with a more-efficient transformer. (This is the levelized peak load per year over the total analysis period (n years). In the “repairnow-and-replace-later” option. Table 11-3 Evaluation Process for “Repair-Now-And-Replace-Later” Option Costs to Consider Year 1 2 to N N Option 1: Repair-Now AndReplace-Later Repair cost plus levelized energy of repaired transformer Levelized energy of repaired transformer Takedown and reinstall cost plus levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer Levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer Option 2: Replace-Now Levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer Levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer Levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer Levelized energy and capital cost of new transformer N to n The “replace-now” option eliminates the repair takedown and reinstalling cost in year N. The cost-effectiveness of the two alternatives is a weighing of the value of energy efficiency against the remaining life of the repaired transformer. The calculation in this case involves determining if the present value (PV) of early replacement of the existing transformer is more than offset by the present-worth savings of installing a more-efficient transformer. as determined by Equation 11–2 CF: levelized capacity factor. referred to the transformer rated power. The basic assumption here is that the existing transformer does not need to be repaired or replaced. and that it can be in use as it is up to the end of its expected life. AF: transformer-availability factor (the portion of time that the transformer is predicted to be energized) LF: annual loss factor. it allows the utility to reduce loss cost in years 2 through N if the new transformer is more efficient than the existing one. The analysis is aimed at determining the break-even point.

2007. This cost is weighted by the transformer failure rate to take into account the probabilistic nature of transformer failure. 198.Low-Loss Transformers presented in a graph: TOC versus year of replacement. ORNL–6847. Electra Nr. Energy-efficient transformers tend to be more reliable. Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers. 2007. Transformer Technology State of the Art and Future Trends. DOE. Intelligent Energy Europe. TOC = initial cost + failure cost + no-load-loss cost + load-loss cost The cost of failure should reflect not only the cost of repairing or replacing the failed unit. [5]. [2]. Therefore. This exponential curve is compared with the straight-line TOC of replacing the existing transformer when it reaches its life expectancy. Dallas–Fort Worth. Project No. The point at which these two curves intersect one another is the break-even point. The repair cost (RC) is set to zero. 11-20 . TX (May 20.419632. 2009).” EPRI’s Green Transmission Efficiency Initiative Regional Workshop Series. 2001. June 2008. so that the extreme option of replacing the transformer in year 1 (N=1) is covered. Oct. EIE/05/056/SI2. CIGRE. The total period analysis (n) could be selected as the expected lifetime of a new transformer. July 1996. Equation 11–11 can be used in this case to determine the break-even point and compare alternatives. This is because energy-efficient transformers have less losses and internal heating. “Power Transformer Efficiency. The lower heating reduces the deterioration of the insulation and extends the life of the transformer. Oakridge National Laboratory. then it is costeffective to replace the existing transformer with a more-efficient one. consideration of reliability cost may positively impact the decisions to replace aging transformers with energy-efficient transformers. Reliability Consideration The simplified approach for evaluating transformer-replacement options described above does not include the costs associated with expected transformer failure. The impact of reliability on transformer economics can be accounted for by including the cost of failure in the TOC. Selecting Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers – A Guide for Achieving Least-Cost Solutions. References [1]. Abderaahmane Zouaghi. [6]. because the basic assumption is that the transformer does not need to be replaced or repaired before its lifetime is over. but also the expenses resulting from the loss of service and other collateral costs. [3]. ABB. [4]. If the remaining life of the existing transformer is greater than the break-even point. Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards: Final Rule. Transformer Handbook.

NEMA Standards Publication. Issue 6.120–1991 (R2000). Pavlos S.4.K. Barcelona (October 2007). Barry W. CIGRE. EPRI. Manuel Silvestre. [12]. Kennedy. CIGRE. IEEE C57. Palo Alto. [15]. 2009). [16]. TP 1–2002. CA: 1992. Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers. David Dittmann. pp. “Potential for Improved Transformers Efficiency. EPRI.Low-Loss Transformers [7]. Palo Alto. June 2004. [11]. and J. T. Atlanta. [19]. “Reducing Electric System Losses. 236..” EPRI’s Green Transmission Efficiency Initiative Regional Workshop Series. [8].50–56 (Nov/Dec 1998). EPRI. [17]. “Applying High-Efficiency Transformers.” 9th International Conference. Tsili. 4. GA (June 15. Electrical Power Quality and Utilization. N. Haggerty. CA: 2006.” Industry Applications Magazine. Technical and Economic Assessment. 1017898. Electra Nr. [14]. Distribution System Loss Evaluation. “Energy Efficient Transformer Selection Implementing Life Cycle Costs and Environmental Externalities. 2008). 1012505. Amoiralis. [9]. [13]. CA: 2009. Reduction. 11-21 . Eleftherios I. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. Amorphous Steel Core Distribution Transformers. [18]. Amorphous Metal Transformer: Next Steps. EFACEC Power Transformers Inc. 1016096. IEEE Loss Evaluation Guide for Power Transformers and Reactors. Palo Alto. Palo Alto. Kladas. and Antonios G. Energy Efficient Transformers. WG A2. Guide on Economics of Transformer Management. CA: 2008.20. McGraw Hill 1998. Report AG A2. Power Transformers Technology Review and Assessments. TR100295. 2008. EPRI. Crouse. [10]. Substation Transformer Asset Management and Testing Methodology. Marina A. Malone. IEEE Vol.P.” NYS DPS Technical Conference (July 17.. Georgilakis.

.

Without system-wide coordination and optimization. The main emphasis of this section is the reduction in transmission loss that can be achieved from the hierarchical dynamic voltage control based on the decrease of megavolt amperes reactive (MVAR) flows in the system. the main elements of which are based on – – – Primary (local) voltage regulation Secondary (regional) voltage regulation Tertiary (system-wide) voltage regulation • • • • Simulation results from Italy quantifying the system loss-reduction A cost/benefit analysis of the application of a hierarchical control system Estimation of the possible savings for application in the United States Introduction In North America. This section covers issues such as: • • The present methods of controlling transmission busses in the United States.12 HIERARCHICAL DYNAMIC VOLTAGE CONTROL TO HELP REDUCE TRANSMISSION LOSS This section discusses the concept of reducing transmission losses by controlling the voltage of certain predefined busses in the system. transmission-grid voltages and reactive powers are at present mainly controlled in a decentralized way. transmission losses will be increased. However. 12-1 . Even worse. system operators may manually dispatch the reactive powers of generating units. Belgium. Italy. In the control center. massive MVAR flows may frequently occur to maintain voltage reliability of weak-voltage areas using remote reactive power sources. and change the voltage set-points of on-load tap changers (OLTC) and FACTS controllers. which may not lead to minimum system efficiencies The alternate approaches for voltage control and reactive power management: hierarchical dynamic voltage-control technologies that have been developed and deployed at control centers in France. switch the banks of shunt capacitors or reactors. it is difficult for system operators to optimally coordinate these control actions at the system level under ever-changing operating conditions. and China The methodology of a typical hierarchical voltage control. As a result. system loadability in terms of voltage stability may be degraded and increase the risk of voltage collapse. schedule the high-side voltages of power plants. at the power plant/substation level.

but only limited consideration by power companies. • Tertiary (System-Wide) Voltage Regulation At the top. the capacitors and reactors involved in automatic voltage control. a voltage control program) performs the coordination of control resources within each voltage-control zone. static VAR compensators. aiming at more-efficient automatic voltage control and reactive power management. as determined by tertiary voltage regulation. In Brazil. The TVR dynamically provides each SVR with the optimal voltage references at the pilot buses of that voltage-control zone. generators or synchronous compensators fitted with automatic voltage regulators (AVR). using the SVR’s outputs as references. A secondary (regional) voltage regulator (SVR) (that is. concepts about hierarchical dynamic voltage control have received academic attention. The time scale of this regulation level ranges from 100 ms up to several seconds. system-wide optimization and coordination are performed by a tertiary (central) voltage regulator (TVR) (that is. similar coordinated voltage-control concepts are also under consideration [10]. Typically. and automatic load tap changers). In North America. along with their advantages in improving voltage reliability and energy efficiency. each SVR is implemented every one to a few minutes. aiming at improving voltage quality and reliability. The actual voltages of pilot buses are obtained either from the SCADA system or via special measurement devices and communication channels. hierarchical dynamic voltage-control technologies have been developed and deployed at control centers in Europe and China [1–9]. The setpoints are adjusted either automatically by the SVR (for automatic closed-loop voltage control) or manually by the operator. These optimal voltage references are determined by solving 12-2 . as shown in Figure 12–1: • Primary (Local) Voltage Regulation Primary voltage regulation is performed by dispersed primary voltage regulators (PVRs). a number of pilot buses are chosen whose voltages can be used to represent the voltage profile of the entire zone. which are local voltage-control devices installed at power plants or substations. which remotely receive commands from the upper-level control programs via communication channels (for example. a central control program). In each zone. These technologies can help to significantly reduce the risk of voltage insecurity and transmission loss by temporarily and spatially hierarchical optimization and coordination of reactive power resources. The SVR is responsible for adjusting the set-points of all the PVRs to minimize the differences between the pilot buses’ actual voltages and their optimal voltage references. • Secondary (Regional) Voltage Regulation The transmission grid is divided into voltage-control zones. The purpose of this section is to give an overview of hierarchical dynamic voltage-control technologies (including the methodology of a representative three-level voltage-regulation strategy) and existing solutions and implementations in Europe and China. Methodology of Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control A typical hierarchical dynamic voltage-control strategy adopts three voltage-regulation levels.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Since the 1980s.

respectively. every 10 minutes to 1 hour for automatic closed-loop tertiary voltage regulation).Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss optimal reactive power flow (ORPF) according to the current state estimation result (and probably its future changes. or be installed at the grid-control center and subgrid-control centers of voltage-control zones. foreseen over a certain period). In order to preserve temporal independence from SVRs. the TVR and SVRs can both be installed at the grid-control center (as indicated in Figure 12–1). The optimization objective could be to minimize the overall transmission loss. the response time of the TVR is slower (typically. In each voltage-control zone. Figure 12–2 presents the interactions between the three voltage-regulation levels. Figure 12–1 Typical Structure for Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control 12-3 .

following important disturbances). This section briefly introduces different hierarchical dynamic voltage-control solutions in Belgium. Every 15 minutes. the SVR algorithm has to take them into account. using an optimal power flow with dedicated objective function. a tertiary voltage control (TVC) scheme is computed. As in normal operation. Conceptually. It commands all voltage-control measures and provides 12-4 . using an ORPF. Solution in Belgium Coordinated voltage control has been in operation since 1998 to support the Belgian grid. Italy.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Figure 12–2 Typical Closed-Loop Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage-Control Strategy Existing Solutions of Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control Although hierarchical dynamic voltage control theoretically utilizes three levels to ensure both reliable and economic voltage regulation. and shunt capacitor bank switching under constraints of voltage limits and reactive power area balance. The TVC optimizes the voltage over the whole control area. following a disturbance). 15 minutes) or at a dispatcher's request (for example. voltage control is considered as having a hierarchical structure. and China. If interactions between neighboring zones occur. a secondary. utilities may customize their solutions. transformer tap setting. France. and a tertiary level. The SVR controls the voltage of a pilot bus in each zone by modifying the set-points of neighboring generators. The TVC automatically runs at regular time intervals (for example. including a primary generator (AVR). It optimizes generator reactive reserve geographic spread. typically at a 10second rate. the discontinuous (discrete) measures (capacitors and tap changers) can be adjusted at a much slower rate. or upon request (for example.

A 15-minute computation frequency of the TVC has proven sufficient. These constraints are of the hard type. The TVC manages to require only a limited number of transformer tap-changer actions (typically a 5–10% daily rise and fall of the transformer winding ratio). but at present it is not automated. a TVR is applied to optimize the nationwide voltage profile. This measure involves determining optimal voltage references for the pilot nodes in order to achieve reliable and economic system operation. the voltages in the system.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss the SVR parameters (for example. These constraints can be hard or soft. The introduction of a one-tap-wide dead band has proven to be sufficient to eliminate transformer tap oscillations. The correct operation of this core objective requires that the global import-export balance of reactive power from the neighboring systems tends to zero MVAR. Solution in France The hierarchical dynamic voltage control on French extra-high-voltage (EHV) networks operates at three levels: primary voltage regulation. At the top level. the import/export of reactive power globally. • • Experience from the Belgian System The TVC manages to realize a geographically flat voltage level within a 3% margin with respect to the maximum voltage level allowed by the equipment manufacturers. 12-5 . The TVR is designed to act around every 20 minutes. so as to avoid risking oscillation or instability [11]. Standardization of the voltage drop of generator AVR to ± 10% HV voltage drop on rated MVAR scale yields a fairly robust automatic reaction to grid disturbances. This level has a response time of a few minutes and compensates against slower voltage variations.The voltage/reactive power policy must be translated in a mathematical form suited to the optimization tool that will be used.TVC closed-loop operation is the long-term goal. This measure minimizes necessary TVC runs in between the regular quarter-hour calculations. and tertiary voltage regulation. Voltage limits: These are managed as soft constraints. However. these levels are temporally and spatially independent and do not interact with each other. within which voltage is controlled individually. pilot bus voltages). depending on the case and the circumstances. It will depend upon the amount of confidence that the TVC proves to deserve in reality. mainly because of a judicious standardization of AVR voltage drop. Optimization Process: The actual optimization is carried out by linear programming. Different constraints are used for the reactive power delivered by the generating units. The main goal of the alignment objective function is to spread and maximize the reactive reserves of the different generators taking part in the voltage control of the system. secondary voltage regulation. imposed by penalties. • Hard Type: Generators must operate within their declared capabilities but could be modified transiently. taking into account particular situations at the generator level. A faster and more precise type of SVR system—coordinated secondary voltage regulation (CSVR)—has been in use in western France since 1998. and it is eventually expected to take over from the existing SVR system. which has been widely implemented since 1979. The SVR system. and on a line-by-line basis. involves splitting the network up into theoretically noninteracting voltage-control zones.

This system is constituted of regional voltage regulators (RVR) that coordinate the operation of more local SVR controllers. starting from the foreseen/current state estimation. This power-flow software computes—in short (the day ahead). The system is an automatic voltage-regulation system with a distributed controller. Intuitively. time intervals—the forecasted optimal voltages and reactive levels. The selection of pilot nodes is critical to the success of the control scheme. This situation is achieved by having an ORPF for losses-minimization control (LMC). The basic concept for this system is that voltage control for a country can be achieved by regulating the voltage at a relatively small number of critical points called pilot nodes. 1 a hierarchical voltage control system (Figure 12–3) is being tested [11–14]. If the system had static voltage compensators (SVC) and/or static synchronous compensators (STATCOMs). Network busses that have a very high electrical coupling define a network area (NA). At the top level of the hierarchy is a slow controller (operating time in minutes) called a TVR that sends signals to switch capacitor and reactor banks and to block or unblock the operation of OLTC for distribution transformers. The SVR controllers work through hardware called REPORT controllers to update the voltage set-points for the AVR on electric generators. or very short (minutes ahead). the REPORT controllers would also control their reference voltage settings. there should be minimum coupling between adjacent pilot nodes to minimize their interaction and simplify the control.000 MW. 12-6 . The NA pilot node is the bus that is able to strongly affect the voltage of the other busses in the NA. these nodes must be strongly coupled to the surrounding nodes so that a change in voltage at the pilot node will be reflected throughout the area. The pilot node also should remain a pilot node during reasonable contingencies that remove transmission lines or 1 Peak load about 55.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Solution in Italy Figure 12–3 Italian Hierarchical Voltage-Control System [11] In Italy. However. The TVR has to have a preferred voltage profile for the system.

this control loop has a time constant of about 0. After an area is defined. In the Italian system. Obviously. each with a pilot node and an SVR controller (see Figure 12–4 from [12]). The SVR directs REPORT controllers located at the major thermal and hydro generating stations. Including generator time constants. The pilot nodes in the Italian system were chosen based on short-circuit capacities and on a concept called sensitivity-matrix couplings. and the process is repeated by selecting the bus outside the area with the highest short-circuit capacity as the next pilot node. The pilot-node voltage references are automatically set by a TVR that performs a real-time optimization analysis that may be updated approximately every 5 minutes. and the selection of pilot nodes is somewhat of an art. The Italian power system—with a peak load of 55. there are contradictions among these desired characteristics. and its gains are established to provide a time constant of about 50 seconds. It is likely formed by injecting a defined amount of reactive power at a prospective pilot node and computing the change in bus voltage at other busses in the network. The integral gain for the REPORT control that changes the voltage reference for the AVR is set to provide a time constant of about 5 seconds. the shortest time constant is the closed-loop control of generator voltage provided by the AVR.5 seconds.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss generating plants. To minimize interaction between control levels. 12-7 . Busses with low coupling coefficients are outside the area. The next higher-level control in the SVR establishes the desired reactive power level for the REPORT controllers. The REPORT controllers change voltage-reference settings for AVR's on individual generators. all busses in the area are eliminated from further consideration.000 MVAR's—was subdivided into 18 regions.000 MW and a reactive capability of about 20. Busses with the highest coupling coefficients are considered to be within the NA. The sensitivity matrix expresses the dependence of the grid's bus voltages on reactive power injections with primary voltage regulation operating. the proportional and integral gains are generally chosen to provide the shortest time constant at the lowest control level and so that the time constants at the next higher level are about an order of magnitude longer. The bus with the highest short-circuit capacity was chosen as the first pilot node.

The top three levels are following: 1) Regional grids. and more than 20 area grids. 10 provincial grids. South China. A three-level automatic voltage-control (AVC) strategy was developed by Tsinghua University [16–17] and implemented in Jiangsu Provincial Grid in 2002 [18]. So far. using recorded real system data [17]. whose control centers are responsible for provincial transmission systems at 500/220kV 3) Area grids. whose control centers monitor and control main substations/power plants and interprovince tie lines at 500kV 2) Provincial grids. research and development activities on hierarchical dynamic voltage-control applications were started in the early 1990s. it has been deployed at three regional (North Cnina. whose control centers are responsible for transmission systems at 110kV and below 12-8 . and East China) grids whose total capacity exceeds 300GW.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Figure 12–4 Italian Control Areas for Secondary Voltage Regulation Solution in China In China. China’s hierarchical AVC strategy adopts the typical system architecture in Figure 12–5 and has the following features: 2 China’s power grids are operated at multiple levels. 2 An off-line evaluation study of the strategy’s potential profits to the PJM power system is ongoing.

“Open loop” means that the strategy provided operators with suggestions of the PVRs’ set-points as references for voltage control. The AVC strategy for a power grid receives control actions from the AVC strategy at its highest level and is able to coordinate the AVC strategies for multiple lower-level power grids. For example. For each zone. In December 2003. Figure 12–5 Main Power Plants Controlled by Jiangsu Provincial Grid’s AVC Strategy 12-9 . the AVC strategy at a regional power grid not only controls the set-points of its main power plants but also coordinates the AVC strategies at the provincial power grids in its region. the SVR optimizes the set-points of the high voltages of power plants and VAR compensators.6 GW.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss • The TVR performs an online zone division algorithm to generate adaptive voltagecontrol zones adapting to system operating conditions. generated on-line by the TVR under two operating conditions: four zones and five zones. SVRs will be reconfigured for those zones. which has the largest generating capacity (about 30GW) among all provincial grids. respectively. Once control zones are determined.2 second. Figure 12–6 from [19] shows two control-zone division strategies. ORPF is solved on the network with 407 buses and 478 branches. based on measurement data and sensitivity analysis instead of stateestimation results. The average CPU time is 0. both secondary and tertiary voltage regulations were implemented in closed loops involving 17 main power plants (as shown in Figure 12–5 from [17]). • • In November 2002. which is more suitable for the fast development of Chinese power grids than fixed-zone divisions. the AVC strategy was the first open loop implemented in Jiangsu Provincial Grid. The expectation is to implement the AVC strategy at each grid level. whose total generating capacity is 13.

Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Figure 12–6 Two Zone-Division Strategies Generated by the TVR of Jiangsu Provincial Grid Another larger-scale application of the AVC strategy is in the North China Regional Grid. The strategy was closed-loop implemented in February 2007 at the regional control center.6% of the grid’s total capacity) Fourteen 500-kV substations with 4. whose locations are indicated in Figure 12–7 from [17]: • • Ten main power plants (including 35 units).6 -GVAR capacitors. The following power plants and substations are controlled by the AVC strategy.3-GVAR reactors. 3. The computer system adopted an Alpha DS25 Server with a 1-GHz CPU and 4G RAM. and one condenser of -80MVAR~160MVAR Figure 12–7 Main Power Plants Controlled by North China Regional Grid’s AVC Strategy 12-10 . which covers Beijing and has a total generating capacity of 119 GW [20]. whose generating capacity is 16.6 GW (53.

The studies on power-voltage (P-V) curves reveal significant improvements in voltage stability. Every 15 minutes~1hour. 12-11 . studies show that the hierarchical voltage-control system can help increase the overall loadability of the transmission system by secondary and tertiary voltage regulations. The SVR in each control zone is performed every 5 minutes. and the TVR In Italy. A simulation study has been done at the overall Italian network. and it involves an increase in load ramps at all the nodes. SVRs. which is run every 3 minutes to perform simulations for 755 critical contingencies. Voltage Profile/Stability Improvement Figure 12–8 Load Margins at Two Key Substations: Solid Line = PVRs Only. respectively. are increased at two key buses: Roma Nord and Roma Sud. Some case studies are performed in [12]. As shown in Figure 12–8 from [12]. Because of secondary and tertiary voltage regulations.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss North China Regional Grid’s AVC strategy generates around eight control zones controlled by the TVR. Dashed Line = PVRs. load margins of 200 MW and 300 MW. in the Rome control area. the largest amount of load-margin increase achieves 1500 MW for the overall Italian grid. Dotted Line = PVRs and SVRs.05s and can reach a convergent solution at 90% probability. TVR solves the ORPF of a backbone network with 622 buses and 994 branches.0kV. The AVC strategy is interfaced with a voltage stability assessment (VSA) program. The computation can be finished within 0. whose computation can be finished within 1 second. The VSA program helps examine the control effects of the AVC strategy and calculate the stability margin of each zone. Voltage accuracy at pilot buses is <1.

6~235.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss In China. the voltage at this bus changed between 232. With the AVC strategy. With and Without Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control. the main objective of the planned hierarchical voltage control system is to minimize transmission loss in the grid.0 kV (0. Without the AVC strategy. Recent statistical analyses conducted on the Italian power system show that application of the hierarchical voltage-control system (with secondary and national voltage regulations) allows a transmission loss-reduction of about 4~6%. and the voltage variation was up to 3. Figure 12–9 from [17] gives an example in Jiangsu Provincial Grid.8%). which are from the records of two dates—before and after the AVC strategy was implemented. 12-12 . Figure 12–9 Comparison of the Pilot Bus Voltages (Unit: kV). in Jiangsu Provincial Grid Transmission Loss-Reduction Another benefit from implementation of hierarchical dynamic voltage control is the reduction of transmission loss thanks to the decrease of MVAR flows achieved by system-wide optimal reactive power management. hierarchical voltage control helps improve voltage profiles in power grids of multiple levels.6 and 236. For the Italian power system. and the variation was reduced to 2. the voltage was controlled to 233.5 kV.7%).9 kV (1. The green dashed curve and red solid curve are real one-day voltage measurements at one pilot bus (the LI YUAN 220-kV substation). respectively—under similar operating conditions in order to compare the performance of the AVC strategy.6 kV. as shown in Figure 12–10 from [12].

08/kWh. the AVC strategy achieves an average transmission loss-reduction of 23. Figure 12–12 from [21] compares the transmission losses for eight power-flow profiles with and without the AVC strategy. a reduction of about 5% in transmission loss is achieved by the AVC strategy. the expected cost savings would be $14. For this case.1 MW (9%). 12-13 .3 MW. The operating conditions are close.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Figure 12–10 Expected Transmission Loss-Reduction in Italian Power System In the Jiangsu Provincial Grid. If the electricity rate is $0.1%.6 MW to 21. Figure 12–10 from [17] shows the transmission loss curves on two dates before (the blue dashed curve) and after (the red solid curve) the AVC strategy was implemented. For the example of a 2-MW lossreduction. Figure 12–11 Transmission Loss-Reduction in Jiangsu Provincial Grid An evaluation study of China’s AVC strategy on the PJM system shows that the strategy can help reduce transmission loss. the energy savings would be 184 M kWh/year. The average percentage reduction is around 1. The loss-reductions are from 12. which leads to a cost savings of more than $5M/year for Jiangsu Electrical Power Company.7 M/year for PJM.

The annual capital cost would be €2.4 M. 12-14 . and 1 national control center. 3 regional dispatchers. the capital and operational costs related to 50 REPORTs and 3 RVRs for the SVR and 1 TVR are summarized in Table 12–1. 20 controlled grid stations. considering a reference application involving 35 large power plants.58 M and the annual total cost would be around €4.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Figure 12–12 Transmission Loss-Reductions in an Evaluation Study on the PJM System (Unit: MW) Cost/Benefit Analysis A cost/benefit analysis is performed in [11] and [12] for the Italian hierarchical voltage-control system. Assuming an application lifetime of 25 years and a discount rate (minus inflation) of 12%. including operational costs.

design & software development Apparatus manufacturing & testing 5. and telecommunication equipment Annual cost for voltage/reactive operations at regional dispatchers/national control center Annual Total Cost 1.6 M 6.4 M A prudent value estimation of the achievable benefits is €14.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Table 12-1 Summary of Capital and Operational Costs (Currency: €) Itemized Capital Costs Studies. Costs control apparatuses.58 M 0.045 M 4. due to the increase in reactive power reserves made available for facing the network transients determined by large perturbations Reduction of about 20% of the time when contractual voltage quality at the customers’ end is not guaranteed Increase in MW-transfer capability. under suitable operational security constraints Reduction of the risk of blackout due to voltage collapse.2 M 6.2 M Capital Costs Installation.25 M savings per year due to the following factors: • • Reduction of up to 5% of the MW losses in the power system by containing MVAR flows through better coordination of reactive power resources Reduction of about 3%~5% in the duration of partial lack of loads feeding (for operational security reasons). AVR modifications & tests Total Capital Cost Annual Capital Cost (for 25 years) 18. • • • 12-15 .0 M 2.775 M Operational Annual cost for maintenance and upgrading of tools.

J. Paul. 2 (May 1987). “A Simple Real-Time and On-Line Voltage Stability Index Under Test in Italian Secondary Voltage Regulation. Florence. Another comparison of the hierarchical voltage-control solution with another ideal SVC-based solution for voltage control and reactive power management on the real Italian power system. and M. and P. M. Paris. D. Leost. Promel. [4]. Power Syst. J.” in Proc. Arcidiacono.. V.” In Panel Session–2000. Seattle. The payback period of the hierarchical voltage-control project for an application on a large network is shorter than the duration of the project itself. U. P. IEEE PES Summer Meeting. CIGRE. “The Study of a Centralized Voltage Control Method Applicable to the Belgian System. [7]. Van Hecke. J. P. Seattle. Marannino.” in Proc. Y. Vol.” Proc. N. M. Paris. Corsi. CIGRE. Each partial realization (REPORT or RVR) can also operate autonomously. “Automatic Voltage Reactive Power Control in Transmission System. Tesseron. regulating the local power plant or pilot node voltage as soon as it is put into operation. Bazzi. [3]. CIGRE-IFAC Survey Paper E. Fragnier. Y. Paper 39–201. Subbe et al. Italy (September 1983). Deude.” IEEE Trans. Piret. as shown in Table 12–2.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss Table 12-2 Cost/Benefit Data A cost/benefit analysis based on the above data gives interesting results. “Coordinated Voltage Control Experience in Belgium. M. H. “The Secondary Voltage Regulation in Italy. J. 12-16 . S. P. Antoine. Paper 38–115 (2000). J. P. CIGRE. J. “Secondary Coordinated Voltage Control System: Feedback of EDF.” In Panel Session–2000. and F. Mallet. Corsi. France (2000). can be found in [12]. Boussion. Janssens. under the same operating standards. [5]. [6]. The cost for the hierarchical voltagecontrol solution is 34. References [1]. “Survey of secondary voltage control in France: Present Realization And Investigation. Pozzi. Lefebvre. and J. Mocenigo. WA. J. [2]. France (1992). S. Paper 38–111.3% less. and M. WA.” in Proc. IEEE PES Summer Meeting. Bulot.

[20]. A. “Benefits of Applying Secondary Voltage Control Schemes to the Brazilian System. Wang.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. “Research and Prospects for Automatic Voltage Control Techniques in Large-Scale Power Grids.K. Coordinated Voltage Control in Transmission Networks. C4. France (1996). Pozzi.” IEEE Trans. C. G. 2009)..” Journal of Electric Power Science and Technology. Martins. and J. M. CIGRE. Q. Mocenigo.. Glasgow. N. Vol. and J. R. Corsi. H. H. Sun. Bazzi. No. M. Corsi. Simulation Results for the Spanish Transmission System. “Development and Applications of System-wide Automatic Voltage Control System in China. B. No.4. Zhang et al. pp. Sancha. pp.” Automation of Electric Power Systems. Guo. Sforna et al. Power Syst. V.Part II: Control Apparatuses and Field Performance of the Consolidated Hierarchical System. Zhang. Alberta. Paris.1733–1741 (2004).” in Proc.” in Proc. Tong. S. Vol. Corsi. 11. Ning. Arcidiacono.” in Proc. February 2007. Álvarez. C. U. W. Martins. “General Application to the Main ENEL’s Power Plants of an Advanced Voltage and Reactive Power Regulator for EHV Network Support. A.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. Chinnici.” Automation of Electric Power Systems. Fernandez. Wu. 35. CIGRE Report Task Force. M. M. pp.Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control to Help Reduce Transmission Loss [8]. [16]. Corsi et al. Scotland. Vol. P. [17]. (2000). and M. B. U. [19]. H.602. [18]. L. “The Coordinated Automatic Voltage Control of the Italian Transmission Grid –Part I: Reasons of the Choice and Overview of the Consolidated Hierarchical System. 630–638 (May 1996). Zhang et al. IEEE/PES SM. “Applications on Automatic Voltage Control System for North China Power Grid. 5 (2008). “Optimal Dynamic Voltage Control for PJM Transmission System – Phase I: Evaluation.22. Martin. 12-17 . Dos Santos. Guo. J. “Research and Development of AVC System for Power Networks of Jiangsu Province. “Automatic Voltage Control System (AVC) with Its Implementation in China. Vol. J. Seattle. Sun.19. Sun. [15]. T. G. [13].1. S. [12]. WA (July 2000).” in Proc. and M. [11]. CIGRE. [14]. Q. Pozzi.. and B Zhang.” Submitted to IEEE PES General Meeting.. [10]. D. Sabelli et al. L. “The Coordinated Automatic Voltage Control of the Italian Transmission Grid . S. Abarca. PCI Conf. Falcao. No. J. H.. “Final Implementation of a Multilevel Strategy for Voltage and Reactive Control in the Spanish Electrical Power System. B. Taranto. L.” Presented at EPRI Webcast on Hierarchical Dynamic Voltage Control ( September 2008). Moreschini. S.1723–1732 (2004). Q.19. [21]. L. Paris. Cortes. “The Regional Voltage Regulator for ENEL’s Dispatchers. Vol. M. Canada (2009). Calgary. Sun.7–12 (2007). W. “Secondary Voltage Control: Analysis. Guo. 23–25.24 (2004). No. Vol. France (1998). H. [9]. Tong. Q. Guo.4. and G. Sun. pp. B. Solutions. Layo.” Presented at EPRI PDU Advisor Council Meeting (Feb.

.

no transmission efficiency-improvement actions) The mechanics and methodologies for the evaluation of the selected methods Benefit/cost analysis of the various measures Ranking of the loss-reduction methods To accomplish the above.13 FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING LOSS-REDUCTION OPTIONS This section presents the final objective of this project. the survey results are taken as a direction in which to proceed in addressing the transmission network loss-minimization framework. control actions. facilities. and maintenance Quantification of the loss-reductions and the costing reference for analyzing the monetary savings • Introduction It was stated in Section 1 of this report that the final objective of this project is to develop an integrated framework for the evaluation of transmission loss-reduction measures. Utilities are studying methods to reduce losses on the electric ac transmission network. delineating: The assumptions made in the analyses (technical as well as economic) to facilitate what-if sensitivity investigations The gathering and collection of the data required for the analyses The scope and rationale for performing the various evaluations. this section presents a methodical step-by-step procedure. which is an integrated framework tool for use in focusing and guiding the actions toward transmission-energy improvements. especially for dual-effect measures such as for increased capacity or improvement of reliability as well as for reduction in losses resulting from the new components. Results from the industry survey on transmission-loss activity undertaken and presented in Section 2 indicate that there is real interest among utilities in developing methods to reduce transmission losses. This section provides the user with some guiding principles. 13-1 . but they recognize that there is a need to develop an industry-wide standard approach to transmission-line loss studies. Hence. such as: • • • • • • • • • Characterization of loss-reduction methods Qualitative screening of the various actions to reduce transmission losses Defining baseline scenarios without improvements (business as usual.

Therefore. The remaining sections describe the various technological options to reduce losses in transmission systems. the cost associated with implementation is in many cases likely to be higher than the value derived solely from the reduction in losses. the loss-evaluation framework must be followed by typical engineering planning studies and design and construction phases. SVCs. generator excitation adjustors. However. but there may be plans to incorporate it for purposes other than loss-reduction in future years. total losses reduced. Obviously. as has been illustrated in the various sections of this report. tap changers. series capacitors. they can also be implemented with the primary objective of reducing losses. in which the ranking is based on some predefined selection criteria such cost/benefit. the evaluation framework is focused on two parts of a typical TEE process: baseline definition and feasibility and scoping studies (Figure 4–1). phase-angle regulators) may not exist in the current system. The integral view of the value proposition associated with transmission loss-reduction measures is provided in Section 3. A detailed description of the basic components comprising the assessment of TEE projects is provided in Section 4. and other monetary and nonmonetary aspects. The required equipment (FACTS. these projected facilities can be considered in the analysis. because they are usually implemented for increased transmission capacity or improved reliability. Physical characteristics. These projects can be accomplished by taking advantage of existing facilities. and the investment and savings potentials for each technology are addressed in these sections. Examples are optimal-voltage profiling and redirecting of power flow in transmission systems. Furthermore. some of the measures described in the preceding sections can be applied specifically for reducing losses without incurring a significant investment. any facilities or control changes implemented on the transmission system for reducing losses must also be studied to ensure that reliability and other system criteria are met. the framework is not intended to provide guidelines for the detailed engineering and implementation processes needed. It is worth mentioning that the concept of “existing” facilities can be ambiguous in planning terms.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options This section presents a general framework for evaluating various measures to reduce transmission losses. implementation considerations. tap changers. the existing facilities to be considered will 13-2 . Although these measures could potentially be implemented specifically to reduce losses. The lossevaluation framework itself should be a guide for conducting the feasibility and scoping study for the potential loss-reduction measures. If the timeframe for evaluating the reduction in losses is after the planned installation of the future facilities. Categorizing Actions That Impact Transmission Losses It was stated in Section 4 that some of the methods identified in the repertoire of loss-reduction options can be considered as dual-effect projects. Therefore. The framework is intended to provide a tool to facilitate good decision-making when evaluating methods and strategies for reducing transmission losses. The control devices (such as phase-angle regulators. and HVDC transmission) existing in the system can be set or adjusted for loss-reduction purposes. Focus and Scope of the Framework As explained in Section 4. The result of the framework’s application will basically be a ranking of the measures that can be applied to a given system to reduce transmission losses. Nevertheless. mechanically switched shunt reactors and capacitors. The evaluation framework is developed based on the concepts and descriptions provided by the various sections of the report.

Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options depend upon the timeframe of the analysis. 13-3 . For the development of the evaluation framework. it may be convenient to differentiate the methods based on those characteristics that influence the evaluation processes. Therefore. this option is not included in this evaluation framework because it is an incipient technology. and they will include the existing facilities as well as the projected additions. for a loss-reduction measure that requires the implementation of advanced controls. such as voltage-profile optimization. an optimal power flow needs to be used for the evaluation. the described methods for loss-reduction considered in this report are grouped in Table 13–1 based on the approach that is required to evaluate the measure. However. For example. and more experience is needed to be able to delineate an appropriate evaluation methodology for it. because the methodology and tools that need to be applied for the evaluation differ for the various measures. Conversion of ac to dc can fit in either Group A or Group B.

For this reason. in some cases. It should be noted that this classification is not rigorous. it is not included in Group A. and some overlap may exist. Clearly. • Applied specifically for loss-reduction purposes. imply that an existing transformer will be replaced with a new energy-efficient transformer of higher capacity. and reducing congestion. however the evaluation methodology for the low-loss transformer option differs greatly from the one used for the measures in Group A. • The characteristics of these methods differ greatly among themselves. • Can be used for other purposes than reducing losses. in order to increase system-loading capability. other classifications based on other criteria can be applied for different purposes. so a specific evaluation methodology must be applied for each of them. • These methods can be applied to the existing* facilities in a centralized upper-level control fashion to optimally adjust settings for lossreduction. B • Diverting power flow • Voltage-profile optimization C • • • • • Shield-wire segmentation Insulation losses Low-loss transformers Corona-losses reduction Switching or cycling out-ofservice equipment not needed for current operation (*) The aforementioned concept of “existing facilities” applies. this option would fit in Group A.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-1 Characteristics of Loss-Reduction Methods Group A Methods • Raising transmission-line nominal voltage • Reconductoring • Bundling phase conductor Characteristics • Dual-effect measures: o increase capacity or improve reliability o reduce losses • Usually implemented to increase transmission capacity • These methods change the impedance characteristics of the network and impact system operation to some extent. • The use of low-loss transformers may also have dual effects. For such a case. like increasing transmission capacity. The use of lowloss transformers may. improving system security. these methods do not imply changes in the operating characteristics of the transmission system. 13-4 . • Usually.

The analysis for the measures in Group B also includes the evaluation of marginal reduction in losses achieved from marginal investments intended specifically for improving lossreduction. adding some devices with lower capital cost like switched shunt capacitors or tap changers). the addition of a new switched shunt capacitor could be conveniently located to improve the control capability and performance of the centralized high-level lossreduction control loop. Nevertheless. The framework is not intended to provide a unique optimal solution for the implementation of loss-reduction measures. but also other installations (control devices) that are planned to be installed in the system for purposes other than loss-reduction. However. such options should be included in the evaluation framework that may apply in certain particular cases (for example. the evaluation-framework outline depicted in Figure 13–1 is proposed. It is clear that. Rather. Measures in Group A are selected and designed for the primary purpose of reducing losses. The proposed evaluation framework is based on the following assumptions: • There is not a predefined target for the loss-reduction to be achieved (a specification of the percentage that the losses must be reduced with respect to a reference case). the impact of the increased transmission capability that can be achieved with the implementation of these technologies is also analyzed. For instance. The measures in Group B are considered to be applied utilizing existing facilities—including not only the current system. The main stages depicted are described in the following subsections. in general. • • • • 13-5 . adding new facilities that have significant costs associated with their installation is not a cost-effective measure for loss-reduction.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Framework Outline On the basis of the grouping of measures in the previous section. its objective is to provide a list of possible alternatives— complete with an evaluation of their relevant attributes (benefit/cost)—so that various decision-making approaches can be utilized and tailored to specific needs. Implementation of the technologies for reducing losses is decided upon based on the benefit/cost characteristics of the various options.

The complete evaluation process for the various methods selected can consume significant time and resources. 13-6 . it is convenient to filter or perform an expedited selection of the possible methods in order to reduce the engineering burden and associated costs to a reasonable level. The output of this step is a list of measures— separated by category—to be analyzed in detail in the subsequent stages.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options STAGE 1: QUALITATIVE SCREENING • Measures that are technically feasible for the system being considered • Screening process based on a list of attributes • Evaluation of previous studies • Consultation process • Output: List of possible measures STAGE 2: BASELINE SCENARIOS • Definition of time frame and scenarios for the study • • • • STAGE 3: GROUP A Basic design Computing of losses Cost analysis Analysis of benefits STAGE 3: GROUP B • Basic design • Basic outline of the centralized control system • Computing of losses • Cost analysis • Analysis of benefits • • • • STAGE 3: GROUP C Basic design Computing of losses Cost analysis Analysis of benefits • • • • STAGE 4: RANKING OF METHODS Define selection criteria Apply ranking procedure Methods ranked according to the applied criteria More than one rank list possible Figure 13–1 Outline of the Framework for the Evaluation of Loss Reduction Measures Stage 1: Qualitative Screening The first step in the evaluation study is to conduct a qualitative screening process. The purpose of the qualitative screening is to produce a list of measures that merit detailed analysis with a reasonable expenditure of analytic effort. Therefore.

13-7 . An inventory of previous studies and projects may provide very useful information to support the qualitative screening process. The main attributes to be considered are: • • • • • • • • State of technology Challenges and limitations Implementation considerations Energy-savings potential Peak-demand reduction potential Capital and O&M costs Levelized investment cost per kWh of energy reduction Levelized investment cost per kW of demand reduction The characteristics and attributes of each of the identified technologies have been described in detail in the corresponding sections of this report.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options The qualitative screening criteria may vary by utility. Table 13–2 summarizes the principal attributes to be considered in the qualitative screening process. The selection of measures based on a qualitative assessment can be done based on the relevant attributes of each loss-reduction method that impact their attractiveness for a particular application. depending on the characteristics of the power system under study and the experience the utility’s technical staff has in studying or applying these technologies.

as well as possibly upgrading the transmission towers. coordinated voltage-control concepts are also under consideration. Additional controllable reactive power compensators could be added to improve the loss-minimization function (if it is cost-effective). It will require modifying the terminal equipment.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-2 Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses Option Raising transmissionline voltage State of Technology Mature technology It has been applied in several systems. Levelized Cost per Energy and Demand Savings May vary to a great extent from one case to another Reference values on simplified case studies: $15–40 /kWh $50–100/kW VAR/Voltageprofile optimization It has been applied in some systems in Europe and China. 1– 5% of transmission losses Reference values based on limited data: $15–40 /kWh $30–50 /kW 13-8 . It can be implemented with existing facilities. Implementation Considerations Mainly implemented to increase capacity: Increasing the operating voltage of the transmission line boosts the powertransfer capability. •In North America. Energy and Demand Savings Potentials Losses in upgraded line may reduce by more than 50%. Implementation for the sole objective of reducing losses may be cost-effective because of relatively low capital requirements. Implementation for the sole objective of reducing losses may not be cost-effective because of high capital requirements. it has received limited consideration by power companies. Reduces system losses to a greater extent than reconductoring. A high-level centralized control loop for loss-minimization is to be implemented to adjust bus voltages on-line. It modifies the impedance characteristics of the network and the power-flow pattern change for the same generation dispatch. mainly to increase power capacity. •In Brazil.

especially if transmission-line towers have to be significantly altered. Bundling conductors significantly increases structure loading. Energy and Demand Savings Potentials Loss-reduction depends on the way the reconductored line is operated. Phase-shifting transformers are widely used in some systems (Europe) to control power flow. It requires the implementation of a centralized control that continuously or frequently adjusts the control settings. HVDC and phaseshifter transformer technology is mature and available. There is little or no evidence on its use for reducing losses. This solution is usually implemented to increase transfer capability. Bundling with the same conductor can reduce line losses up to 50%. Implementation for the sole objective of reducing losses might not be economical. It may be cost-effective based on reduced losses if power-flow control devices are already installed for reasons other than loss-reduction. No information is available on actual implementations. May be accomplished with existing facilities if FACTS devices or other devices with power-flow control capability are installed in the system. line towers need to be reinforced. N/A 13-9 . Impact on system energy efficiency depends upon the relative weight of the line losses on the overall system losses. May require that transmission-line towers be significantly altered to support a larger conductor. Levelized Cost per Energy and Demand Savings Reference values based on simplified case studies: $40–120/kWh $30–200/kW Reconductoring Mature technology Bundling phase It has been applied in several conductors systems mainly to increase power capacity Redirecting power flows FACTS devices. Reconductoring with TW conductors of equal diameter can reduce line losses up to 20%.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13 2 (continued) Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses Option State of Technology Implementation Considerations ACSR trapezoidal conductors of the same or moderately higher diameters as those of the existing conductors can be used for replacement without significant tower reinforcement. It depends greatly on the number of controlled devices and the powerflow pattern of the system.

Energy and Demand Savings Potentials Reducing load losses has a more significant impact on energy losses as load factor increases. If OPGW implementation is done. Energy loss-reduction is very sensitive to lineloading factor. and it is terminated by dead-end strain insulators. Hence. each fiber splice is accommodated with an optical isolator to an accessible splice box bonded to the tower. Implementation Considerations Large transformers are usually designed for an optimal trade-off between losses and investment cost. Loss-reduction varies with the square of linepower transfer. It is not widely used in the United States. Reduction of NLL is more effective in transformers with relatively low load factor. Shield-wire segment length may vary from 2 to 20 miles. Replacement with higher-efficiency transformers may be feasible when the transformer replacement has already been decided upon for reasons other than to reduce losses. there are few opportunities to further improve efficiency. Each segment is grounded at one tower. Reference values based on one case study: $30–60/kWh $100–130/kW 13-10 .Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13 2 (continued) Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses Option Use of low-loss transformers State of Technology Technology to reduce transformer losses is available. Levelized Cost per Energy and Demand Savings N/A Shield-wire segmentation This technology has been applied in certain systems.

Reference values based on one generic case study: $25–100/kW-h 13-11 . Application of techniques for cleaning or coating insulators with the sole objective of reducing losses may be cost-effective if the leakage current is relatively high. Energy and Demand Savings Potentials N/A Levelized Cost per Energy and Demand Savings N/A Reduction of insulator losses Insulator losses are generally small compared to conductor and transformer losses. and the ambient conditions. Demand savings on peak conditions are very difficult to determine. a function to reduce corona losses could be added to the existing control system. Techniques for reducing insulator pollution are well known. Estimation of the average leakage current is needed to determine energy savings. It is usually applied for improving reliability. depends upon the pollution on the insulator surface. in turn. Numerical experiments shows its potentiality to reduce losses under certain conditions. the moisture factor. If it is already in place. which. This measure is usually implemented to improve reliability ( dual effects).Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13 2 (continued) Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses Option Corona lossreduction State of Technology Reducing corona losses by reducing voltage during foul weather is a new concept. Controlling voltages to reduce corona losses poses a challenge because of possible reliability issues. Further investigation is required to fully prove the principle. This can be done by measuring a number of sample insulators. A centralized secondary voltage control needs to be implemented. Implementation Considerations Corona losses are normally low compared to line losses. One could take advantage of its dual-effect feature (improve reliability and reduce losses) to leverage investment. Energy savings greatly depend upon the leakage current. but it is costly. Insulator losses may be in the range of 2– 5% of line-resistance losses.

For short lines. No commercial conversions of ac to dc have been implemented to date. Demonstration of the technology has It is more economic to convert an ac line been carried out to the tripole dc equipment configuration under EPRI’s than the bipole configuration. Larger to dc conversion conductors will generally permit higher voltages. If the dc line is operated N/A with the same maximum load and loading factor as that of the existing ac line.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13 2 (continued) Main Characteristics and Attributes of Options to Reduce Transmission Losses Option Conversion of ac to dc State of Technology Implementation Considerations Energy and Demand Savings Potentials Levelized Cost per Energy and Demand Savings The principle and DC voltage is strongly influenced by the applicability of ac conductors currently in place. program. a net reduction in losses can be achieved. circuit effectiveness. 13-12 . converter losses offset the lossreduction gained in the dc circuit. which in turn increase the dc have been proven.

the best possible estimation of the missing data will be considered. In this stage. there is no need to define a number of representative snapshots. the transmission-expansion plan may not contain all the detailed information required for conducting a loss-reduction evaluation. base-. if the losscalculation approach is based on power-flow evaluations at a series of load levels and loadduration curves. it is not necessary to establish future conditions for the entire system. In such situations. Scenarios representing high and low import and export conditions may also be needed. However. The number and characteristics of the various scenarios to be defined for conducting the evaluation of loss-reduction options will basically depend upon the loss-evaluation methodology adopted.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Stage 2: Definition of Baseline Scenarios The general concept of “baseline” for energy-efficiency projects has been introduced in Section 4.and peak-load conditions (on a seasonal or monthly basis) are required. If a long-term transmission-expansion plan is available. representative power-flow cases need to be defined. the estimation must be consistent with the features of the transmission expansion plan and the utility’s planning philosophy. the baseline is the reference case or benchmark against which loss-reduction is assessed. It was stated that in programs for improving TEE. On the other hand. It represents the normal transmission losslevel of the system that results from the application of the planning and operation criteria. The specific evaluation methodologies for each case are provided in the following subsections: Methodology for Stage 3 – Group A An outline of the methodology for conducting a detailed evaluation of the methods corresponding to Group A is presented in the block diagram of Figure 13–2. 13-13 . for assessing the insulator losses on a given transmission line. Stage 3: Detailed Evaluation of the Selected Methods This stage is the core of the evaluation methodology. In some cases. Note that the reference scenarios may vary depending on the loss-reduction measure to be evaluated. If the methodology is based on the use of security-constrained dispatch programs. a tailored methodology is applied to each group of measures. Usually. because each group has special characteristics that need to be addressed in a particular manner. For example. intermediate. baseline scenarios should be determined based on the future system conditions foreseen in the plan. depending on the operating characteristics of the system being studied. these losses will depend only on the pollution level of the line insulators and the weather conditions.

DETERMINE OPTIMAL SET OF PROJECTS. EVALUATE COSTS. • Capital cost of upgrades • O&M cost associated with the upgrades • Cost due to operating constraints during construction 5. • Transmission losses evaluation • Cost of losses: energy. SELECT CANDIDATE TRANSMISSION LINES TO BE UPGRADED.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options REFERENCE SCENARIOS FROM STAGE 2 1. EVALUATE BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS OF INCREASED CAPACITY PERMITTED BY UPGRADES. benders decomposition) 7. EVALUATE TRANSMISSION-CAPABILITY INCREASE • Incremental transfer limits • Interface limits • Area import/export limit • Steady-state and dynamic analysis • Linear transfer analysis possible for incremental transfer limits (Siemens-PTI MUST) 3. • Alternative: • OF = MIN (Inv. the implementation is not acceptable. capacity. 4. • Determine losses with line upgrades • Determine cost of losses • Evaluate benefits: cost of losses “with” upgrades minus cost of losses “without” upgrades • NPV analysis END OF STAGE 3 FOR GROUP A Figure 13–2 Framework of Stage 3 for Measures in Group A (Except for Conversion of AC to DC) 13-14 . Cost + Loss Cost) • Multi-period combination problem (dynamic programming. CONDUCT BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS OF LINE UPGRADES WITHOUT INCREASING SYSTEM UTILIZATION. • Basic engineering • Line-loading factor and maximum losses • Simplified preliminary analysis 6. QUANTIFY AND COST THE REFERENCE LOSS LEVEL. • Economic benefits from relaxing transmission constraints • Possible approaches: Multi-area production-costing programs Security-constrained dispatch program Simplified analysis via power-flow studies • Including cost of VAR compensation required • If losses are greater than in the reference case. • Selection based on engineering judgments based on the results of Step 3. and emission costs 2.

and the investment will only be justified if this objective is attained. B. In some cases. That is. the selection of candidate lines to be upgraded was aligned with that objective. Section 5 and the references therein comprise comprehensive materials and documentation regarding the different aspects of voltageupgrade technology—from feasibility analyses to detailed design and implementation. a sequence of several upgrades may be required to meet the objective. The rationale for performing these two different evaluations is that although upgrades are selected for the primary purpose of reducing losses. the additional transmission capability that may be allowed by line upgrades is not taken into account for determining system operation conditions. The objective of implementing the line upgrade in this case is to reduce transmission losses. and operation and maintenance. • Benefits are determined for two different conditions: A. Step 2: Select Candidate Transmission Lines to Be Upgraded. the option of taking advantage of the increased transfer capability (Case B) must be disregarded (even when the net benefit is positive). construction. if transmission losses are increased because of greater transmission-line loading. The approach and consideration for the evaluation of transmission system losses and the cost components associated with such losses have been described in Section 4. most of the previous work focused on the application of voltage-upgrade technology to increase the transmission capability of an existing system (incremental transmission capacity). a path that requires increased power flow or voltage-stability improvement. loss magnitude and its associated cost are to be determined for the reference scenarios. Step 1: Quantify and Cost the Reference Loss Level. The main benefit in Case B will come from energy cost savings resulting from transmission-constraint relaxation. the increased transmission capability may reduce transmission constraints that limit the system’s economic operation. it is reasonable to determine whether the extra capacity can provide any additional benefit. However. Their impact on transmission capability is of secondary importance in the first selection. However. The system is operated assuming the additional transmission capability permitted by the selected line upgrades. An engineering process in which the feasibility of upgrading the existing line or lines to meet planning requirements is then conducted. Indeed. Benefits from loss-reduction will then be accounted for as the difference between loss levels obtained with and without the implementation of the loss-reduction measures. Voltage Upgrade Selection of a project suited for voltage upgrade is a fairly complex decision process that involves a number of responsibility areas of a utility company—from planning through engineering. In this step. The system is operated assuming the same transmission restriction as in the reference case (baseline).Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options The basics for the proposed formulation are as follows: • Candidate lines to be upgraded are selected according to their effectiveness in reducing transmission losses. If the feasibility test 13-15 . The process begins by identifying a project need—typically. Therefore.

the number of options is considerably higher. power-flow patterns can change considerably. At this stage. However. so it produces a minor impact on the power-flow pattern. so it is likely that maximum power-flow conditions will not be “caught” by the power-flow analysis. Because voltage upgrades significantly modify transmission-line impedance. because in this case the objective for voltage upgrading is to reduce losses. it is unlikely that benefits from loss-reduction can offset a high investment cost. Reconductoring with Lower-Loss Conductors and Bundling It has been demonstrated in Section 6 that reconductoring existing transmission lines with either larger cross-sectional standard conductors or with advanced conductors can provide a significant reduction in line losses if the new conductor is operated under parameters similar to those of the existing line. the process proceeds forward as a viable option. a lower-cost solution should be prioritized. the impact of voltage upgrading on transmission losses can only be determined by a full load-flow analysis. Only those line upgrades that pass the feasibility test will be considered as candidates for further analysis. The considerations and guidelines for loss and benefits evaluations provided below for Step 5 can also be followed to conduct the cost/benefit analysis for this step. those lines that are most heavily loaded during most of the scenarios considered for the analysis can be identified as candidates for voltage upgrading. in the case of a voltage upgrade to reduce losses. The line-loading factor and the maximum current can be estimated from these scenarios as well. Advanced stages of planning and engineering are then conducted to refine the project and better estimate the costs. Therefore. the objective is to reduce the overall system losses. Once prospective transmission lines are selected according to this criterion. Hence. and the corresponding period durations. The analysis consists of evaluating each candidate line individually for different reconductoring options. In the case of voltage upgrading to increase capacity. There is no direct procedure to identify those transmission lines for which a voltage upgrade will most impact transmission losses. as a first attempt.and peak-demand periods.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options indicates that the selected lines have potential for voltage upgrading. are determined from the reference scenarios. provided that all other conditions remain the same (generation dispatch. On the other hand. The power flows through the candidate lines for intermediate. Hence. regardless of its location. The maximum power flow over a given line may not coincide in time with the maximum system load. Reconductoring does not change reactance to a significant degree. benefits. Indeed. 13-16 . If available. Line losses will be reduced because of the lower resistance of the conductor. not just those in a particular area. and risks associated with it. because the objective is to improve the capacity of a given transmission path. historical data about line loading can be used to validate or improve values determined by power-flow analyses. import/export). any line feasible for upgrading is a candidate. However. ranging from full replacement to a minimal upgrade of the existing configuration. a basic engineering feasibility test can be conducted to assess the potential for upgrading the chosen lines. a cost/benefit analysis considering each project independently can be conducted to evaluate their performance. network configuration. Alternative solutions can be evaluated. the identification of the line or lines that need to be upgraded is more straightforward. an expedited evaluation of the various candidate lines can be performed with the simplified approach followed for the case studies presented in Section 6.

Clearly. some transmission-line upgrades—especially those that change line surge impedance— alter network impedance characteristics and. The bundling conductor option can also be analyzed in this manner. the problem can be formulated as an optimization model as follows: 13-17 . upgrade projects that are not economically attractive are discarded. as a consequence. In general terms. a basic engineering feasibility test is conducted to assess the potential for upgrading the selected lines. The output of Step 3 is a list of transmission lines for which a voltage upgrade or reconductoring are both technically and economically feasible. is at the point of minimum total cost. consequently. any combination of these projects could yield a positive overall performance. as long as they are cost-effective and economically attractive. as explained in Section 4. Short lines and lines with low load factor should be discarded as candidates because of their minor impact on total transmission losses. The optimal investment level. Nevertheless. Those projects that are technically feasible and economically sound will comprise the candidate-project list.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Transmission-line load factor. whereas the total cost of losses is reduced. Hence. because the objective is to screen and filter multiple alternatives. As in voltage-upgrade evaluation. Because our assumption for this framework is that there is no loss-reduction target to be attained. However. Unlike reconductoring. then. along with line losses at system peak conditions. If the economic performance of each project in the candidate list is positive. By means of this analysis. the analysis in this case consists of determining the costeffectiveness of the incremental investment needed to further reduce losses beyond the lossreduction level obtainable with the original project design. The lines can be sorted according to their loss at peak conditions and load factors. taking into account that bundling a conductor usually requires substantial reinforcement of the tower structures. Hence. Note that lines for which thermal upgrades have already been decided upon or evaluated for transmission-capacity improvement can be selected as candidate projects for loss-reduction. The opportunity for additional lossreduction in this case is the selection of a larger or advanced conductor. system operation conditions. so that the power-flow pattern may be altered. Indeed. the effectiveness of each individual project in reducing losses may be altered when other projects are in place. The investment cost should be carefully estimated. Step 3: Determine Optimal Set of Projects. any number of projects could be implemented. adding a second conductor per phase modifies the impedance characteristics of the transmission line (both inductance and resistance). A sophisticated methodology could be envisioned for determining the optimal set of projects. the first lines in the list are the ones to be considered as the best candidates for upgrading. so does the capital cost. analyzing each line individually implies that this effect is neglected and. the results are less accurate. As the level of investment in loss-reduction measures increases. this kind of analysis is still valid at this step. can be used as metrics for the first selection of candidate lines.

The cost includes: • Capital cost of upgrades • Increased or decreased maintenance cost associated with upgrades • Operating cost caused by operating constraints during construction Capital cost and maintenance considerations are described in Sections 5 and 6 and the references therein. the generation Benefits resulting from the improved transmission capability are determined in a later step of this evaluation process. 1 A) Determine Losses with Line Upgrade. That is.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options OF = Min (Total Investment Cost + Loss Cost) Subject to: • Reliability and security constraints • Equipment technical limits • Components design criteria The control variables will be the various candidate projects selected in Step 3. If. a more comprehensive cost analysis is conducted for the select projects. a conventional power-flow analysis is used to calculate losses. In Step 3. and it is left for future extensions of this project. System losses in this step are determined using the same approach followed in Step 1 for calculating the losses of reference cases. If a security constraint economic dispatch program is utilized. Such a complete optimization formulation is a multi-period combination problem that could be solved by means of techniques suitable for event-sequence optimization. a gross estimation of costs is considered for estimating the economic performance of the prospective projects. The development and implementation of such an optimization methodology is far beyond the scope of this work. because they may have a significant impact on operating costs. generation dispatch of each scenario is also maintained unchanged—except for the reduction resulting from the lessening system losses. The analysis at this step is intended to determine the impact of line upgrades on transmission losses if transmission line loading is kept at the same level as that in the baseline scenarios. the generation dispatch pattern is adjusted to match the reduced total demand (load + losses) in an economical manner. The optimization problem needs to be solved for the entire analysis period. on the other hand. Operating constraints caused by outages during upgrade construction need to be considered as well. Step 4: Evaluate Costs Associated with Upgrade Implementation. At this step. Without the availability of such an optimization tool. such as dynamic programming or benders decomposition. 1 13-18 . taking into account the performance of each individual project and technical feasibility study conducted in Step 2. Because transmission limits are considered to be unchanged with respect to reference cases. Step 6: Conduct Benefit/Cost Analysis of Line Upgrades Without Increasing System Utilization. the system is operated without taking advantage of the increased transmission capability. the set of projects for further investigation can be determined by engineering judgments.

in such a case. Other economic metrics. Examples of common transmission-capability objectives are: increase the capability of a transmission corridor. improvement of transmission capability is a by-product or secondary effect. as the selection of lines to be upgraded may not derive from the need to solve specific transmission constraints. are discounted by a present-worth factor (PWF) and are summed as an NPV referenced to the beginning of the first year. capacity cost. the benefits of loss-reduction measures are determined as the avoided costs of losses. B) Evaluate Benefits Versus Costs. Conversely. A progressive update sequence is then designed to achieve the transmission-capacity requirement in time. 13-19 . • Interface limit is the maximum power that can flow across the interface (the sum of the MW flows across the parallel circuits constituting the interface) without violating reliability criteria. and increase the export capability of an area with surplus generation. considering the relative operating cost of the different generating units (order of merit list). All annual benefits and costs are assumed as endof-year values. When technologies in Group A are implemented to increase transmission capability. An incrementaltransfer limit is expressed as a maximum incremental power flow on top of a defined operating condition. The methodology and the parameters for benefits evaluation may vary by institution and circumstances. In fact. including the cost of energy. can be used as indicators of the project’s efficiency As explained in Section 4. such as IRR and payback period. The identification of transmission-capacity improvements is more difficult in this case. because the measures are designed with the primary objective of reducing losses. The limits may be defined either as a total flow limit or as an incremental MW limit on top of a defined operating condition [7]: • Incremental-transfer limit is the maximum incremental power that can be transferred from one place in the network to another without violating reliability criteria. so that this general procedure needs to be adapted for each particular situation. Costs of losses are determined with the approach and considerations described in Section 4. Step 7: Evaluate Transmission-Capability Increase. increase the import capability into a load pocket. in which the definition of the limits depends on the objectives of transmission utilization. the transmission-utilization objective is identified beforehand. and emission cost.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options dispatch can be adjusted manually. if technologies in Group A are designed and implemented to reduce losses. Transmission capability is traditionally described as one of several types of MW limits. increase the transfer capability of a defined transmission interface. lineupgrade projects are selected as those having major impact on system losses—regardless of how they may impact transmission-system capability. Benefits less costs that can be quantified in dollar terms are expressed as NPVs as a series of annual costs over the NPV-evaluation horizon. These benefits are determined as the difference in loss costs between the “reference case” and the “system with line upgrades” case.

but may benefit different portions of the system to different degrees. The kind s of faults to be considered in the evaluation. recognizing the thermal ratings on all circuits and all contingencies. as specified by applicable reliability criteria. Then. steady-state and dynamic simulation of various kinds of faults are performed. These tools are: 13-20 . are normally specified in the applicable reliability standards. as well as the acceptable system performance under each kind of fault. more generally. the cost of power consumed in a load pocket such as a city.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options • Import limit is the maximum power (incremental or total) that can be imported into an area without violating reliability criteria. In order to define relevant measures of economic benefits of incremental upgrades. Step 8: Evaluate Benefits Versus Costs of Increased Capacity Permitted by Upgrades. Even though line upgrades are selected for loss-reduction purposes on the assumption that no additional transmission capacity is required to comply with reliability standards. To determine transfer limits. or stability constraints. Energy-cost savings can be quantified by using existing tools that are capable of analyzing operating costs (recognizing transmission constraints). This is of particular importance to a “generation pocket. the system is first tested under normal operating conditions.” in which an inadequate import limit may severely impact economic operation or—in the extreme—result in load curtailment. the economic benefits from incremental transmission capacity depend on the beneficiary considered. • Export limit is the maximum amount of power (incremental or total) that can be exported out of an area without violating reliability criteria.” in which an inadequate export limit may deprive the outside system of economic power or—in the extreme—cause load curtailment in the outside system. Transmission-line upgrades may allow utilities to increase some transfer limits. can be used to determine incremental transfer limits when stability constraints are not of major concern. Indeed. The transfer limits may be caused by thermal. such as the Siemens PTI MUST program. Several possibilities include: the cost savings for a particular company in a power pool. voltage. Transfer limits are determined according to the applied reliability criteria. they still provide extra capability that can be beneficial for economic operation. by means of a full ac power-flow analysis to evaluate if all the performance criteria for such operating conditions are met. The MUST program determines the critical thermal transmission limits. the beneficiary of the upgrades must be explicitly identified. Linear-transfer analysis models. the total cost of the supply of power in a region such as a state. savings in generation capital costs because of reserve-sharing benefits The incremental transmission capacity permitted by line upgrades will yield economic benefits to the total system. This is of particular importance to a “load pocket. The benefit of increased transmission capability can be estimated by evaluating the following aspects of system economics [7]: • Reduced overall production cost • Economic benefits of reduced energy-price differentials across bottlenecks • Reduced need for peaking plants in load pockets or.

In considering these facilities for system loss-minimization. an automated process for adjusting the settings of facilities that impact system losses must be contemplated. then the following Group B loss-reduction measures may be applied without significant additional equipment cost: 13-21 . an inventory of facilities and equipment with which their operators are familiar (perhaps adjusted for specific reasons other than loss-minimization) can be prepared and evaluated. In cases in which a line upgrade allows the utility to relieve transmission constraints in a particular locale or for a particular time period. generator-excitation adjustment. tap changers. From an operational standpoint. because lines become more heavily loaded. series capacitors. mechanically switched shunt reactors and capacitors. increased utilization of a transmission system will generally lead to higher transmission losses. for which a wealth of study and implementation experience is available. in the case of a voltage upgrade. (Some experience is available for Volt/VAR optimization. SVCs. Economic benefits from transmission-limits relaxation are determined by comparing simulations of economic operations between two cases—with and without line upgrades. it may be possible to obtain adequate estimates of gains in operating economics without the use of formal simulation tools. losses may decrease or increase depending on system structure and the degree of increased system utilization experienced after the upgrade. it is not possible to develop a detailed evaluation methodology at this time.) Therefore. However. If losses increase with respect to the baseline. Each ac transmission network is unique. Unlike the technologies in Group A. and emergency ratings will be applied to contingency conditions. but it may have existing facilities that can be adjusted to effect some level of loss-reduction. Normal ratings will be applied to all-lines-in conditions. there is limited experience or no experience for these technologies. Impact on Transmission Losses As previously mentioned. Analysis of snapshots of relevant load conditions over the analysis period may be sufficient to obtain adequate estimates of economic gain. If facilities (such as phase-angle regulators. Such programs calculate the minimum system generation cost obtainable within transmission constraints. and HVDC transmission) exist and can be set or adjusted. burdening operators with more manual activities during each day and shift is not a good strategy. Methodology for Stage 3 – Group B The procedure described in this case is a general high-level approach intended for first evaluation of options for Group B. the option of using the additional capacity permitted by that selected transmissionline upgrade is not acceptable. Therefore. • Security-constrained dispatch programs recognizing individual line ratings. in which transmission constraints are limited to inter-area constraints between area pairs. There are a number of strategies that may be able to be provided to a network without significant capital expenditure for equipment purchase. This tool can therefore be used to explicitly model the economic impact of the selected line-upgrade projects.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options • Multi-area production-costing programs.

Figure 7–1). Redirecting power to lower-loss paths. and SVCs. Switching or cycling out-of-service equipment that is not needed for current operation. This measure could include shunt reactors and high-loss transmission lines. It will consist of the monitoring and telecommunication facilities needed to determine the settings. other options in which new equipment is added are then evaluated. tap changers. switched series capacitors.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options • Transmission voltage-profile optimization. Considerations of new facilities are included as an additional option. This framework for achieving minimum-loss operation will emphasize the process to take full advantage of existing facilities within the transmission network. • • Some expenditures of money will be required to design and set up the automated process. mechanically switched reactors and capacitors. The first step is the evaluation of existing facilities. and of switchings that will achieve a minimum transmission network loss for a given operating state (see Section 7. The outline of the methodology is presented in block diagram form in Figure 13–3. This measure could be achieved with generator-excitation adjustment. 13-22 . This measure could be achieved with phase-angle regulators. so that loss-reduction can be achieved with minimum expenditure and in a relatively short timeframe. and HVDC power-flow settings.

Prepare List of Facilities Existing in the Transmission Network That Could Be Adjusted or Switched to Participate in Loss-Minimization of the Network 1A Allocate Facilities Best Considered for the Following Participation in Network LossMinimization: • • • Transmission voltage-profile optimization Redirecting power flows to lower-loss paths Switching or cycling in and out of service 2. Develop or Acquire an Off-Line Optimizing Is an Optimization Procedure Available to Adjust Settings? Procedure with Optimal Power Flow That Can Adjust Settings for Network Loss-Minimization for: No • • • Transmission voltage-profile optimization Redirecting power flows Switching or cycling in and out of service Yes 3. 5. Discard Any That Are Ineffective. 4. Using the Off-Line Optimizing Procedure to Determine Overall Effectiveness Continued next page 13-23 .Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options 1. Assemble Network and Facilities Data for Input into the Off-Line Optimizing Procedure. Evaluate the Effectiveness of Each Facility Listed in Step 1 Above. Simultaneously Test All Chosen Facilities Active in the Network. Using the Off-Line Optimizing Procedure. Select Facilities to Include in the Network LossMinimization Project. Ensure That the Models of Each Listed Facility in Step 1 Have an Interface with the OffLine Optimizing Procedure So That Network Loss-Adjustment Is Possible.

and Telecommunication Facilities. Consider Adding New Facilities? No Stop Yes 7. Engineering. and Construction of the Automated Process. FACTS. GO TO STEP 2 Figure 13–3 Framework for Determining Minimum-Loss Operation with Existing Facilities Step 1 and 1A: Prepare List of Existing Facilities. Monitoring. if available Mechanically switched shunt reactors and capacitors Phase-angle regulators Switched series capacitor modules HVDC transmission power-flow settings • For redirecting power to lower-loss paths – – – 13-24 . Include in the Cost the Design.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options From previous page 6. Tap Changers). The equipment and facilities already existing in the electric transmission network that could impact transmission losses would consist of the following. as described in Step 1A: • For transmission voltage-profile optimization – – – – Generator excitation set-points Transformer on-line with adjustable tap changers Static VAR Compensators and STATCOMs. Conduct Analysis to Locate and Size New Facilities (Switched Shunt Capacitors. Evaluate the Cost of Implementing Network LossMinimization. Undertake a Cost/ Benefit Analysis by Evaluating the Savings of LossReduction Against the Cost of Implementation. and would be allocated into these three categories.

such as TCSC. thermal limits on equipment. such as a licensed add-on package of PSS/E. such as maximum operating voltage. and transmission lines. an individual optimal power flow—with minimum transmission network losses as the objective—is run. Optimal power-flow packages are readily obtainable. the minimum-loss objective cannot be reached. Otherwise. There may be a limit to the number of facilities it can simultaneously adjust.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options – Series configured FACTS controllers. For each facility listed in Steps 1 and 1A. Care should be taken to ensure that the models are accurate enough to represent losses for which there is confidence. It may be that some facilities do not contribute anything to loss-reduction. especially for peak conditions. However. the adjustment setting or switch that the OPF must regulate in each facility. It will determine how effective each single facility is in loss-minimization by comparing the system losses it achieves with the reference base case. 5] Step 3: Collection of Data for Off-line Optimal Power Flow All the data and models are assembled in the format required for the OPF. These data should include the network data normally studied for the power system under investigation. Step 2: Off-line Optimizing Procedure with Optimal Power Flow An optimal power flow (OPF) is needed to properly assess the impact that each listed facility will have on reducing transmission-network losses. or to write a new OPF to properly accomplish the network lossminimization objective [4. an investigation could be undertaken as to why they are 13-25 . An investigation should be undertaken to assess the optimal power-flow programs available. it may not readily undertake the analysis needed for optimal adjustment of all the various listed facilities to be tested. As part of the suitability tests for the OPF. This stipulation applies to the transmission lines and transformers of the network as they are represented. and so they can be considered for discarding. in its search for the minimum network losses. SSSC. then the assessment can be undertaken based on a sample. This analysis is conducted for the various baseline scenarios. However. or properly function within the limits and the network’s demands. Step 4: Effectiveness of Each Facility in Reducing Losses It would be very useful to evaluate the effectiveness of each identified loss-reduction facility included in the list assembled in Steps 1 and 1A. If there are too many facilities to examine on an individual basis. must be properly interfaced between the optimization solution and the facility. UPFC. or IPC (as discussed in Section 6) Shunt reactors not in use High-loss transmission circuits Equipment on hot stand-by that is rarely used • For switching or cycling out-of-service equipment – – – Each facility so listed should have the capability of being remotely adjusted or switched. It can also be undertaken to decide how best to proceed in either having an OPF vendor update the program to what is needed.

capacity. a peak loss-reduction value and annual energy loss-reduction value are determined.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options ineffective. It would also be possible to assess which of the three categories of loss-reduction defined in Steps 1 and 1A above is the most effective. From the results of these tests. Determine the amount of reduced losses achieved with all existing loss-adjustment facilities in place. The monetary value of loss cost (energy. Step 5: Simultaneously Test All Facilities With the selected existing facilities in place and active in the network model for the OPF. IRR. The present value of the stream of costs is then determined. which may be caused by a rating limit in a nearby transmission line. or busbar. The procedures to evaluate demand and energy losses are the same as those used in Stage 1 and Stage 3 for Group A. transformer. an automated process for adjusting the selected facilities needs to be designed. undertake a minimum-loss case using the peak-load condition used in Step 4. Figure 7–1 from Section 7 is reproduced here as Figure 13–4 to provide some appreciation of this automated process. and costassigned. and emission cost) are determined as previously described. engineered. Economic metrics like NPV. The cost for installing such an automated system includes its monitoring and telecommunication systems and an allowance for maintenance. Step 6: Cost/Benefit Analysis In order to achieve the loss-minimization that these studies imply could be achieved. Regional Controller References Power Plant Controller References REGIONAL CONTROL Minimum Loss Settings Measurements CENTRAL OPTIMIZATION (INCLUDING OPTIMAL PF) Measurements POWER PLANT CONTROL UNIT CONTROL Excitation Voltage STATE ESTIMATOR Generator Measurements POWER Figure 13–4 Outline of the Automated System Required for Transmission Network Loss-Minimization 13-26 . and/or payback period are then evaluated with the stream of cost flow determined in Step 5.

These adverse impacts will vary depending on the outages required. SVCs.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Step 7: Analysis to Locate and Size New Facilities If the option of analyzing the addition of new facilities is selected. necessitate temporary operations that do not meet reliability criteria. the detailed analysis to be conducted at this stage would follow the specific procedure for each technology. the next step is to conduct a study to optimally locate and size additional facilities or devices. the environmental implications could be of primary importance. However. For instance. they also do not share common characteristics with each other. 13-27 . the approach should be specifically directed for such a purpose. So the ranking procedure should be available to assign a high priority to measures that have less environmental impact. An optimal power flow can be used as a main basic tool for this case. Because the objective of adding such devices is solely to further reduce losses. these impacts may significantly affect the attractiveness of various loss-reduction measures. Indeed. or require a temporary interruption of supply to customers. The approach followed in Stage 3 for evaluating the costs and benefits of loss-reduction options is based only on economic metrics. Other elements that should be considered in the final project selection are the possible adverse impacts on system operation caused by the outages required during the implementation. In the final ranking of prospective projects. it is not possible to delineate an evaluation procedure that is applicable to all the technologies in this group. such as switched shunt capacitors. Examples and case studies are included in those sections to illustrate the procedures. other nonmonetary impacts or risks should be considered. for a given system. If the technologies in Group C are selected for further analysis as an outcome of Stage 1 (Qualitative Screening ). Operating constraints may result in operating-cost penalties. and FACTS. The outcome of Stage 3 is used for this purpose. For that reason. Methodology for Stage 3 – Group C The technologies in Group C have been excluded from Groups A and B and collected together in a different group because they do not have the distinguishing features that the technologies in groups A and B have. Stage 4: Ranking of Methods The final stage is a ranking of the analyzed methods based on various criteria that can be adapted and accommodated to the various needs. the duration of the outages. The evaluation methodology for each of these technologies is described in detail in the corresponding sections of this report. and the flexibility of the system to accommodate the required outages.

it is assumed that the reference conditions or baseline do not change over time. all lines are equally considered as feasible for the project. it is the only 138-kV transmission line in the system for which a 230-kV busbar is available at both end substations. The total system annual energy load is 15. The transmission system is composed of two voltage levels: 230 kV (red in the one-line diagram) and 138 kV (blue in the one-line diagram). Another option to be considered as a candidate project for loss-reduction is reconductoring of one or more or the transmission lines. an OPF function that takes into account transmission capacity has been used to determine generating unit output. For simplicity. voltage upgrade and reconductoring.069 GWh. Because of the topological and physical characteristics of the system. The model is implemented in PSS/E. the order of the framework stages and the calculations and analysis procedures in each stage can be altered according to the specific situation and needs. Stage 1: Qualitative Screening The test system is not a real power system. and the maximum generation capacity is 4800 MW. 13-28 . There is no other information about transmission lines that can be used for conducting a qualitative screening process. This voltage-upgrade project is considered as a candidate project for detailed analysis. the framework stages are followed in the order described in the previous section. Generation dispatch represents the economic dispatch for each load scenario. The system is composed of 11 generating units and 9 loads. In this case. System peak load is 3220 MW.Table 13-4 shows generation dispatch for each of the approximation steps. but rather a generic reduced electric-system model set-up for illustration purposes. Figure 13–5 is a one-line diagram of the study system model. seven approximation steps have been defined for loss evaluation. Stage 2: Definition of Baseline Scenarios The step-wise approximation for the load-duration curve approach is followed here to evaluate the annual energy losses of the transmission system. for purposes of the analysis. Only loss-reduction options in Group A are considered for this case study: that is.in a real application. Indeed. At this stage. Generating-unit cost data are presented in Appendix A. Figure 13–6 shows the annual load-duration curve and approximation step. Therefore. because the general procedure is applicable to a real system (for which future operating conditions are to be defined in a similar manner).Table 13-13 presents the range and duration of the seven loadduration steps. As can be seen in this figure. Certainly. there is no loss of generality from using this simplification. note that . no future operating conditions or physical changes have been defined for this system. However. Selection refinement is conducted in Stage 3.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Case Study A study case is conducted on a generic power-system model to illustrate the application of the proposed framework. The complete data set is provided in Appendix A. the only line that can be upgraded to an upper voltage level is the 138-kV line West (3005) – MID138 (153). However.

Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Voltage upgrade option Figure 13–5 One-Line Diagram of The Study System 13-29 .

0 60.10 0.0 51.0 Step Load [MW] 3059 2705 2318 1932 1658 1417 Step Duration [hr] 60 120 650 2100 3050 2780 180 830 2930 5980 8760 Accumulated hours [hr] 13-30 .80 0.00 0 2000 4000 Cum ulative hours 6000 Step Curve 8000 Load Duration Curve Figure 13–6 Annual Load-Duration Curve and Approximation Steps Table 13-3 Load-Duration Steps Step Upper Range [%] 1 2 3 4 5 6 100 90 78 66 54 49 Lower Range [%] 90 78 66 54 49 36 Step Load [%] 95.5 44.20 0.00 0.90 Load Percentage [%] 0.50 0.0 72.70 0.60 0.0 84.40 0.30 0.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options 1.

0 86.0 0.8 129.069 579.0 214.0 0.0 0.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-4 Generation Dispatch for Each Approximation Step Generating Unit Bus # 101 206 211 1530 1530 1540 3009 3009 3011 3018 86. The cost of energy considered in this case is the annual average production cost determined from the generation cost of each step weighted with the corresponding step duration.0 538.0 470.6 485.2 60.2 615.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 86.0 150.8% 15.0 0.8 60.9 109.0 0.0 240.0 0.1 497.0 0.0 0.3 109.6 599.8 60.64 13-31 .0 2811.0 2409.4 Step 6 300.6 Generation Dispatch [MW] Step 2 466.9 60.9 615.0 0.0 499.7 Step 3 454.5 0.0 142.5 0.8 581.0 0. Step 1: Quantify and Cost the Reference Loss Level.9 161.0 0.0 3178.8 500.9 60.6 599.0 0.2 0.3 215.0 396.0 60. Baseline conditions are presented in Table13–5: Table 13-5 Baseline Conditions Item System maximum load P System maximum load Q Demand loss at maximum load Demand-loss percentage System annual energy Annual energy losses Energy-loss percentage Average production cost Unit [MW] [MVAR] [MW] [%] [GWh] [GWh] [%} [c$/kWh] Value 3220 1100 122.4 3342.0 2012.0 0.3 598.0 0.2 596.8 3.3 577.43 Name MAIN-A URBGEN NORTH_G MID_G MID_G DOWNTN_G RURAL_G RURAL_G MINE_G CATDOG_G CATDOG_G TOTAL [MW] Peak 599.2 571.5 Stage 3: Detailed Evaluation of the Selected Methods The detailed evaluation procedure for loss-reduction options in Group A is followed in this case study.6 363.4 Step 5 300.0 1467.2 3.0 615.0 615.0 200.2 149.3 Step 4 240.0 0.8 129.84% 0.3 569.8 Step 1 599.8 0.0 1720.9 161.9 215.8 149.9 60.0 0. The reference loss level is determined by applying the step-wise energy-loss evaluation procedure with the approximation steps defined above.9 0.0 0.

the first two lines are selected as candidates. Table 13-6 shows the lines that contribute to demand and energy losses the most. It is assumed here that thermal upgrade or reconductoring of this line is technically feasible. as used in the case studies in Section 6.3 69.1 50. Table 13-6 Selection Metrics to Identify a Candidate Line for Reconductoring Transmission Line Bus 1 # 153 3001 3002 201 201 151 151 Bus 2 # 3005 3003 3004 202 204 152 152 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Ckt Voltage [kV] 138 138 230 230 230 230 230 Demand Losses at Peak [MW] 14. Line 153–3005 is selected because of its contribution to system demand losses.0 11.2 Annual Energy Losses [GWh] 48. Hence. whereas line 3001–3003 is selected because it contributes to energy losses the most.5 9.6 Line Length [mile] 50 45 90 90 90 70 70 Individual Evaluation of Project At this step.0 31. each of the potential reconductoring projects identified at first screening are evaluated independently. a basic engineering feasibility test should be conducted at this stage to determine whether it is possible to reconductor the lines. Reconductoring Prospective candidate lines for reconductoring are identified by determining their contribution to system losses at peak-demand conditions and annual energy losses. However.4 8.4 70.9 37. all of these lines could be considered for further evaluation.2 12.8 12. In principle. maximum current and line-loading factor are determined from the seven power-flow scenarios described above: 13-32 . In a real system.6 31. In this case. however. An expedited economical evaluation procedure. the maximum power flow on a transmission line might not coincide with system peak-load conditions.2 8. the line power flow at system peak conditions can be considered as the line maximum power flow for the preliminary study at this stage.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Step 2: Select Candidate Transmission Lines to Be Upgraded. is used for this purpose. • Evaluation of 138-kV Lines 153–3005 and 3001–3003 Line maximum power flow and line-loading factor are the factors needed to conduct the simplified evaluation. if no detailed data on transmission-line loading is available. it might not be possible to determine maximum power flow on a given transmission line from only a limited number of power-flow scenarios. In real transmission systems. Line demand losses at system peak conditions along with energy losses are considered here as metrics for first selection of candidate lines. For the selected lines.

9 20 2. conductor temperature 75°C The trapezoidal wire conductor MAUMEE/TW is selected for replacing the ACSR/TW Dove conductor of line 153–3005.504 1790 0.977 722 0.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options • • Line 153–3005: Maximum current: 708 A. along with the characteristics of the replacement conductor.0% Table 13-8 Conductor Data for Reconductoring Options – Application of Framework – Step 2 Line 153–3005 Parameter Type Code name Aluminum area Diameter Weight AC resistance at 75°C Ampacity at conditions* Resistance reduction w.504 1838 0.0275 870 26.58 Line 3001–3003: Maximum current: 1140 A. Table 13-7 Economic parameters – Application of the Evaluation Framework Parameter Peak coincident factor Year of analysis Interest rate Energy cost Energy cost escalation rate Capacity cost CO2 emissions per kWh CO2 value CO2 value escalation rate [yr] [%] [$/kWh] [%/yr] [$/kW-yr] [tn/MWh] [$/tn] [%/yr] Unit Value 0.060 1522 16. only one conductorreplacement option for each line is considered here.927 765 0.5 Table 13–7 contains the economic parameters used in this analysis.0375 727 Recond.0% 75 0. For the sake of simplicity.r. sun. Line-loading factor: 0. Line-loading factor: 0.t existing conductor kcmil [in] [lbs/Kft] [ohm/kft] [A] [%] Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Dove 557 0..Table 13-8 presents the characteristics of the existing conductors for both lines. The system average production cost shown in Table 13-5 is used as the cost of energy ($64/MWh). Option ACSR/TW Maumee 768 0. The MAUMEE/TW conductor is only 6% higher than the existing 13-33 . ambient air temperature 25°C.64 2.7% * Rating conditions: 2ft/sec.072 1384 Recond.8 30 7% 0.7% Line 3001–3003 Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing 1590 1. Option ACSR/TW Athabaska 1373 1.

Hence. the trapezoidal replacement wire with a larger diameter has a much higher weight. The economic performance of the proposed solutions is presented in Table 13–11.1 Table 13–10 presents energy. The superior efficiency is because. and emissions savings for the reconductoring options considered for each of the selected lines. Moreover. The resistance is 26.000 Line 3001–3005 Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing Recond. so the effect on structure forces should be carefully investigated.000 20. in the case of a large conductor. The resistance is about 17%. However. In the case of line 3001–3003. Therefore. the conductor cost is relatively high. the efficiency of the investment is superior in the case of line 153–3005.7% lower. demand. This TW conductor is of the same diameter as the ACSR Lapwing. it is more difficult to off-set the investment cost from the loss savings. in this case.2 15.9 Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Dove Recond. the replacement conductor produces a more significant reduction in losses. so it is assumed that it can be installed in the existing tower with minor modifications. Option ACSR/TW Athabaska 5. In the case of line 3001–3003. and. and emissions savings justify the investment in both cases. there is no need for significant tower reinforcement.5 3275 263. as can be observed from the economic and savings metrics described in the table. However.9 5000 0. a trapezoidal wire conductor ATHABASKA/TW is considered for replacing the existing ACSR Lapwing conductor.5 4912 395. Option ACSR/TW Maumee 2.000 20. as a consequence. Table 13–9 provides an estimate of the investment costs. the monetary savings in terms of energy. other conductor-replacement options with a larger-diameter TW could be studied. 13-34 . capacity. It can be observed that the total present value of both solutions is less than the total present value of the losses that would be incurred with the existing conductor.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Dove conductor. in large conductors. which allows for a significant reduction in line losses. Table 13-9 Project Costs for Reconductoring Options – Application of Framework – Step 2 Line 153–3005 Item Conductor type Conductor code name Conductor cost Structure cost/upgrades Stringing cost Engineering and other costs Installation and hardware costs Scrap value of existing line Total investment Levelized investment cost [$/ft] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/ft] [K$] [K$/yr] 3500 0.

0 43% 836 20.r.6 [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWhyr] 74.553 Recond.7 254. and emissions costs plus investment 13-35 .483 Line 3001–3003 Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing 70.79 32.269 11.53 Recond.4 Recond.9 save 1 tn of C02 * Total present value includes energy.3% 2. capacity.4 282.131 10.t.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Line 3001–3003 Existing Conductor ACSR Lapwing 97.0 3.653 Levelized investment cost to [$/tn CO2] 22.784 48.353 16.3 1282.295 1299. Option ACSR/TW Athabaska 59.066 1027.2 5.50 53.1 Table 13-11 Economic Analysis Results: 138-kV Line 153–3005: Preliminary Analysis at Step 2 Line 153–3005 Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Dove Total present value* Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap. Option ACSR/TW Maumee 58.9 34.8 1582.3% 1.98% 2.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-10 Annual Energy and Emissions Savings – Reconductoring Options . Option ACSR/TW Athabaska 86.2% 3. to line losses Annual energy-loss savings w.64 Recond. to system losses Average peak-demand reduction [GWh/yr] [GWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] [%] [MW] 43.60 4.85 12.03 11.Application Of Framework – Step 2 Line 153–3005 Item Unit Existing Conductor ACSR Dove Average annual line losses Annual energy line loss savings Average annual line emissions Annual line emission savings Annual energy-loss savings w.99 2.92 63.0 26% 2146 30.t.515 26. Option ACSR/TW Maumee 35.r.

The line is an H-frame structure using wood poles and I-strings. and strut insulators are added to the I-strings on the outside phases to constrain the conductors. so that the representation is somehow more realistic. Table 13–13 shows the reduction in demand-loss savings achieved with this voltage-upgrade project. 2 13-36 . This prospective project is also evaluated at this step in the process to determine whether it is economically attractive. The line is a rather old design with high security margins. Table 13–12 presents the cost estimate for this project. This reduction is caused by the changes in the power-flow pattern across the grid. Note that. It is considered that some line bays will need to be upgraded at both substations to connect the existing line to the 230-kV busbars.6 x 25. In a small system like this.6 m) for the upgraded 230-kV structure. The V-string prevents conductor movement for the center phase. This voltage-upgrade project is based on a real case reported in 0. The original case is a 115kVto 230-kV line nominal voltage increase implemented by the BPA. even though normal phase spacing for a 230-kV line in a horizontal configuration at BPA is 20 ft (6. so these two potential options for the same transmission line are mutually exclusive. the phase distance of 12 ft (3. so the selection of the slack bus impacts the results. In this study-system model.6 m). on the other hand. The phase spacing on the original 138-kV structure is 12 ft (3.4-cm ceramic insulators) I-strings on the outside phases to 9 units. New hardware can be used to mount the conductor to the V-string and to the strut insulator.3 MW. The conductor is a 577-kcmil ACSR Dove. This conductor is somewhat small for 230-kV transmission lines. The center phase can be converted from a 6-unit I-string to a V-string. It is considered in this case that phase spacing needs to be increased to 15 ft (4. in which each leg of the V-string has 9 units. BPA has not received any electromagnetic interference (EMI) or audible noise (AN) complaints. In the original BPA voltage-upgrade case. the only line that can be upgraded to an upper voltage level in this system is the 138-kV line 153–3005. the generation dispatch is not altered with respect to the existing system. Unlike reconductoring projects. 2 Hence. because network impedance characteristics and topology are altered. line West (3005) – MID138 (153) is a 50-mile-long.62 MW. It can be observed in this table that. but in the original project. In reconductoring options. The line can be upgraded to 230 kV by changing the 6-unit (53/4 x 10-in or 14. This line has been considered for reconductoring. singlecircuit transmission line.1 m). the marginal unit in each scenario can be chosen as the slack machine. 138-kV.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Voltage upgrade of Line 153–3005 (138 kV to 230 kV) As mentioned above. the physical characteristics of the West (3005) – MID138 (153) line are defined similar to those of the real line in the BPA system. structure modification is needed. the system loss-reduction is 15. Table 13–14 shows savings in terms of energy and CO2 emissions. the reduction in total system losses is of the same magnitude as the reduction in the reconductored line. and Table 13–15 presents the economic analysis results. In this case study. loss savings in voltage-upgrade projects need to be evaluated with a power-flow analysis of the entire network. The generator at the slack bus absorbs the difference in losses. whereas the transmission line loss-reduction at peak conditions is 7. in the evaluation of losses presented in these tables.6 m) was retained. so that the basic characteristics and considerations of the real voltage-upgrade project apply to this generic case.

0 122.0 107.1 511.3 12.8 3.62 7.5 3.0 1100.1 60.5% 193.5% 7.058 917 Table 13-13 Demand-Loss Savings – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 Item System peak demand System demand losses Demand loss percentage System loss-reduction System loss-reduction Line losses Line loss-reduction Line loss-reduction Line power flow Line-current magnitude Unit [MW] [MVAR] [MW] [%] [MW] [%] [MW] [MW] [%] [MW] [MVAR] [A] Existing Line 3220.5 49.3% 15.0 1100.77 -157.8% --14.7 13-37 .4 VoltageUpgraded Line 3220.2 48.000 3500 2000 12.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-12 Conductor Data for Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 Item Conductor type Conductor code name Line nominal voltage Structure cost/upgrades Engineering and other costs Installation and hardware costs Substations upgrading costs Total investment Levelized investment cost [kV] [$/mile] [$/mile] [$/mile] [k$] [K$] [K$/yr] Unit Existing Line ACSR Dove 138 VoltageUpgraded Line ACSR Dove 230 220.0 708.

8% Table 13-15 Economic Analysis Results – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 Item Total present value Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap.0 41% 63.515 VoltageUpgraded Line 763. to system losses Unit [GWh/yr] [GWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] [%] 521.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Unit [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWhyr] [$/tn CO2] Existing Line 820.21 Voltage Upgrade Line 534.7 5.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-14 Energy and Emissions Savings – Voltage Upgrade of Line 153–3005 – Application of Framework – Step 2 Item Average system annual losses Annual system energy-loss savings Average system annual emissions Annual system emissions savings Annual energy-loss savings w.491 7.433 4466.297 Existing Line 579.1 Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 13-38 .22 44.9 480.t.6 24.r.805 40.2 5571.0 21.73 2.5 1105.

In this generic and illustrative case study. Indeed. the voltage-upgrade option should be selected over the reconductoring option for this transmission line. whereas in the voltage-upgrade case. Step 4: Evaluate Costs Associated with Upgrade Implementation.3. a number of other technical and economic components are taken into account for ranking and selecting investment projects.1 13-39 . the effect on loss savings of both projects implemented together is very close to the sum of the effects of both projects implemented individually. the set of projects selected for final evaluation comprises: • • Reconductoring of 138-kV Line 3001–3003 with an Athabaska trapezoidal conductor Raising the nominal voltage of Line 153–3005 from 138 kV to 230 kV and retaining the existing ACSR Dove conductor It is clear that in evaluating options in real power systems. million for conductor replacement). Therefore. increasing the nominal voltage and changing the conductor. Table 13–16 presents the results of this analysis in terms of demand. Certainly.8%. however. there are no further elements to perform a detailed cost analysis. a comprehensive cost-analysis should be conducted at this step. and the loss-reduction achieved with the voltage upgrade of Line 153–3005 is 15. Based on these characteristics. Reconductoring of line 153–3005 and voltage upgrade of the same line are mutually exclusive projects.) The evaluation of individual projects in Step 3 shows that the economic efficiency of these two projects is similar—as can be observed from the economic metrics. whereas in the voltage-upgrade case. However.4 MW) is very close to the 17.2% of the total system energy losses. but also from the change in the power-flow pattern. that option is not considered here because it increases investment costs. Therefore. it is 15. the loss-reduction achieved with the reconductoring of Line 3001–3003 is 2. The preliminary analysis in Step 3 reveals that the three options considered are reasonable candidates for loss-reduction projects. At this step.and energy-loss savings.1 MW (Table 13–10). however. The investment cost for the voltage upgrade of Line 153–3005 is much higher than for the reconductoring option ($12 million as compared to $3. The sum of these two values (17. the investment costs assumed in previous stages are used in all the steps of the evaluation process. It can be inferred from this table and from the results of Step 2 that. the savings for the voltage upgrade are much higher than for the reconductoring option. the reduction in demand losses at peak conditions in the reconductoring case is 3. Step 5: Conduct Benefit/Cost Analysis of Line Upgrades Without Increasing System Utilization. (One can consider. in this case.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Step 3: Determine Optimal Set of Projects. and taking into account that the objective of these projects is to reduce transmission losses as much as technically and economically feasible. the benefit/cost/ analysis of the complete set of projects is conducted.3 MW. they are about 7. Generations dispatch is not altered with respect to the dispatch of the existing system. The annual energy-loss savings in the former case are 2. IRR and payback period.3 MW.9 MW. In applications of this framework for actual systems. These savings result not only from the lower current flowing in the higher-voltage line. as an option. so no variation in the average production cost is produced. The evaluation of loss-reduction is performed with power-flow analyses of the complete system for the seven power-flow scenarios.

5 Unit [MW] [MVAR] [MW] [%] [MW] [%] [GWh/yr] [GWh/yr] [tn/yr] [tn/yr] 521. Table 13–17 shows the results of the economic analysis.r.9% 524. (Compare values in Table 13–11.665 49.07 55.5% 63.0 122.0 1100.3% 17. Table 13–15.7 3.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options MW of loss-reduction achieved when both projects are considered together.297 Existing System 3220.146 471. Table 13-16 Loss Savings – Complete Set of Projects – Application of Framework – Step 5 Item System peak demand System demand losses Demand loss percentage System loss-reduction System loss-reduction Average system annual losses Annual system energy loss-savings Average system annual emissions Annual system emissions savings Annual energy loss-savings w.0 105. and Table 13–17). Some economic metrics—like the levelized savings per invested dollar. because of the influence of the reconductoring project.8% --579. It is observed that the economic efficiency of the investment is as good as that for the voltage-upgrade project considered alone.1 13. to system losses System average production cost [$/MWh] 63.0 1100.21 With Set of Projects 3220.5 13-40 .8 3. and the levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02—worsen to a certain degree with respect to the voltage-upgrade project implemented individually.t. the levelized cost of energy loss-reduction.632 9. The same observation applies to the energy loss-reduction.

0 49% 80.375 5342.5 Levelized investment cost to save 1 tn of C02 Step 7: Evaluate Transmission-Capability Increase. however. In real power systems. the transmission limits of important corridors are determined by considering all applicable reliability constraints. whereas the capacity increases to 289 MVA when this line operates at 230 kV.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-17 Economic Analysis Results – Complete Set of Projects – Application of Framework – Step 5 Item Total present value Levelized savings (energy + capacity) Levelized CO2 savings Levelized overall savings (energy+cap. The proposed framework includes measures in Group A for the assessment of other possible benefits that could be achieved if the system is operated so as to take advantage of the increased 13-41 . the capacity when this line operates at 138 kV is 174 MVA. ambient air temperature 25°C.. In this case study.0 24. the capacity of the reconductored line 3001–3003 increases from 330 MVA to 363 MVA when the existing ACSR Lapwing conductor is replaced by an ATHABASKA/TW conductor. Considering that the transmission capability of this line is determined by conductor thermal limits. sun.90 2.6 6697.+CO2) Levelized savings per invested dollar Pay-back period Internal rate of return Average cost of demand reduction Levelized cost of energy lossreduction Unit [K$] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [K$/yr] [$/$] [yr] [%] [$/kW] [$/MWhyr] [$/tn CO2] Existing System 820.4 4. it is assumed that the transmission limits of these lines at normal operating conditions are determined by the conductor thermal rating at standard conditions (wind 2ft/sec. the transport capacity of long transmission corridors is limited by the stability of voltage-control conditions. and it is normally considerably less than the thermal capability of the conductor. the transmission capability is increased.515 With Set of Projects 754. Steady-state and dynamic contingency analysis is usually conducted to determine secure transmission limits. When the selected set of projects for transmission loss-reduction is implemented in this system. conductor temperature 75°C). Step 8: Evaluate Benefits Versus Costs of Increased Capacity Permitted by Upgrades. In addition.8 27. especially in the case of the voltage upgrade of Line MID (3005) – West(153). Normally.8 1354.

Mine (3003). Mine (3001) – S. The results are presented in Table 13–20. Energy loss increases with respect to the existing system. when the upgraded transmission limit is considered in the OPF. because the primary objective for implementing these projects is to reduce losses. with the increased transmission capacity. because its power flow is well below the limit in both cases. a security-constrained dispatch program (OPF) is used to determine the economic dispatch with the increased transmission limits.2 /MWh • Because the energy losses increase rather than decrease. In order to evaluate the additional benefits of increasing the transmission capacity of these two lines. The OPF calculates the minimum system generation cost obtainable within the applied transmission constraints. In this system. because it restricts the dispatch of the most economic generating units. power is moved over longer distances. The other upgraded transmission line. the upgraded line MID 230 (152) – West (3004) is heavily loaded most of the time. This loss increase occurs because. 13-42 . Table 13–18 presents both the current transmission limits and the increased transmission limits permitted by the line upgrades. if the extra transmission capacity allowed by line upgrades is utilized. It is observed in this table that.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options transmission capacity allowed by the upgrading projects. the option of operating the system by taking advantage of the increased limits permitted by the transmission line upgrades is not acceptable. Average production cost is reduced by $2. the transmission capacity of line MID (152) – West(3004) has an important impact on the system operating cost. the following effects are obtained: • • Demand loss is reduced. It is observed from this table that the capacity of Line MID 230 (152) – West (3004) effectively constrains the economic generation dispatch. has no effect on the economic dispatch. Table 13–19 shows the power flow over the two upgraded lines corresponding to these generationdispatch patterns. Indeed. the power flow over this line reaches its new limit. but to a lesser degree than the reduction achieved when the system is operated with the same transmission limits as in the existing system. Indeed. A similar analysis is conducted for all seven of the power-flow scenarios to evaluate annual energy losses and average production.

0 86. Mine (3003) Nominal Voltage 230 kV 138 kV Original Dispatch 203 248 Updated Economic Dispatch 289 251 Updated Limit [MVA] 289 363 13-43 .8 98.9 615.5 Table 13-19 Power Flow on Upgraded lines – Application of Framework – Step 8 Power Flow [MVA] Transmission line MID 230 (152) – West (3004) Mine (3001) – S.8 581.5 215.9 161.0 86.9 180.5 98.9 161.6 598.8 129.6 599.4 3342.9 60.9 599.4 3335.9 60.8 With Upgraded Transmission Limits 599.9 615.43 Name MAIN-A URBGEN NORTH_G MID_G MID_G DOWNTN_G RURAL_G RURAL_G MINE_G CATDOG_G CATDOG_G TOTAL [MW] Dispatch [MW] With Original Transmission Limits 599.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-18 Generation Dispatch with Increased Transmission Capacity – Application of Framework – Step 8 Generator Bus # 101 206 211 1530 1530 1540 3009 3009 3011 3018 86.8 180.9 215.8 129.

the ranking process is not applicable for this case. The selection criteria may vary greatly from one utility to another. In this illustrative case study.0 1100.07 55.0 105. and even for different circumstances within the same enterprise or institution.t. therefore.5% 63. but also other less-direct monetary aspects and nonmonetary impacts.5 -18.9% 61.0 1100. However. to system losses System average production cost [$/MWh] Unit [MW] [MVAR] [MW] [%] [MW] [%] [GWh/yr] [GWh/yr] With original transmission limits 3220.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options Table 13-20 Savings and Benefits Obtained with the Set of Upgrading Projects – Application of Framework – Step 8 Item System peak demand System demand losses Demand-loss percentage System loss-reduction System loss-reduction Average system annual losses Annual system energy loss-savings Annual energy loss-savings w.3 Stage 4: Ranking of Methods At this stage. it is recommended that not only economic metrics be considered for this purpose.7 3. Hence. 13-44 . the various loss-reduction options evaluated in detail at Stage 3 are ranked according to the adopted criteria and selected for the next steps in the TEE process. only the loss-reduction options included in Group A have been studied.9% 597.3 -1.r.3 5.5 3. the ranking and selecting approach needs to be adapted to each particular situation.5 With upgraded transmission limits 3220.3% 17.14 9.1 13.0 115.6% 7.9% 524.

1010626. John Wiley & Sons. 13-45 . Palo Alto. Barthold. “Maximizing The Capability of AC Transmission Lines. Rau. IEEE Tutorial Course. EPRI. CA: 2008.Framework for Assessing Loss-Reduction Options References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Transmission Line Reference Book : 115–345 kV Compact Line Design. 1016823. and Challenges. EPRI. CA: 2006. Inc. Woodford. 2003. Optimal Power Flow: Solution Techniques. 1996. Feasibility of Increasing Transmission Line Capacity by Voltage Upgrade. 1013984. IEEE Power Engineering Society. Requirements. and D. CA: 2007. Douglas. Optimization Principles. D. Palo Alto. EPRI. L. EPRI. 1012406. CA: 2006. Increased Power Flow by Incremental Transmission Upgrades: Impact on Planning and Operations. Palo Alto. Narayan S. Palo Alto. Risk and Rewards of Incremental Transmission Upgrades.” CIGRE (2008).

.

and from which lessons learned can be drawn to quantify and verify the energy savings on transmission systems 3. end-use EE programs have been implemented for more than three decades on both a national and a world-wide basis. This section covers issues such as: 1. measurement. Within the broader context of EE programs. M&V activities can assist utilities to perform an impact evaluation of their programs. rules. Measurement and verification (M&V) is often mentioned within the context of energy-efficiency implementation as the process of measuring the savings resulting from the installation of a specific EE measure and verifying the accuracy of those savings. measurement and verification (EM&V) of an EE program is usually the final step in the process. As compared to end-use efficiency projects. and methodologies have been implemented during these years to effectively deploy EE programs and overcome the numerous obstacles and difficulties that this type of program entails. and those 14-1 . A five-step example of how a simulation-based M&V method for verification of transmission loss-reduction could be implemented 5. Some of the difficulties that may face EM&V and how they can be worked around Introduction Evaluation. Comparison with end-use efficiency projects for which certain established EM&V exist. Clearly.14 PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION FOR TEE PROGRAMS This section defines the general requirements of an evaluation. the nature of the options for improving transmission efficiency. The need for such an effort because of the lack of industry standards to account for electrical losses on the T&D systems 2. and verification (EM&V) for energy efficiency in the power-delivery system. the participating parties. On the other hand. for which certain established measures (such as the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs) have associated energy savings. there is no industry-wide standard method to account for either electrical losses on the transmission or distribution system or the loss-reduction opportunities for T&D upgrade projects. efficiency projects in transmission and distribution systems do not have the benefit of widely accepted savings guidelines. The need for “calibration” of the simulation-based M&V efforts because of the absence of baseline conditions after the loss-reduction options are applied 4. Currently. Consolidated and well-established procedures.

and calibrated simulation. End-use process evaluations also analyze customer satisfaction with program services and related issues dealing with market acceptance. on the other hand. The evaluation of the process in end-use EE programs is more complex than in TEE programs. savings can be determined by comparing measured use before and after the implementation of a project. using the following general equation: Savings = [ Before( Energy. would be implemented by the utility on its own assets and would be managed and controlled by the utility itself. Instead. An example is the determination of the savings resulting from a lighting retrofit in an entire department store when the store’s hours of operation also changed during the same timeframe. including the efficiency of service delivery. The main characteristics of these methods are summarized in Table 14–1. and terminology from the end-use energy-efficiency technology can be used as a reference for developing standards to measure and verify energy savings from TEE projects. However. Despite the inherent differences that may exist between end-use and TEE programs. the effectiveness of promotional strategies. because they represent the absence of energy use. making appropriate adjustments for changes in conditions [1]. The comparison of before-and-after energy use or demand can be made on a consistent basis. whole-facility measurement. 14-2 . because they involve many parties and participants and generally have broader objectives. the M&V activities in TEE will mainly focus on quantifying savings and verifying the accuracy of those savings. There are four accepted methods for determining savings in end-use EE programs: retrofit isolation with key-parameter measurement. TEE programs. the concepts.” The “after” term is also more commonly called the “post-installation” or “post-implementation” term. Demand) − After( Energy. retrofit isolation with all-parameter measurement. Method for M&V Applied in End-Use EE Programs M&V is the process of using measurements to reliably determine the actual savings created within an individual facility by an EE project. Indeed. The facility’s energy savings (O&M or water) cannot be measured. savings are determined by comparing the energy use before and after the installation of conservation measure(s). Demand) ] ± Adjustments The “before” term in the above equation is more commonly known as the “baseline. approaches. and the coordination of programs with other EE activities and utility functions. because they represent the absence of energy use. Savings cannot be directly measured. process evaluations in end-use EE programs usually address utility operations.Principle of Measurement and Verification for TEE programs involved in the implementation decision-making process for potential transmission energyefficiency (TEE) programs may differ substantially from their end-use counterparts. Therefore. The “adjustments” term in this general equation is used to re-state the energy use or demand of the baseline and post-installation periods under a common set of conditions. in the event that some operational parameters outside of those directly influenced by the project also change.

In the baseline period. but simple comparisons may also be used. Periodic spot or short-term measurements may suffice when variations in factors are not expected. Savings are determined by means of engineering calculations of baseline and post-installation energy use. which reads the power every minute. Typical Applications A lighting retrofit in which power draw is the key performance parameter that is measured periodically. This method usually requires considerable skill in calibrated simulation. Energy or proxies of energy use are measured continuously. Application of a variable-speed drive and controls to a motor to adjust pump flow. regression analysis is conducted to correlate with and adjust energy use to independent variables such as weather. after installation of gas and electric meters. The meter is in place throughout the post-installation period to track variations in power use. Multifaceted energymanagement program affecting many systems in a facility. 14-3 . determined by using the calibrated simulation. Energy-use measurements. based on measured and estimated values. Retrofit Isolation with All-Parameter Measurement This option is based on periodic or continuous measurements of energy use taken at the component or system level when variations in factors are expected. Simulation routines are demonstrated to adequately model the actual energy performance measured in the facility. are used to calibrate a simulation. Measure electric power with a kW meter installed on the electrical supply to the motor. Typically. Baseline energy use. Measure metered energy use for a twelve-month baseline period and throughout the postinstallation period. Savings are determined from analysis of baseline and reporting-period energy data. but in which no meter existed in the baseline period. is compared to a simulation of post-installation-period energy use.Principle of Measurement and Verification for TEE programs Table 14-1 Characteristics and Typical Applications of Methods for M&V in End-Use EE Programs M&V method Retrofit Isolation with Key-Parameter Measurement Characteristics and Savings Calculation Based on a combination of measured and estimated factors when variations in factors are not expected. Estimate operating hours of the lights based on building schedules and occupant behavior. Engineering calculation of baseline and postinstallation-period energy use and demand are evaluated from: • • short-term or continuous measurements of key estimated values operating parameter(s) Adjustments are made as required. Whole-Facility Measurement Savings are determined by measuring energy use and demand at the whole-facility or sub-facility level. this meter is in place for a week to verify constant loading. Multifaceted energymanagement program affecting many systems in a facility. Savings are determined from analyses of baseline and reporting-period energy use or proxies of energy use. Calibrated Simulation Computer-simulation software is used to model energy performance of a whole facility (or subfacility).

14-4 . As a result. after the first year of performance. The savings determined for the individual energy-conservation measures should total the savings determined from the baseline and performance-period runs [2]. Calibrated simulation is applicable in end-use EE projects with these characteristics (among others): complex equipment replacement and control projects for which the use of retrofit isolation methods (1st and 2nd methods) is not applicable. The accuracy of the models is ensured by using metered site data to describe baseline and/or performance-period conditions. M&V Considerations for Transmission Energy-Efficiency Projects An approach based on a calibrated simulation model could be formulated for the accountability of the savings actually achieved with TEE projects. Impact evaluations often require data on energy consumption and related variables for a full year after the installation of efficiency measures. for which control can be deactivated for some period of time). baseline does not exist. Even for the simplest projects. proposed savings are determined by subtracting the results of the performanceperiod model from the results of the calibrated baseline model. Individual energy conservationmeasure savings are determined by the difference in energy or demand use between two consecutive runs. Computer simulation is a powerful tool that allows an experienced user to model a building’s electrical and mechanical systems in order to predict building energy use both before and after the installation of an energy-conservation measure. the evaluation of savings is typically performed during the second year of implementation at the earliest. there are two options for calculating verified savings: 1) calibrate the performance-period model and subtract the results of the baseline model using the same conditions. Calibrated simulation analysis is an expensive M&V procedure.Principle of Measurement and Verification for TEE programs The last method—calibrated simulation—has characteristics that make it more suitable as a base for developing M&V methods for TEE programs. In this method. new construction projects are involved. or energy-savings values per individual measure are desired. Carefully constructed models can provide savings estimates for an individual energy-conservation project. Calibrated Simulation methods follow five general steps: • • • • • Collect data Input data and test baseline model Calibrate the baseline model Create and refine the performance-period model Verify performance and calculate savings The method used to determine savings will depend upon the phase of the project. During project development. simulation modeling and calibration are time-intensive activities and should be performed by an accomplished building-simulation specialist. The methodology is attractive for this application because the baseline conditions are no longer measurable after the loss-reduction option has been applied (except perhaps for voltage optimization or diverting power flow. both using the agreed-upon weather data and facility operating conditions. or 2) subtract the measured utility data for the performance period from the results of the baseline model that was updated to actual conditions.

the model with the original line configuration is used. Step 5: Determine the loss achieved as the difference between the loss levels determined in Step 5 and Step 3. Therefore.Principle of Measurement and Verification for TEE programs The following is an example of how a calibrated-simulation method for verification of transmission loss-reduction could be implemented. the measurement of annual energy losses would be determined by taking the difference between the inputs and the system output. An IEEE report addresses the difficulties in the estimation of transmission losses on transmission networks and proposes a method for the calculation of transmission-loss coefficients when the only information available 14-5 . In the specific case of a transmission network. Suppose that the set of implemented loss-reduction measures is comprised of one transmission line reconductored with an advanced conductor and a transmission line uprated to a higher voltage level. Inputs and outputs at the control-area boundaries and generator outputs are normally recorded in increments of MW per hour. Hence.) Moreover. This situation results in a meter-reading billing-cycle error. Step 3: Calibrate the model and procedure to match the simulation results with the actual losses to a reasonable level of accuracy. Readings from most customer meters are recorded each month by meter-reading methods that can only record about a twentieth of the meters for each business day in the month. it is not based on a true calendar-year consumption period. and it would require coordinated measurements at all boundary substations. The total energy loss for the entire system can be determined for an electric system because of system metering. The procedure for an energy-loss savings calculation would be: • • • • Step 1: Determine from the measurement record the actual transmission-system losses for year 2. • The process is conducted in the same fashion for the following years of the analysis horizon. (The use of electronic meters allows a utility to minimize this error. there are loads that have no meters. All other elements in the simulation are retained to make the simulation results consistent. Steps 1 and 3 pose a challenge for the practical implementation of this methodology. However. Assume that both projects are built in year 1 and commissioned at the beginning of year 2. These values therefore encompass the total system energy-input on a year-end to year-end basis. a detailed evaluation is difficult for a number of reasons: Energy losses are calculated by taking the difference between all the known metered inputs to the electrical system and subtracting all the known outputs. Substation power and light requirements are also not normally metered. Hence. so that the energy use has to be estimated. a comprehensive investigation should be conducted to evaluate the possibility of accurately determining transmission losses from measurements. This will be the updated baseline or reference case against which the real impact of the measures will be assessed. Step 4: Determine via simulation the total losses for year 2 that would result if the line upgrades were not in service. although each customer has an annual energy record. All these factors have been identified for many utilities as part of their loss-accounting challenges. Step 2: Determine via simulation the total losses for year 2.

simpler M&V approaches can be envisaged for these measures. Fliscounakis. No. W.Gustafson and J. W. Lafeuillade. M. References [1]. corona losses and other NLL have to be determined separately.” IEEE Trans. reasonable mismatches between the model and the measurement (assuming that loss-measurement can be done) could be accepted. [5]. 3 (August 1988). Baylor.) Moreover. The development of an integrated procedure for M&V of TEE programs requires as a first step a detailed investigation of the feasibility of the proposed approach—especially Steps 1 and 3. on Power Systems.lbl. the main difficulty may arise from the fact that energy losses are determined by considering a relatively small number of representative snapshots and integrating them along the load-duration curve. 14-6 . Despite this possible modeling shortage. model set-up and updates. 2008. (But simulations would need to be consistent. Hence. 3.Gustafson and J. “Estimation of Transmission Loss Coefficients from Measurements. and not necessarily to determine the real amount of the losses. its applicability for the M&V of TEE programs needs to be carefully evaluated. and C. Hence. “The Equivalent Hours Loss Factor Revisited. M. [3]. Palo Alto.pdf S.” Power Tech. [4]. 1016273.S. F.0. 2005).S. insulation losses.Principle of Measurement and Verification for TEE programs are active injection measurements and active balance sheets [3]. The representation of all the sources of losses in a transmission system is not completely included in the model. some model parameters could be changed. However. 3. 4 (November 1988). 2005 IEEE Russia (June 27–30. Baylor. Vol. However. however. on Power Systems.gov/mv/docs/MV 20Guidelines 20Version 3. Power-flow simulation models usually include a representation of Joule losses in transmission lines and transformers. The process of simulation-model calibration (Step 3) also presents difficulties and challenges. Each snapshot represents the average characteristics of a large number of system operating conditions. SVC synchronous condensers) could be included in these models as well. because these measures only affect losses on the transmission line where they are implemented. M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects. Limousin. and model calibration need to be developed. No.” IEEE Trans.0Final. Vol. Note. Energy-Efficiency Planning Guidebook: Energy-Efficiency Initiative. Version 3. EPRI. The specific protocols for determining actual losses based on measurements. and even reconductoring—it would not be necessary to model and measure losses on the entire system. that because the main objective is to compare losses for conditions “with” and “without” the considered loss-reduction measures. NLL such as transformer excitation losses. “Transmission Loss Evaluation For Electric Systems. CA: 2008. [2]. http://ateam. and losses of shunt compensators and controllers (reactors. in order to calibrate the model to fit the simulation results with measurements. But those changes would not represent actual system characteristics. for some of the considered loss-reduction measures—such as shield-wire segmentation.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from the investigation conducted in this project. as demonstrated in Section 4. Therefore. Improving efficiency in the transmission networks by reducing associated power losses plays a very important role in the effort to enhance overall system efficiency. the available technological options are evaluated with the reduction in transmission losses as the main objective. In this report. However. regulatory frameworks. Although the measures considered here to reduce losses are well known to the industry. in economic terms. are summarized below: 15-1 . and little or no attention has been paid to the improvement of energy efficiency in other segments of the utility value chain—including energy efficiency in the transmission and distribution networks. If the option proposed to reduce losses is cost-effective. depending on system characteristics. Specific regulatory instruments need to be adopted in order for the utilities to recover their investment costs and to provide incentives to promote the implementation of loss-reduction technologies.reduction and to choose the most effective options. it should be implemented because it is deemed to be beneficial for society. And it also plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. related to implementation issues and the cost-effectiveness of loss-reduction options. This project is an effort to provide the electricity industry with an investigation of technological options to reduce losses in transmission networks. cost-effective analyses of each loss-reduction option can consist of comparing. The values associated with reducing transmission losses impact power-system participants in many different ways. especially in the new climate of generalized interest and efforts for energy-efficiency improvements. the required investment cost with the overall societal benefits. because transmission losses account for approximately 2– 4% of the total electricity generated in the United States.15 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Summary Loss reductions in transmission systems are an important consideration for utilities concerned with operating their transmission systems efficiently. and other circumstances. Thus. the most appropriate and simplest way to assess the benefits of reducing transmission losses is by evaluating the cost of these losses to society as a whole. they have normally been applied in actual systems to increase transmission capacity and improve reliability (with consideration of the impact on losses a side effect or byproduct). reducing transmission losses provides a benefit by reducing investment in generation and transmission infrastructure. ownerships. Programs to improve energy efficiency have been implemented by utilities and enterprises in the electricity industry for more than three decades. A comprehensive strategic framework is developed to assess and evaluate the energy-efficiency opportunities from transmission system loss. From a societal point of view. A monetary value can be established for these three elements. these programs have been focused mainly on end-use customers.

this strategy may result in a cost-effective solution. The loss-reduction achieved in MW in the entire transmission network is greater than the reduction in MW achieved in the upgraded line because of the changes in the power-flow pattern. Raising transmission-line nominal voltage may allow reduction of losses in an upgraded transmission line by more than 50%. the proper definition of baseline conditions is crucial to correctly identifying and quantifying the benefits. Studies demonstrate that the solution is cost-effective and has a good economic performance. there is an opportunity to select a more-efficient transformer than the one being replaced—thus achieving a reduction in transformer losses. a methodology to establish an appropriate baseline is key. there is no industry-standardized method to account for either electrical losses on the transmission system or for the loss-reduction opportunities for T&D upgrade projects. Reconductoring with trapezoidal-wire conductors of equal diameter allows utilities to reduce transmission-line losses up to 20% without significant modifications in structures. if the unit replacement is decided upon for reasons other than improving efficiency. There are a number of analytical subtleties involved in quantifying the loss-reduction impact of transmission projects. it may be possible to justify the replacement by taking advantage of a substantial dollarefficiency gain by purchasing a new high-efficiency transformer. Large transformers are usually designed for an optimal trade-off between losses and investment cost. large transformers with high losses. capacity. Hierarchical dynamic voltage control to help reduce transmission loss seems to be the most effective way to reduce transmission losses. depending primarily on the line utilization (line loading) and the value of the cost items involved (energy. The impact of the line loss-reduction on the system losses will depend on the relative weight of the line losses on the overall transmission-network losses. As a result. and emissions). However. Hence. in some cases. while achieving a net loss-reduction in the transmission-line losses at normal operating conditions. Experience from actual implementation of this technology in different power systems reveals that overall transmission losses can be reduced by 1–5%. there is little room to economically justify the replacement of an existing transformer with another more energy-efficient one. the quantification of benefits is more cumbersome. and in general they are efficient. In particular cases involving very old. • • • • • • 15-2 . the reduction achieved on total system losses may not be significant.Concluding Remarks and Future Research • At present. An approach to define baseline conditions for different project types and options is provided in this report. due to the dual-effect feature of the solution. For these cases. some of the available options to reduce losses have a dual effect: they both increase transmission capacity and reduce losses. In such cases. In some cases. allow utilities to meet reliability constraints at N–1 conditions. Hence. Indeed. because of the high investment cost. The extent to which lossreduction methods can be evaluated depends upon the primary purpose of the improvement. if the transmission-line usage is not significantly increased after the upgrading. Reconductoring with advanced low-sag conductors may. even though reconductoring a given transmission line may be cost-effective. especially in the core. Besides. it might be necessary to reconductor a number of transmission lines to achieve an appreciable reduction in the transmission-network losses. There is a need to develop an industry-wide standard approach to transmission loss studies and to evaluate transmission loss-reduction options.

and more accurately determines power flows and the network voltage profile. The next steps foreseen for continuing this investigation are: • Investigate the technological options for reducing transmission losses in further detail. but they may be cost-effective and relatively easier to implement. monitor. like shield-wire segmentation and insulation loss-reduction. In terms of M&V. a significant amount of loss can be reduced by converting an existing transmission line from ac to dc operation. Specifically investigate diversion of power flow by power-flow controllers and the conversion of ac to dc. • • • Future Work The work performed in this project is a first step toward the development of effective and strategic methodologies and approaches that will allow utilities to evaluate. Practical implementation of the temperature/loading dependency may be possible. because transmission losses will need to be evaluated over a long period of time in the future. Although the principles and applicability of ac to dc conversion have been proven. and verify the implementation of options to improve the energy efficiency of transmission systems. Test the evaluation framework on a number of real systems in order to demonstrate its capacity to consistently quantify losses and assess effective solutions for transmission lossreduction. may only contribute moderately to transmission network loss-reduction. Industry needs a comprehensive methodology to evaluate the application of different available options to reduce transmission losses. A framework for the assessment of energyefficiency opportunities to reduce losses in transmission grids is proposed in this report. Expand the framework to include the next steps in the process of evaluation and implementation of measures to reduce losses (specifically.Concluding Remarks and Future Research • In some cases. it would be very difficult to estimate all future weather conditions affecting the different parts of 15-3 . Changes of transmission-line resistances due to temperature have a significant impact on losses. Develop and test an efficiency-accounting (M&V)methodology. Industry-wide deployment of transmission energy-efficiency programs will need wellestablished measurement and verification (M&V) protocols to demonstrate the realized savings and document the benefits. if the converted dc circuit is loaded in a similar way to the existing ac line. regulatory. no commercial conversions of ac to dc have been implemented to date. The accuracy of loss can be improved if the resistance of the power-transmission-grid model is corrected for particular weather and loading conditions. The savings potential depends upon the line-loading pattern and on the length of the transmission line. Refine the evaluation framework to accommodate different power systems in terms of technical. engineering design and implementation and M&V processes). And it is justifiable because it allows a more accurate allocation of the transmission losses. and business structures. Other options. • • • • Investigate the development of models that adjust the value of line resistances for the expected temperatures and ambient conditions.

an approach to estimate the average or aggregate value of resistance variations should be investigated. Hence. 15-4 .Concluding Remarks and Future Research the transmission systems.

9 215.6 58.5 0. MINE WEST WEST RURAL CATDOG RURAL_G MINE_G CATDOG_G 21.A APPENDIX – TEST-SYSTEM DATA Table A-1 Buses Data: Load.6 230 230 138 138 230 230 138 230 138 18 20 19 19 138 230 138 230 138 138 138 19 13.6 581.8 13.5 133.2 300 550 150 300 600 400 210 150 350 100 [MW] Load [MVAr] Generation [MW] 599.9 323.6 21.9 0 250 100 B-shunt [MVAr] A-1 . and B-Shunt at Peak Conditions Bus # Bus Name Nominal Voltage [kV] 101 102 151 152 153 154 201 202 203 204 205 206 211 1530 1540 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3007 3008 3009 3011 3018 MAIN-A MAIN-B MAINPANT MID230 MID138 DOWNTN NORTH EAST230 EAST138 SUB230 SUB138 URBGEN NORTH_G MID_G DOWNTN_G MINE E. Generation.8 120 900 320 599.6 61.9 615.8 200 270 200 60 95 75 259.8 265.6 0 [MVAr] 95. MINE S.9 220 174.9 146.

0106 0.0737 0.Appendix – Test-System Data Table A-2 Transmission Lines From Bus # To Bus # Ckt Nominal Voltage [kV] 151 151 151 152 152 201 201 3002 153 153 153 154 154 154 203 203 3001 3003 3003 3005 3005 152 152 201 202 3004 202 204 3004 154 154 3005 203 205 3008 205 205 3003 3005 3005 3007 3008 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 R [p.0106 0.0239 0.0287 0.146 0.1969 0.0205 0.] 0.u.] 0.1853 0.0504 0.2792 0.0382 0.3025 0.2455 0.0102 0.0576 0.2117 0.0382 0.2117 0.1323 0.0432 0.0514 Rate [MVA] 474 474 474 474 289 474 474 474 217 217 174 217 217 250 217 217 304 217 217 217 240 Length [mi] 70 70 70 80 50 91 105 105 56 56 50 56 30 80 35 35 45 49 49 42 50 A-2 .0823 0.017 0.0543 0.1276 0.2117 0.0103 0.1134 0.0289 X [p.2148 0.0334 0.036 0.1588 0.0576 0.189 B [p.2148 0.0239 0.1323 0.1489 0.036 0.0546 0.0992 0.0382 0.1853 0.0992 0.u.1134 0.0576 0.0106 0.u] 0.0119 0.0334 0.0992 0.0504 0.0121 0.129 0.3222 0.052 0.1588 0.0432 0.0309 0.2761 0.0187 0.2148 0.

0 1.021 1.0325 0.97 1.] 0.0001 0.0001 0.01857 0.012 0.019 0.u.0001 0.0 1.0 1.0136 0.u] 0.0002 0.Appendix – Test-System Data Table A-3 Transformer Data From Bus # To Bus # Ckt Nr.0000 0. of taps [kV] 101 102 152 153 154 201 202 204 205 3001 3001 3004 3007 3008 151 151 153 1530 1540 211 203 205 206 3002 3011 3005 3009 3018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 5 33 10 10 5 33 21 5 33 5 33 10 11 R [p.0002 0.021 Rate [MVA] 900 900 700 538 269 800 800 500 700 400 1000 400 540 580 1.049 1.0 1.0007 0.0325 0.0 1.0001 0.057 1.0001 0.0001 0.044 0.026 0.0136 0.0 1.022 0.0001 0.059 Tap position A-3 .01625 0.022 0.0002 0.0001 X [p.0 0.0 1.0002 0.02125 0.0 1.

41 256.91 2.5 4.0 3.97 526.499 9.003 0.4 86.433 8.826 95.001 0.0 3.826 202.9 758.438 9.9 202.4 240 50 50 Qmax [MVAr] 600 350 400 135 135 135 135 135 600 72 72 Qmin [MVAr] -100 0 -100 0 0 0 0 0 -300 0 0 Rate [MVA] 750 625 725 269 269 269 269 269 750 312 312 Table A-5 Generators Operation-Cost Parameters Bus # Machine ID CQ [MBTU/MW2-h] Cost Polynomial Coefficients CL [MBTU/MW-h] CC [MBTU/h] Fuel Cost O&M Cost [$/MWh] 4.5 4.4 86.137 547.91 6.97 178.34 758.34 10.85 6.137 9.0 4.249 7.000 0.433 9.91 6.826 95.21 95.0 8.66 101 206 211 1530 1530 1540 3009 3009 3011 3018 3018 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0.438 7.001 0.0 6.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.0 8.74 6.433 9.4 86.249 8.91 8.Appendix – Test-System Data Table A-4 Generators Power-Flow Data Bus # Machine ID Pmax [MW] 101 206 211 1530 1530 1540 3009 3009 3011 3018 3018 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 600 600 616 216 216 216 216 216 600 250 250 Pmin [MW] 240 240 246.001 0.5 3.4 86.5 86.03 7.003 0.9 A-4 .85 8.0 4.001 7.66 10.0 [$/MBTU] 8.85 7.

.

and international participation extends to 40 countries. EPRI.. You and your company understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U. Calif.SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute. and supports research in emerging technologies.com) conducts research and development relating to the generation. nonprofit organization.3774 • 650.. All rights reserved. EPRI also provides technology. Palo Alto.com . Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U. including reliability. EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories are located in Palo Alto. The Electric Power Research Institute. resident is permitted access under applicable U. (EPRI. Tenn. Inc. EPRI’s members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the United States. EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers as well as experts from academia and industry to help address challenges in electricity. Inc.S.313.S. citizen or permanent U. Charlotte.S. California 94303-0813 USA 800. An independent. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property. safety and the environment.S. export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property.S. health.S.com • www. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity Program: Efficient Transmission and Distribution Systems for a Low Carbon Future © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). N.epri. you and your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make your own assessment of the applicable U. you acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.. efficiency.. or foreign export laws or regulations. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a U. and foreign export laws and regulations. Mass.C. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. policy and economic analyses to drive long-range research and development planning.. Knoxville.2121 • askepri@epri.Export Control Restrictions Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U. www. Inc. delivery and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. 1017895 Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue.855. and TOGETHER. Electric Power Research Institute.epri.S. Palo Alto. and Lenox.