Interconnection Evaluation Study

Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls Generator Uprate and Excitation and Governor
Systems Upgrade Interconnection Evaluation Study
Table of Contents
Table of Contents........................................................................................... 2
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................. 4
2. Recommendations .................................................................................... 7
2.1 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Re- runner and Re-wind
...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Excitation Systems ....... 7
2.3 Recommendations for McArthur Falls G.S. Excitation Systems................... 9
2.4 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Generator Re-runner and Re-wind
.................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Excitation Systems ...................... 11
2.6 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S. and Slave
Falls G.S. Proposed Digital Speed Governors ............................................ 13
2.7 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S. and Slave
Falls G.S. Mathematical Computer Models ................................................. 14
3. Introduction ............................................................................................... 14
3.1 Considerations at Great Falls G.S. ............................................................ 15
3.2 Considerations at McArthur Falls G.S. ....................................................... 15
3.3 Considerations at Slave Falls G.S. ............................................................ 15
3.4 Deliverables ............................................................................................... 16
4. Base Case Study Models ...................................................................... 16
5. Short Circuit Analysis............................................................................ 17
6. ACCC Analysis ......................................................................................... 17
7. Transient Stability Analysis ................................................................. 19

7.1 Great Falls Units 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Exciter Upgrades .................................. 19
7.2 McArthur Falls Units 1 to 8 Exciter Upgrades ........................................... 24
7.3 Slave Falls Units 1 to 8 Exciter Upgrades .................................................. 28
8. Small Signal Stability Studies ............................................................. 31
9. Governor Replacement Considerations .......................................... 38
10. Stability Model Requirements .......................................................... 41

10.1 Stability Model Requirements for Governors............................................ 41
10.2 Stability Model Requirements for Excitation System Controls.................. 43
Page 2
11. References .............................................................................................. 44

APPENDIX A : Interconnection Evaluation Study Agreements .......................... 46
APPENDIX B: Correspondence.......................................................................... 74
APPENDIX C : MRO Study Case Single Line Diagram ...................................... 77
Page 3
1. Executive Summary
This Interconnection Evaluation Study (IES) report summarizes a joint
Winnipeg River study which addresses separate interconnection requests
from the Generation Maintenance Engineering Department, Generation
South, for proposed generator uprate along with substantial modifications
to the excitation systems and speed governing systems at Great Falls
G.S., McArthur Falls G.S. and Slave Falls G.S.. As the system effects of
upgrades at any one location could impact the proposed upgrades at the
others it was decided that a joint Winnipeg River study was necessary.
Specifically the joint IES study addresses the following:
1. Great Falls G.S.: The impact of 3 MW of additional generation above

the original 8 MW increase in generation approved based on a
previous Interconnection Facility Study (IFS) report issued in July 2003
[1]. Also the replacement of existing Automatic Voltage Regulators
(AVRs) and rotating main exciters with full static exciters and existing
electro-mechanical governors with digital governors on the remaining 5
units. The projected In-Service Date is 2009.
2. McArthur Falls G.S.: The impact of replacing existing AVRs and

rotating main exciters with full static exciters or replacing only the
AVRs with static pilot exciters on all eight units. The projected In-
Service Date is 2011.
3. Slave Falls G.S.: The impact of an additional 28 MW of generation

increase along with the replacement of existing AVRs and rotating
main exciters with full static exciters and the replacement of existing
electro-mechanical governors with digital governors on all eight units.
The projected In-Service Date is 2009.
The IES makes the following conclusions:
1. There are no detrimental effects to the Manitoba Hydro power system if

Power Supply replaces existing AVRs and rotating main exciters at
Great Falls units 1,2,4,5,and 6, McArthur Falls units 1 to 8 and Slave
Falls units 1 to 8 with full high initial response static exciters.
2. The installation of high initial response static exciters provides some

improvement to the transient stability of the power system in the
vicinity of these stations following system faults in the area.
3. The installation of high initial response exciters excites local oscillatory

modes but this can be addressed relatively inexpensively with the
Page 4
inclusion of Power System Stabilizers (PSSs) as part of the excitation

system package.
4. The proposed replacement of existing electromechanical governors

with digital governors may provide better dynamic response of the
units following load rejections. However this does not significantly
impact the overall operation of the power system. This benefit would
be more evident if part or the whole Manitoba Hydro system becomes
isolated.
5. AC Contingency Calculations (ACCC) analysis shows that in terms of

line ratings and voltage violations, the proposed re-runnering and re-
winding of units at Great Falls G.S. and Slave Falls G.S. to increase
output by 3 MW and 28 MW, respectively, will result in no major
upgrades to the power system but minor upgrades may be required.
ACCC violations will be screened more closely at the IFS stage and
any necessary facility upgrades will be determined. If facility upgrades
are required then cost estimates will be prepared.
6. Considering existing fault levels at Great Falls and Slave Falls and the
recent replacement of all 115 kV breakers with ones having
significantly higher maximum short circuit interrupting ratings, the
increase in MW output at these two stations is not expected to pose
any concern.
The IES makes the following recommendations:
1. Existing AVRs and rotating main exciters shall be replaced by full high
initial response static exciters on all units at McArthur Falls G.S. and
Slave Falls G.S.. Due to the age and vintage of existing rotating main
exciters at these two stations, and the potential impact of power
system stabilizers at these locations, static pilot exciters which provide
voltage regulation via existing rotating main exciters, are not
recommended for these two stations.
2. Existing AVRs and rotating main exciters shall be replaced by full high
initial response static exciters on the remaining units (1,2,4-6) at Great
Falls G.S.. These exciters shall be of similar functionality to the existing
exciter on Great Falls Unit 3 which was commissioned in August 2003.
3. The new high initial response exciters shall come equipped with
modern dual input power system stabilizers along with line drop
compensators.
4. Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

shall operate to limit and not trip the machine.
Page 5
5. New digital governors to replace the existing electro-mechanical

governors on all units at Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls
shall be based on the functionality requirements presented in this
report.
6. Suppliers shall provide both detailed as well as standard IEEE

mathematical computer study models of all excitation systems and
speed governor controls, which are compatible with MRO and NERC
requirements, as outlined in this report.
7. Should this project proceed to the Interconnection Facility Study (IFS)

stage, additional short circuit and ACCC studies shall be performed to
determine anticipated short circuit levels in the area and the
requirement for facility upgrades. IFS shall provide for closer
screening of ACCC violations and cost estimates shall be prepared for
any necessary facility upgrades.
As per the IES agreements, all funding for the substantial modifications at
Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls shall come from the Power
Supply Division.
Page 6
2. Recommendations
The recommendations from this IES are provided below for each station
studied as per the IES agreements. As per the IES agreements, all
funding for the substantial modifications at Great Falls, McArthur Falls and
Slave Falls shall be come from the Power Supply Division.
2.1 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Re- runner

and Re-wind
The impact of 3 MW of additional generation above the original 8 MW

increase may proceed without any major negative impact to the power
system from a steady state or stability perspective. Should this project
proceed to the Interconnection Facility Study (IFS) stage, additional short
circuit and ACCC studies shall be performed to determine anticipated
short circuit levels in the area and the requirement for facility upgrades.
The IFS shall provide for closer screening of ACCC violations and cost
estimates shall be prepared for any necessary facility upgrades.
2.2 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Excitation

Systems
Based on the results and discussions above and work already performed
on Great Falls Unit 3, the following are recommended for Great Falls Units
1,2,4,5 and 6 excitation system upgrades:
 Fast, bus fed, high initial response full static exciters with continuous
acting voltage regulators; the exciters will be required to circulate
positive field current only;
 The time for the excitation voltage to reach 95% of the difference
between ceiling voltage and rated load field voltage shall be 25
milliseconds or less after a sudden sustained 5% step change in
generator terminal voltage;
 Exciter field forcing voltage limits Efdmax and Efdmin shall be specified
as +6.0 pu and –5.0 pu, respectively. In this case, 1 pu field voltage
shall be defined as the generator field voltage required to produce 1
pu terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. Rotor
insulation shall be specified to accommodate these limits.
Page 7
 The exciter voltage regulator shall be specified to include Line Drop

Compensation (LDC). The available LDC shall range from zero to a
minimum of 60% of step-up transformer impedance.
 Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

 A standard IEEE PSS2A power system stabilizer, to be part of the

excitation system package. An IEEE PSS2B PSS is acceptable if
there are small or no cost differences between the two and/or if the
supplier does not supply the IEEE PSS2A. The PSS2B has a third
lead/lag block which may be bypassed. Parameter ranges and
study parameters for the PSS are shown below.
 Great Falls U 1,2,4,5,6 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges and

Study Values
Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended Parameter

Great Falls U1,2,4,5,6 Range
Tw1 First washout time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw1  30.0 sec.
speed path
Tw2 Second washout time constant 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw2  30.0 sec.
in speed path
T6 Signal transducer time constant 0.02 sec. 0.0  T 6  10.0. sec.
in speed path
Tw3 First washout time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw3  30.0 sec.
power path
Tw4 Second washout time constant 0.0 sec. 0.0  Tw4  30.0 sec.
in Power path (Block Bypassed in ( Set Tw4 High (30.0 sec.) if
PSS/E) block cannot be bypassed )
T7 Signal transducer time constant 2.0 sec. 0.0  T 7  30.0 sec.
in Power path
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
 
Ks2 Signal transducer gain in Power 0.402
path
Tw1
2H
Ks3 Integral of Electric Power gain 1.0 0.0  Ks 3  1.0
T8 Ramp tracking filter lead time 0.03 sec. 0.1  T 8  3.0 sec.
constant
T9 Ramp tracking filter lag time 0.012 sec. 0.02  T 9  1.0 sec.
constant
Ks1 Stabilizer gain 6.0 0.0  Ks1  50.0
T1 First lead/lag lead time 0.18 sec. 0.0  T 1  5.0 sec.
constant
T2 First lead/lag lag time constant 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 2  5.0 sec.
T3 Second lead/lag lead time 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 3  5.0 sec.
constant
T4 Second lead/lag lag time 0.04 sec. 0.0  T 4  5.0 sec.
constant
T10 Third lead/lag lead time 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 10  5.0 sec.
constant (may be provided by
manufacturer)
T11 Third lead/lag lag time constant 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 11  5.0 sec.
(may be provided by
manufacturer)
M Ramp tracking filter lag function 5 1  M  10
index
Page 8

Great Falls U1,2,4,5,6 Range
N Ramp tracking filter overall 1 1 N  2
index
Vpssmax Stabilizer output maximum limit 0.05 pu 0  Vpss max  0.2
Vpssmin Stabilizer output minimum limit -0.05 pu  0.2  Vpss min  0.0
2.3 Recommendations for McArthur Falls G.S. Excitation

Systems
The following are recommended for the proposed excitation system

upgrades on McArthur Falls Units 1-8:
 Fast, bus fed, high initial response full static exciters with continuous
 Due to the age and vintage of existing rotating main exciters at this
station, and the potential impact of power system stabilizers, static pilot
exciters which provide voltage regulation via existing rotating main
exciters, are not recommended.
shall be defined as the generator field voltage required to produce 1 pu
terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. If the rotors of
these units are not sufficiently insulated to accommodate these limits
then the highest field forcing limits allowable shall be used.



Page 9
lead/lag block which may be bypassed. Parameter ranges and study

parameters for the PSS are shown below.
 McArthur Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges

and Study Values
Parameter Description Simulation Recommended

Value Parameter Range
McArthur Falls
U1-8
Tw1 First washout time constant in speed 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw1  30.0
path sec.
Tw2 Second washout time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw2  30.0
speed path sec.
T6 Signal transducer time constant in 0.02 sec. 0.0  T 6  10.0.
speed path sec.
Tw3 First washout time constant in power 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw3  30.0
path sec.
Tw4 Second washout time constant in 0.0 sec. 0.0  Tw4  30.0
Power path (Block Bypassed sec.
in PSS/E) ( Set Tw4 High
(30.0 sec.) if block
cannot be bypassed )
T7 Signal transducer time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  T 7  30.0
Power path sec.
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
Tw12H 
path

T8 Ramp tracking filter lead time 0.03 sec. 0.1  T 8  3.0
constant sec.
T9 Ramp tracking filter lag time 0.012 sec. 0.02  T 9  1.0
constant sec.
T1 First lead/lag lead time constant 0.18 sec. 0.0  T 1  5.0
sec.
T2 First lead/lag lag time constant 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 2  5.0
sec.
T3 Second lead/lag lead time constant 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 3  5.0
sec.
T4 Second lead/lag lag time constant 0.04 sec. 0.0  T 4  5.0
sec.
T10 Third lead/lag lead time constant 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 10  5.0
(may be provided by manufacturer) sec.
T11 Third lead/lag lag time constant 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 11  5.0
(may be provided by manufacturer) sec.
index
N Ramp tracking filter overall index 1 1 N  2
Vpssmin Stabilizer output minimum limit -0.05 pu  0.2  Vpss min  0
Page 10
2.4 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Generator Re-runner

and Re-wind
Based on ACCC, short circuit and transient stability analysis completed in

this IES, the planned re-runnering and re-winding of the 8 generators at
the Slave Falls G.S. to obtain an additional 28 MW from the plant can
proceed without any major impact to the Manitoba Hydro power system.
Should this project proceed to the Interconnection Facility Study (IFS)

stage, additional short circuit and ACCC studies shall be performed to
determine anticipated short circuit levels in the area and the requirement
for facility upgrades. The IFS shall provide for closer screening of ACCC
violations and cost estimates shall be prepared for any necessary facility
upgrades.
2.5 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Excitation Systems
The following are recommended for the proposed excitation system

upgrades on Slave Falls Units 1-8:
 Fast, bus fed, high initial response static exciters with continuous
 Due to the age and vintage of existing rotating main exciters at this
station, and the potential impact of power system stabilizers, static pilot
exciters which provide voltage regulation via existing rotating main
exciters, are not recommended.
shall be defined as the generator field voltage required to produce 1 pu
terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. Rotor
insulation shall be specified to accommodate these limits.
Page 11



lead/lag block which may be bypassed. Parameter ranges and study
parameters for the PSS are shown below.
 Slave Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges and Study

Values

Slave Falls U1-8 Range
Tw1 First washout time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw1  30.0
speed path sec.
Tw2 Second washout time constant 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw2  30.0
in speed path sec.
T6 Signal transducer time constant 0.02 sec. 0.0  T 6  10.0.
in speed path sec.
Tw3 First washout time constant in 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw3  30.0
power path sec.
Tw4 Second washout time constant 0.0 sec. 0.0  Tw4  30.0
in Power path (Block Bypassed in sec.
PSS/E) ( Set Tw4 High (30.0 sec.)
if block cannot be bypassed
)
T7 Signal transducer time constant 2.0 sec. 0.0  T 7  30.0
in Power path sec.
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
Tw12H 
path

T8 Ramp tracking filter lead time 0.03 sec. 0.1  T 8  3.0
constant sec.
T9 Ramp tracking filter lag time 0.012 sec. 0.02  T 9  1.0
constant sec.
T1 First lead/lag lead time 0.18 sec. 0 .0  T 1  5 .0
constant sec.
T2 First lead/lag lag time constant 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 2  5.0
sec.
T3 Second lead/lag lead time 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 3  5.0
constant sec.
T4 Second lead/lag lag time 0.04 sec. 0.0  T 4  5.0
constant sec.
T10 Third lead/lag lead time 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 10  5.0
constant (may be provided by sec.
manufacturer)
Page 12

Slave Falls U1-8 Range
T11 Third lead/lag lag time constant 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 11  5.0
(may be provided by sec.
manufacturer)
index
N Ramp tracking filter overall 1 1 N  2
index
Vpssmin Stabilizer output minimum limit -0.05 pu  0.2  Vpss min  0.0
2.6 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S.

and Slave Falls G.S. Proposed Digital Speed Governors
Different suppliers provide different forms of speed governing systems. It is

therefore recommended that general governor functionality be provided to
governor suppliers for the three plants under consideration. The specification for
Digital governors should be as broad as possible. Standard governor
requirements are provided in the ANSI/IEEE Standard 125-2005, “IEEE
Recommended Practice for Preparation of Equipment Specifications for Speed-
Governing of Hydraulic Turbines Intended to Drive Electric Generators”. Some of
the functional requirements provided here will be based on the IEEE guide as
well as those developed for Wuskwatim [7].
Based on the above it is recommended that governors be specified according to

the parameter ranges shown in the table below.
General Governor Specifications for Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls
Parameter Suggested Range Study
Value
Permanent Adjustable from 0 to 10% in 4%
Droop/Speed steps of 1%
Regulation
Dead Band Should not exceed 0.036 Hz 0.0
Dead Time For step load change of more than 0.0 sec.
10% of capacity of turbine, dead
time shall not exceed 0.2 seconds
Temporary Speed This parameter shall be 6.1 sec.
Droop Time continuously adjustable from 0 to
Constant 30 seconds.
Temporary Speed Shall be continuously adjustable 36.0 %
Droop from 0 to 150 %.
Proportional Gain Shall be continuously adjustable 1.0 pu
from 0 to 20
Derivative Gain Shall be continuously adjustable 0.0 sec.
from 0 to 5 seconds
Page 13

Value
Integral Gain Shall be continuously adjustable 0.0 sec-
1
from 0 to 10 per second
2.7 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S.

and Slave Falls G.S. Mathematical Computer Models
For modeling purposes it is recommended that the supplier(s) of excitation

system and speed governor controls provide Manitoba Hydro with detailed
as well as standard IEEE models of their equipment. These models shall be
used for loadflow and stability planning and operating studies and shall be
compatible with PSS/E version 29 and later and PSCAD/EMTDC V 4.2.1 or
later. Models shall satisfy all requirements regarding verification as
stipulated by the MRO and NERC. It is further recommended that all
powerflow and stability models along with manufacturer testing of these,
satisfy the detailed requirements presented in Section 10 of this IES report.
3. Introduction
According to the terms and conditions of the Manitoba Hydro Open Access
Interconnection Tariff, the Manitoba Hydro Power Supply Business Unit,
referred to as The Generator, submitted three separate interconnection
requests for Manitoba Hydro to prepare Interconnection Evaluation Study
(IES) reports. The Generator requested that Manitoba Hydro assess the
impact on steady-state, transient and small signal stability of the power
system as well as short circuit levels, due to the proposed generator
uprating and substantial modifications to excitation systems and to governor
systems at Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S. and Slave Falls G.S..
Details on the substantial modifications proposed for the three plants can be
found in the attached Interconnection Evaluation Study Agreements in
Appendix A. Brief summaries, as they apply to each plant, are provided
below. As the system effects of substantial modifications at any one
location could impact proposed upgrades and generator control parameter
recommendations at others, including plants in the vicinity which are not
included in the upgrade projects, it was decided that a joint Winnipeg River
study was necessary.
Page 14
3.1 Considerations at Great Falls G.S.
Great Falls G.S. is located on the Winnipeg River and currently has six units
with an overall plant rating of 151.3 MVA. As part of the Great Falls Unit 3
and 4 re-runnering projects, Great Falls Unit 3 was re-runnered, rewound
and equipped with a new full static exciter, complete with a dual input power
system stabilizer and commissioned in August 2003, see references [2, 3, 4,
and 5] for details. The additional generation approved for this project,
based on the IFS report of July 14, 2003 [1] was 8 MW.
This IES will evaluate the impact of the generation increase of an additional
3 MW of Network Resource Interconnection Service. The additional 3 MW
of generation output at Great Falls exceeds the approved facility generation
level of 139.6 MW of Network Resource Interconnection service associated
with the Unit 3 and 4 re-runnering project.
This IES will also consider the replacement of existing Automatic Voltage
Regulators (AVRs) and rotating main exciters with full static exciters and
existing electro-mechanical governors with digital governors on the
remaining 5 units. The projected in-service date is 2009.
3.2 Considerations at McArthur Falls G.S.
McArthur Falls G.S. in located on the Winnipeg River and currently has
eight units with an overall plant rating of 68 MVA. The IES will evaluate the
impact of replacing existing rotating main exciters and AVRs on each unit
with either full static exciters or static pilot exciters. If full static exciters are
recommended the AVR as well as the rotating main exciter on each unit will
be replaced with a full static exciter. Should static pilot exciters be
recommended, these will replace the AVR on each unit and will provide
regulation of the generator field voltage through the existing main exciter.
The IES will also evaluate the impact of replacing existing electro-
mechanical governors on each of the eight units with digital governors. The
projected in-service date is 2011.
3.3 Considerations at Slave Falls G.S.
Slave Falls G.S. is located on the Winnipeg River and currently has eight
units with an overall plant rating of 80 MVA (72 MW @ 0.9 pf lagging). The
IES will evaluate the impact of re-runnering and re-winding these units in
order to obtain an additional 28 MW of additional generation at this location.
The IES will also evaluate the impact of substantial modifications to the
excitation systems and speed governors associated with these units. The
proposed work involves replacing existing rotating main exciters and AVRs
on each unit with either full static exciters or static pilot exciters. If full static
Page 15
exciters are recommended the AVR as well as the rotating main exciter on
each unit will be replaced with a full static exciter. Should static pilot
exciters be recommended, these will replace the AVR on each unit and will
provide regulation of the generator field voltage through the existing main
exciter.
The IES will also evaluate the impact of replacing existing electro-
mechanical governors on each of the eight units with digital governors. The
projected in-service date is 2009.
3.4 Deliverables
This joint IES will consider the steady-state, transient and small signal
stability effects along with impacts on fault levels in the area due to the
generation increase along with proposed substantial modifications to
existing excitation and speed governing systems at these three plants. The
study will evaluate the impact on the Manitoba Hydro system as well as the
surrounding interconnected power system. Short Circuit Analysis is
required to assess any increased short circuit levels on proposed new
breaker layout and proposed increased generator output at Great Falls and
Slave Falls. Studies will be conducted under several simulated system
scenarios, generator loading and seasonal conditions.
The deliverables from the study will include conclusions and

recommendations pertaining to the procurement of generator protection and
control equipment, equipment ratings, control parameters design ranges
along with settings used in the study.
4. Base Case Study Models

This study was performed using a 2005 UIP stability package with control
upgrades and loadflow cases projected to consider present system loading
as well as projected 2009 and 2014 summer peak and winter peak loading
conditions.
These study cases were used to evaluate steady state, AC contingency

(ACCC) and transient stability impacts using the PSS/E loadflow and
stability simulation tools. Eigenvalue, frequency domain analysis for
evaluating small signal stability impacts utilized converted versions of these
cases with more detailed modeling of the Manitoba Hydro HVdc system
included. Eigenvalue analysis was performed using the Small Signal
Analysis Tool (SSAT).
Page 16
In performing these studies consideration was given to generators higher in

the queue which may impact the results of this study and affect its
conclusions and recommendations. The following assumptions were made:
- The northern ac group of generators in the queue, that is, the firming of
Kelsey, Kettle on ac, Jenpeg and Wuskwatim will not impact the results
of this study and therefore were not considered.
- The proposed 300 MW wind plant was not included in this study based
on anticipated minimal impact to the study results.
- The new plant at Pointe du Bois may have some impact on the study
results but because the final transmission plan was unknown at the
time of this study none was assumed. This will require further analysis
at the IFS stage.
- The IFS will also cover the full range of firm import/export capability.
5. Short Circuit Analysis

Based on information obtained from Transmission Network Planning,
System Planning Department (see Appendix B), the 115 kV circuit breakers
in the Winnipeg River 115 kV system where Great Falls and Slave Falls are
located were recently replaced with new breakers and the 115 kV bus
arrangements modified. Existing 115 kV bus fault levels at Great Falls are
in the order of 10 - 11 kA and at Slave Falls in the order of 4-5 kA.
The new 115 kV breakers which were installed in the 115 kV Winnipeg
River power system have a minimum of around 40 - 50 kA maximum short
circuit interrupting rating. The 3 MW generation increase at Great Falls and
28 MW generation increase at Slave Falls is expected to have minimal
effects on the short circuit levels and hence will not affect circuit breaker
requirements.
Should this project proceed to the IFS stage, Transmission Network

Planning recommends that additional studies be performed at that time to
determine the impact of the modifications on fault levels in the area.
6. ACCC Analysis
In order to evaluate the proposed facility upgrades at Great Falls, McArthur
Falls and Slave Falls generating stations, load flow analysis which included
single and multi-element contingencies were performed using the AC
Contingency Calculation (ACCC) in PSS/E. AC single contingency analysis,
Page 17
similar to that which was performed for facility upgrades at Pine Falls G.S.
(see reference [6]), was performed here.
The objective of the ACCC analysis is to identify any transmission

limitations where changes will cause line rating or voltage violations within
the loadflows following a single contingency outage. Common tower
contingency outages, where two separate circuits share the same tower,
were also included. Screening parameters for the ACCC analysis was set
at 0.01 pu voltage change and 2% flow change.
Due to time constraints, the ACCC analysis was limited to futuristic, high
loading, high generation and high power transfer system conditions with the
Manitoba Hydro power system operating highly stressed. A modified 2014
winter peak case which included increased generation at Pine Falls, Great
Falls and Slave Falls was used in this analysis. Some results from the
ACCC line flow analysis report are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: ACCC Contingency Analysis Flow Report
ACCC OVERLOAD REPORT: MONITORED ELEMENTS LOADED ABOVE 100.0 %

OF RATING SET C
DISTRIBUTION FACTOR FILE: ../accc/i01-wp14aa.7N00YXW_mod_GF7_SF28.dfx
MONITORED ELEMENT CONTINGENCY RATE FLOW %

67504 KELSEY 6 138 67689*KLSY1-7G13.8 1 BASE CASE 298.0 305.4 102.5
67504 KELSEY 6 138 67689*KLSY1-7G13.8 1 SINGLE 1293 298.0 305.1 102.1
67551 ROVER 863.5 67653*CHARLES863.5 1 SINGLE 1418 44.0 46.13 104.8
67551 ROVER 863.5 67653*CHARLES863.5 1 SINGLE 1419 44.0 46.13 104.8
67541 STVITAL7 110 67620*SCOTLDB7 110 1 SINGLE 1467 143.7 146.6 102.0
67552 POINTDB863.5 67698*PDB5-16G6.90 1 SINGLE 1472 30.0 31.1 103.6
Some results 67698*PDB5-16G6.90
67552 POINTDB863.5 from the ACCC monitored
1 voltage report
SINGLE 2208 is shown below103.6
30.0 31.1 in
Table 2.
Table 2: Results from ACCC Monitored Voltage Report
MONITORED VOLTAGE REPORT

SYSTEM CONTINGENCY BUS V-CONT V-INIT V-MAX V-MIN
'MAPP ' RANGE SINGLE 1313 67597 DORSY2T946.0 1.1151 1.0735 1.1000 0.9000
'MAPP ' RANGE SINGLE 1421 67580 SHERBK 7 110 0.8905 1.0167 1.1000 0.9000
'MAPP ' RANGE SINGLE 1421 67755 SHBK-PH7 110 0.8905 0.9968 1.1000 0.9000
'MAPP ' RANGE SINGLE 1472 67552 POINTDB863.5 1.1040 1.1184 1.1000 0.9000
Page 18
'MAPP ' RANGE SINGLE 1473 67552 POINTDB863.5 1.1381 1.1184 1.1000 0.9000
Results from the ACCC analysis show no major violations in flow and voltage of
concern in the area due to the contingency analysis. As seen in both Tables 1
and 2, some values were marginal in the stressed case prior to the contingency
analysis.
Therefore the proposed uprating of Great Falls units 1,2,4,5 and 6 to obtain an
additional 3 MW above the 8 MW already approved, will not have any significant
negative impact on the power system and may go forward. Similarly, based on
ACCC results, the proposed 28 MW uprating of the Slave Falls units may also
proceed. Should this project proceed to the IFS stage, further ACCC analysis is
recommended.
7. Transient Stability Analysis
This section of the study was completed in order to evaluate the impact of the
proposed substantial modifications to the excitation systems and speed
governor controls for the Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls
generating stations. In the following sections the impact of these proposed
changes on the stations themselves as well as the surrounding power system
will be evaluated separately for each station.
7.1 Great Falls Units 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Exciter Upgrades
For these studies Great Falls Units 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are netted and modelled
as one generator, similar to what was done in references [1], [2],and [5].
Simulations were conducted with existing exciter models on this unit
representing the existing arrangement of an AVR regulating a rotating main
exciter which is used to regulate the field voltage of the unit. To represent the
Page 19
proposed fast, high initial response full static exciters, models similar to those
of the refurbished Great Falls Unit 3 was used (see reference [5]). The Power
System Stabilizer transfer function for Unit 3 was also modeled on the netted
unit to represent future dual input PSS2A or PSS2B type PSSs on each unit.
Figure 1 shows the rotor angle of the generator which represents Units
1,2,4,5 and 6 following a three phase, five cycle fault on the Great Falls 115
kV bus (see single line diagram in Appendix C). A 3-5 cycle fault clearing
time is typical for faults in the Manitoba Hydro’s 115 kV system. Figure 2
shows a “zoomed in” version of the same waveform.
Results show that the proposed faster full static exciter will significantly
increase the speed of response of the unit to voltage changes and improve
the steady state voltage regulation. Results also demonstrate that the
transient response of the units at Great Falls will also improve following a
close-in bus fault, by lowering the “first swing” transient rotor angle deviation.
Typically the speed of response of a high speed exciter also serves as a

detriment by exciting local oscillatory modes [7, 8]. The results show that the
response of the two types of exciters, from a damping perspective is
practically identical. Adding a PSS, identical to that on Unit 3, will significantly
improve the damping provided to the local mode. Studies to date have not
identified a need for Great Falls units to provide damping to inter-area modes
of oscillation. Based on the relative low cost of adding a PSS to the proposed
fast excitation system, it is recommended that a PSS be added to each unit at
Great Falls. Reference [2] shows the overall benefits of having PSSs
installed on all six units at Great Falls G.S.
In reference [5] the addition of a line drop compensator to Great Falls Unit 3
was discussed in detail as well as the future benefits of having line drop
compensators installed on all six units at Great Falls. Results showed small
improvements in the voltage recovery levels on the Great Falls 115 kV bus
following disturbances in the vicinity of the station when line drop
compensation was modeled on Unit 3.
Figure 1 Rotor angles of Great Falls Units 1,2,4,5 & 6 with fast and existing
exciters for a 3 ph., 5 cy. Fault on great Falls 115 kV bus.
Page 20
Figure 1: Great Falls Units 1,2,4,5 & 6 response to a 5 cy., 3 ph. Fault on Great
Falls 115 kV Bus with Existing and Proposed Exciters
Page 21
Figure 2: “Zoomed in” version of Figure 1
Gr e a t F a lls Bu s Vo lt a g e F o llo w in g T r ip o f Lin e GT 1

f o r Va r io u s % o f LDC o n U3
1.1025
1.102
1.1015
Vo lt ag e in p u
1.101
1.1005
1.1
1.0995
1.099
1.0985
1.098
1.0975
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
T im e in se co n d s
U3 LDC @ 0% U3 LDC @ 30% U3 LDC @ 60%
Figure 3: Great Falls Bus Voltage with LDC modelled on U3
Gr e a t Fa lls Bus Volta ge Follow ing Tr ip of Line s GT1 & GS2 2

for 0 & 6 0 % LDC on Units 1 - 6
1.12
1.115
V o lt a g e in p u
1.11
1.105
1.1
1.095
1.09
1.085
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Tim e in se
Grt. Falls. Bus Vlt. (no LDC) Grt.conds
Falls. Bus Vlt. (60% LDC on all units)
Figure 4: 60% LDC on all units at Great Falls
Page 22
Significant improvements were observed when line drop compensation was

modeled on all six generators at Great Falls. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate
the benefits of installing line drop compensation on all units at Great Falls.
Figures 3 shows the Great Falls 115 kV bus voltage following a trip of line
GT1 (Great Falls to Lac Du Bonnet) with 0 %, 30 % and 60 % LDC modelled
on the refurbished Unit 3. Figure 4 show the response of the Great Falls units
to a similar disturbance with 60% LDC modeled on all six Great Falls units.
Typically between 50% and 80% of the transformer impedance is
compensated using the line drop compensator. At Manitoba Hydro, line drop
compensation is normally limited to around 60% of transformer impedance.
Based on the results and discussions above and work already performed on
Great Falls Unit 3, the following are recommended for Great Falls units
1,2,4,5 and 6 excitation system upgrades:
 Fast, bus fed, high initial response static exciters with continuous acting
voltage regulators; the exciters will be required to circulate positive field
current only;
 Exciter field forcing voltage limits Efdmax and Efdmin shall be specified as
+6.0 pu and –5.0 pu, respectively. In this case, 1 pu field voltage shall
be defined as the generator field voltage required to produce 1 pu
terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. Rotor insulation
shall be specified to accommodate these limits.



excitation system package. An IEEE PSS2B PSS is acceptable if there
are small or no cost differences between the two and/or if the supplier
does not supply the IEEE PSS2A. The PSS2B has a third lead/lag block
which may be bypassed. Parameter ranges and study parameters for
the PSS are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Great Falls U 1,2,4,5,6 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges

and Study Values
Page 23
Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended

Great Falls U1,2,4,5,6 Parameter Range
Tw1 First washout time 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw1  30.0
constant in speed path sec.
Tw2 Second washout time 2.0 sec. 0.0  Tw2  30.0
T6 Signal transducer time 0.02 sec. 0.0  T 6  10.0.
constant in power path sec.
constant in Power path (Block Bypassed in sec.
PSS/E) ( Set Tw4 High (30.0
sec.) if block cannot be
bypassed )
T7 Signal transducer time 2.0 sec. 0.0  T 7  30.0
constant in Power path sec.
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
Tw12H 
Ks2 Signal transducer gain in 0.402
Power path
Ks3 Integral of Electric Power 1.0 0.0  Ks 3  1.0

gain
T8 Ramp tracking filter lead 0.03 sec. 0.1  T 8  3.0
time constant sec.
T9 Ramp tracking filter lag 0.012 sec. 0.02  T 9  1.0
time constant sec.
T1 First lead/lag lead time 0.18 sec. 0.0  T 1  5.0
constant sec.
T2 First lead/lag lag time 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 2  5.0
constant sec.
T3 Second lead/lag lead 0.11 sec. 0.0  T 3  5.0
time constant sec.
constant sec.
constant (may be sec.
provided by
manufacturer)
T11 Third lead/lag lag time 1.0 sec. 0.0  T 11  5.0
provided by
manufacturer)
M Ramp tracking filter lag 5 1  M  10
function index
N Ramp tracking filter 1 1 N  2
overall index
Vpssmax Stabilizer output 0.05 pu 0  Vpss max  0.2
maximum limit
Vpssmin Stabilizer output -0.05 pu  0.2  Vpss min  0.0
minimum limit
7.2 McArthur Falls Units 1 to 8 Exciter Upgrades
Page 24
Similar studies which were performed to evaluate the transient stability

performance of the proposed excitation system upgrades for the units at
Great Falls, were performed for the eight units at McArthur Falls G.S.. The
model of the commissioned static exciter and PSS for Great Falls Unit 3
was used to model proposed high initial response full static exciters for
McArthur Falls. The eight units were modelled as they are in existing
MAPP models as one aggregate unit. Figure 5 shows the rotor angle of the
McArthur Falls generators following a three phase, five cycle clearing bus
fault at the McArthur Falls 115 kV bus.
Results confirm that the faster exciter will improve the speed of the steady
state voltage regulation on the McArthur falls bus. Results also confirm that
the faster exciter improves the “first swing” stability but degrades the local
oscillatory mode. Simulations with a modified version of the Great Falls U3
PSS shows significant improvement in the damping provided to the local
mode. For additional reasons discussed above, the McArthur Falls new
excitation system should also come equipped with dual input PSS2A or
PSS2B type stabilizers. Similar to Great Falls G.S., studies to date have not
identified a need for contribution to inter-area mode damping from McArthur
Falls..
Page 25
Figure 5: McArthur Falls Rotor Angle Following a 3ph, 5cy. Bus fault on the
McArthur Falls 115 kV bus
Based on the improvements observed at Great Falls, line drop

compensators are also recommended to be part of the McArthur Falls
excitation system package.
One of the options to be considered for this station in the IES was the
installation of static pilot exciters to replace the existing AVRs and to provide
voltage regulation via the existing rotating main exciter. Considering the
vintage of the existing McArthur Falls rotating exciters and the relative
participation of these generators in the local oscillatory mode (see Small
Signal Stability studies), it is recommended that this option not be
considered.
Static pilot exciters may provide less excitation to local modes of oscillation
following a disturbance but they also inhibit the effectiveness of PSSs in
damping local modes in the vicinity due to the increased time lag introduced
into the stabilizing loop because the PSS has to provide field modulation of
the generator through the slower rotating main exciter. There are cases
where PSSs have been added to static pilot exciters but with limited
success.
Based on the above, the following are recommended for the McArthur Falls
G.S. excitation systems for the eight units:
current only;
terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. If the rotors of
these units are not sufficiently insulated to accommodate these limits
then the highest field forcing limits allowable shall be used.
Page 26



Table 4: McArthur Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges

and Study Values

McArthur Falls U1-8 Parameter Range
PSS/E) ( Set Tw4 High (30.0
bypassed )
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
Tw12H 
Power path

gain
time constant sec.
time constant sec.
constant sec.
constant sec.
time constant sec.
constant sec.
provided by
Page 27

McArthur Falls U1-8 Parameter Range
manufacturer)
provided by
manufacturer)
function index
overall index
maximum limit
minimum limit
7.3 Slave Falls Units 1 to 8 Exciter Upgrades
Similar to the other two plants, high speed initial response exciters and
PSSs were simulated on the eight units at Slave Falls using models of Great
Falls commissioned Unit 3. Figure 6 shows the rotor angles of the Slave
Falls units following a three phase, five cycle clearing bus fault on the 115
kV bus.
Page 28
Figure 6: Slave Falls Rotor Angle Following a 3ph, 5cy. Bus Fault on the Slave
Falls 115 kV bus
Results show some reduction in rotor angle “first swing” with the faster exciter
modelled. In this case both exciters seem to excite the local oscillatory mode.
Again a PSS installed at this location provides very good damping to the local
mode.
According to the IES Slave Falls G.S., was to receive consideration for a
static pilot exciter installation. Similar arguments apply here which are further
strengthened by the small signal study results below which shows that Slave
Falls is the number one relative participant in the local oscillatory mode.
Therefore full static exciters which enhance the effectiveness of PSSs
installed at this location are recommended.
Based on the Great Falls studies and the overall plan by Power Supply to
enable LDCs on the Winnipeg River when the opportunity arises, LDCs are
recommended for the Slave Falls units.
Based on the above, the following are recommended for the Slave Falls G.S.
excitation systems for the eight units:
current only;
terminal (stator) voltage on the open circuit air-gap line. Rotor insulation
shall be specified to accommodate these limits.


Page 29

Table 5: Slave Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges and

Study Values

Slave Falls U1-8 Parameter Range
PSS/E) (Set Tw4 High (30.0
bypassed )
0.0  Ks 2  5.0
Tw12H 
Power path

gain
time constant sec.
time constant sec.
constant sec.
constant sec.
time constant sec.
constant sec.
provided by
manufacturer)
provided by
manufacturer)
function index
overall index
Page 30

Slave Falls U1-8 Parameter Range
maximum limit
minimum limit
8. Small Signal Stability Studies
In this section of the IES, results from small signal stability studies conducted
using eigenvalue analysis in SSAT are presented. Details on eigenvalue
analysis can be found in references [8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13] and will not be
reproduced here.
Briefly the state of the power system is analyzed in the frequency domain and
the eigenvalues associated with various modes of oscillations identified.
Further analysis is performed to determine the level of participation of each
generator in a particular oscillatory mode by identifying and using the left and
right eigenvectors associated with the eigenvalues of the mode. The results
are usually normalized to the generator with the largest participation thereby
assigning this generator a relative participation factor of 1.
From a practical perspective this is usually a good indication of where a

damping controller, such as a PSS, may be located in order to maximize the
damping provided to a particular mode. The eigenvalues are usually further
separated into their frequency component, an indication of the frequency of
oscillation of the particular mode, and their damping component, an indication
of the time and/or cycles taken for a particularly excited mode to stabilize or
reach steady state. The results in Figures 1, 2, 5 and 6 are examples of
oscillatory modes with good and poor damping. The damping is usually
represented by a mathematical expression referred to as the damping ratio.
Referring to the Transmission System Interconnection Requirements (TSIR)

document, the damping criteria used by Manitoba Hydro is as follows:
A damping ratio which exceeds 0.05 (5%) is acceptable,

between 0.03 (3%) and 0.05 (5%) is marginal and should be
examined on a case by case basis, below 0.03 (3%) requires
mitigation measures.
Eigenvalue analysis can be conducted for system intact (steady state)

conditions and for contingency disturbance conditions. System intact, no-
contingency eigenvalue analysis with proposed and existing PSSs on all
Winnipeg River plants disabled, resulted in five distinct local modes of
oscillation in the Manitoba Hydro south east system including the Winnipeg
Page 31
River area power system. These modes are summarized in Table 6 and are
classified based on the dominant plants in the mode shape.
Table 6: Summary of Winnipeg River Local Oscillatory Modes
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Pine Pointe du Slave McArthur Great
Dominant
Falls _ 7 Bois_Slave Falls_Seven Falls_Great Falls_Pine
Plants
Sisters Falls Sisters Falls Falls
Frequency
1.634 1.773 1.517 2.139 1.813
(Hz)
Damping
10.820 14.330 10.440 9.660 19.350
Ratio (%)
Highest
Pine
Relative Pointe du Slave Falls McArthur Great Falls
Falls U1-
Participating Bois U5-16 U1-8 Falls U1-8 U1,2,4-6
6
Plant
Results show that none of these local oscillatory modes are in violation of the
Manitoba Hydro damping criteria under steady state, system intact conditions.
Figures 7 to 11 show details on other plants which form part of the mode
shape and participate in the identified modes.
(a) (b)
Page 32
Figure 7: (a) Mode Shape and (b) Participating Generators in 1.635 Hz (Mode 1)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Page 33
(a)
(b)
Figure 10: (a) Mode Shape and (b) Participating Generators in 2.139 Hz (Mode
4)
(a) (b)
Page 34
Figure 11 :(a) Mode Shape and (b) Participating Generators in 1.813 Hz (Mode
5)
Using the PSS parameters proposed in Section 7 for the generators at Great
Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Fall, the effects of these PSSs on the
damping of local Modes 1 to 5 was assessed.
With all other Winnipeg River PSSs out of service, the PSSs on the Great
Falls units were enabled and their gains collectively adjusted. The PSSs at
Great Falls had negligible effects on the damping of Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Figure 12 shows a root locus of the eigenvalues associated with Mode 5, the
1.813 Hz mode as the gains on the Great Falls PSSs are collectively
adjusted. Since the Great Falls generators showed significantly higher
relative participation in this mode than other Winnipeg River plants the effect
of its PSSs on the damping of this mode is not surprising.
Similarly with all other PSSs disabled (gains set to 0) the gain on the Slave
Falls PSS was adjusted from 0 to 6. The effect on modes other than Mode 3,
the 1.52 Hz mode, is negligible. A root locus plot is shown in Figure 13.
Again due to the fact that the Slave Falls units are top participants in this
mode the results are consistent with expectations. Based on the relatively
high participation of Pointe du Bois as well as Seven Sisters units in this local
oscillatory mode, it is conceivable that PSSs at these locations will also
positively affect the damping on this mode. IES reports, references [15] and
[16] document stability studies pertaining to the refurbishment of Pointe du
Bois G.S..
Page 35
12
Eige nv a lue Im a gina ry (ra d/s e c ) K=0
f =1.813Hz
ζ =19.35 %
K=0.5
f =1.72Hz
10 ζ =26.53 %
K=6
f =1.42 Hz
ζ =40.57 %
8
-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5
Eigenvalue Real (rad/sec)
Figure 11: Root Locus of 1.812 Hz mode (Mode 5) due to Great Falls PSS gain
12
Eige nv a lue Im a gina ry (ra d/s e c )
K=2
f =1.47 Hz
ζ =16.47 %
10 K=0
f =1.52 Hz
ζ =10.44 %
K=6
f =1.3 Hz
8
ζ =31.6 %
6
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
Figure 12: Root Locus of 1.517 Hz mode (Mode 3) due to Slave Falls PSS gain
With other PSSs disabled the gain on the McArthur PSS was adjusted from 0
to 6. The effect on modes other than Mode 4, the 2.14 Hz mode, is
negligible. A root locus plot is shown in Figure 14. Results are consistent
Page 36
with the relative participation factors and mode shape results shown in Figure
10 for Mode 4. Small gain adjustments results in significant improvements in
damping on this mode.
14
E ig en valu e Im ag in ary (rad /sec)
K=0
f =2.14 Hz
12 ζ =9.66 %
K=2
f =1.96 Hz
ζ =24.58 %
10
K=6
f =1.56 Hz
ζ =37.66 %
8
-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
Figure 14: Root Locus of 2.14 Hz mode (Mode 4) due to McArthur Falls PSS
gain
Results from the small signal stability study are consistent with those from the
transient stability study showing that high speed full static exciters are
desirable for Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls generating stations.
Even though the damping on local modes in the area is not a concern based
on Manitoba Hydro’s damping criteria, the relatively low costs associated with
adding PSSs to a full static exciter package suggests that PSSs should be
included in the full static exciter packages. Based on simulation results,
these PSSs will add significant damping to the Manitoba Hydro southern
system. PSSs are not required to provide damping to inter-area modes since
studies do not show any significant participation of the plants in inter-area
modes.
Page 37
9. Governor Replacement Considerations
Part of this IES for Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls was to
determine if there are any system benefits to be derived from replacing
existing electro-mechanical governors at these three plants with digital
governors.
Existing governor models at the three plants were replaced with models of
digital governors similar to those at Limestone G.S. and full load rejections
simulated. Results are shown in Figures 15, 16 and 17.
Figure 15: Simulated full load rejection at Great Falls with existing and digital
governor models
Page 38
Figure 16: Simulated full load rejection at McArthur Falls with existing and digital
governor models
Results do not indicate any detrimental effects to the power system by

replacing existing governors with digital governors at the three plants.
Results also indicate proposed digital governors may provide better
dynamic response of the units following load rejections, although the
improvement is not significant to the overall operation of the power
system. This benefit would be more evident if part or the whole Manitoba
Hydro system becomes isolated.
Page 39
Figure 17: Simulated full load rejection at Slave Falls with existing and digital
governor models
Different suppliers provide different forms of speed governing systems. The

specification for digital governors should be as broad as possible. Standard
governor requirements are provided in the ANSI/IEEE Standard 125-2005, “IEEE
Recommended Practice for Preparation of Equipment Specifications for Speed-
Governing of Hydraulic Turbines Intended to Drive Electric Generators”. Some of
the functional requirements provided here will be based on the IEEE guide as
well as those developed for Wuskwatim [7].
Based on the above it is recommended that governors be specified according to

the parameter ranges shown in Table 7 below.
Page 40
Table 7: General Governor Specifications for Great Falls, McArthur

Falls and Slave Falls
Value
Permanent Adjustable from 0 to 10% in 4%
Droop/Speed steps of 1%
Regulation
Dead Band Should not exceed 0.036 Hz 0.0
Dead Time For step load change of more 0.0 sec.
than 10% of capacity of turbine,
dead time shall not exceed 0.2
seconds
Temporary Speed This parameter shall be 6.1 sec.
Droop Time Constant continuously adjustable from 0
to 30 seconds.
Temporary Speed Shall be continuously 36.0 %
Droop adjustable from 0 to 150 %.
Proportional Gain Shall be continuously 1.0 pu
adjustable from 0 to 20
Derivative Gain Shall be continuously adjustable 0.0 sec.
from 0 to 5 seconds
Integral Gain Shall be continuously adjustable 0.0 sec-1
from 0 to 10 per second
10. Stability Model Requirements

For re-runnered and re-wound units at Great Falls and Slave Falls, the
supplier shall provide new generator reactance values for all parameters
affected by the refurbishment work.
10.1 Stability Model Requirements for Governors
Details on governor models and model simulation requirements can be

found in reference [17]. Some of the requirements are summarized here.
All model validation, testing, documentation and reporting shall conform to

those specified in the IEEE Std. 125-2007 “IEEE Recommended Practice
for Preparation of Equipment Specifications for Speed-Governing of
Hydraulic Turbines Intended to Drive Electric Generators” [19], Section 5 of
the Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO) Generating Testing Guideline
[18] and Section 3.7 of the Transmission System Interconnection
Requirements (TSIR) document [14].
Page 41
To demonstrate that the governor is capable of controlling the speed and

power of the turbine at all power output levels, in a stable manner, under
isolated or interconnected unit conditions, the supplier shall prove the
following by way of computer simulations under steady-state and transient
conditions:
(i) The governor is fully responsive to frequency deviations exceeding ±

0.036 Hz [14];
(ii) The governor supports continuous, stable and reliable operation of the
generating unit for fundamental frequency variations of 60 ± 0.5 Hz
[14];
(iii) The governor supports continuous, stable and reliable operation of the
generating unit for system frequency variations between 58 and 63.5
Hz which lasts for less than or equal to 30 seconds [7, 14];
(iv) Simulation of a load rejection between zero and any load within the
capability of the turbine shall show that speed will be returned to the
speed reference with no more than one under-speed deviation not to
exceed 5% and one overspeed deviation not to exceed 5% after the
initial overspeed deviation [19];
(v) Simulation of an on-line speed reference step change not less than 5%
with demonstrated stable governor response [18].
(vi) Stability studies shall cover the operating range between maximum
and minimum net heads with the discharge corresponding to full load
under each respective net head [7, 14];
(vii) Following stability studies the supplier shall indicate the actual setting
as well as setting ranges of the governor parameters for which the
control circuit remains stable after any disturbance [7, 14].
In addition to the above computer simulations to demonstrate stable

operation of the governor, a verified detailed mathematical computer model
of the governor functionality shall be provided for use in detailed planning
studies. This model shall be accompanied by a block diagram detailing the
governor functionality, detailed parameter settings and parameter ranges
and detailed documentation.
Verification of the mathematical models of the governors shall be completed

according to Section 8.1.6 of the IEEE Standard 125 - 2007 [18]. As
outlined in [18], verification shall be accomplished by completing either a
frequency response, time response or both to demonstrate that the
Page 42
governor control system responds in a manner consistent with the specified

mathematical computer model. This detailed model shall be compatible
with PSS/E V29 or later and PSCAD/EMTDC V 4.2.1 or later, power system
simulation programmes.
In addition to the detailed model above, the supplier shall provide to

Manitoba Hydro, a simplified non-proprietary, standard IEEE model of the
governor controls, as per those described in the IEEE working group
document on Hydraulic Turbine and Turbine Control Models for System
Dynamics (see reference [20]).
These models shall be compatible with PSS/E V29 or later and

PSCAD/EMTDC V4.2.1 or later. The models will be used for
interconnection type studies in which model information may be freely
shared with other internal and external stakeholders.
10.2 Stability Model Requirements for Excitation System

Controls
Detailed and Standard IEEE models of all excitation system controls,

including regulator, limiter and protection controls shall be provided by the
supplier. It is expected that the following be included:
(a) Verified detailed mathematical computer models of the excitation

system functionality shall be provided for use in detailed planning
studies. This model shall be accompanied by a block diagram
detailing the excitation system functionality, detailed parameter
settings and parameter ranges and detailed documentation.
(b) Clear functional block diagrams of recommended IEEE models;
(c) Clear descriptions of each parameter along with units;
(d) Clear indication of parameter values used during Factory Acceptance

Tests along with the adjustable design range of each parameter; and
(e) Clear indication of all limits along with adjustable limit ranges.
It is anticipated that these models will be used in system studies and for
Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO) and North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC) equipment verification tests. The models shall be
compatible with PSS/E V29 or later and PSCAD/EMTDC V4.2.1 or later.
These models will be used for interconnection type studies in which model
information may be freely shared with other internal and external
stakeholders.
Page 43
11. References
[1] Manitoba Hydro Report, “Great Falls Accreditation Studies”, submitted
to MAPP Design Review Subcommittee, 2003 07 14.
[2] B.A. Archer, “Great Falls Unit 3 Static Exciter and Power System
Stabilizer”, System Planning Interoffice Memorandum to J.B. Davies,
TM 01/2, 2001 03 28.
[3] J.Luis Gonçalves, “ABB Commissioning Report on Great Falls Unitrol-

F on Generator #3”, Report to Manitoba Hydro, 2003 08 19.
[4] M.S. Abdel-Hadi, “Great Falls Unit #3 AVR and PSS Settings”, System
Performance Interoffice Memorandum to J.B. Davies, 2003 08 06.
[5] B.A. Archer, “Great Falls Unit 3 Stability Models”, System Planning
Interoffice Memorandum to J.B. Davies, TM 03/22, 2003 09 05.
[6] G. Evans, “Pine Falls Generating Station Facility Upgrade

Interconnection Facility Study (Draft), File 7-2D, 2008 05 01.
[7] B.A. Archer, “Wuskwatim Generating Station Requirements for

Generators and Controls”, System Planning Department Report, SPD
02/7, March 25, 2003.
[8] B.A. Archer, “Kelsey Exciter Replacement – Static Exciter and

Stabilizer Considerations”, System Planning Interoffice Memorandum
to J.B. Davies, File 7-3, 2000 10 11.
[9] B.A. Archer, “Kettle Units on AC – Stabilizer Considerations”, System

Planning Interoffice Memorandum to J.B. Davies, TM 97/09, 1997 12
23.
[10] Prabha Kundur, “Power System Stability and Control”, McGraw Hill
Inc., 1994.
[11] P. Kundur, G.J. Rogers, D.Y. Wong, L. Wang and M.G. Lauby, “A
Comprehensive Computer Program Package for Small Signal stability
Analysis of Power Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1990.
[12] D.C. Lee, P. Kundur, “Advanced Excitation Controls For Power System
Stability Enhancement”, Proceedings of CIGRE International
Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems, Paris, 1986.
[13] P. Calic, “Oscillations in the Northern Collector System”, System
Page 44
Planning Department Report, SPD 2008/13, 2008 06 05.
[14] Manitoba Hydro, “Transmission System Interconnection

Requirements”, TSIR Revision 0, December 2003.
[15] T. Young, “Pointe Du Bois Redevelopment IES (Draft)” September,

2005.
[16] G. Virch, “Pointe Du Bois Generator Redevelopment IES (Draft), May

16 2008.
[17] B. A. Archer, “Specifications for Computer Simulations of Wuskwatim

Governor Controls”, System Planning Technical Memorandum to J.B.
Davies, TM08/04, 2008 04 29.
[18] MRO Generator Testing Review Task Force, “MRO Generator Testing
Guidelines”, Approved by the MRO Board of Directors, March 2007.
[19] IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation Committee”, IEEE

Recommended Practice for Preparation of Equipment Specifications
for Speed-Governing of Hydraulic Turbines Intended to Drive Electric
Generators”, IEEE Std. 125-2007, IEEE Power Engineering Society,
October 2007.
[20] IEEE Working Group on Prime Mover and Energy Supply Models for
System Dynamic Performance Studies, “Hydraulic Turbine and Turbine
Control Models for System Dynamic Studies”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 1992.
Page 45
APPENDIX A: Interconnection Evaluation Study

Agreements
Page 46
ATTACHMENT 2
INTERCONNECTION EVALUATION STUDY AGREEMENT

FOR Great Falls Generating Station
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 23 day of May, 2008 by
and between Manitoba Hydro (Power Supply Business Unit), a corporation
incorporated pursuant to the provisions of The Manitoba Hydro Act, R.S.M. 1987,
c.H190, [corporate description of Generator] existing under the laws of the
Province of Manitoba, sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Generator," and
Manitoba Hydro, a corporation incorporated pursuant to the provisions of The
Manitoba Hydro Act, C.C.S.M. c.H190. Generator and Manitoba Hydro each
may be referred to as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Generator has submitted an Interconnection Request to Manitoba

Hydro pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Manitoba Hydro Open Access
Interconnection Tariff with respect to a generating facility located or to be located at the
Great Falls Generating Facility (Facility); and
WHEREAS, Generator has requested that Manitoba Hydro prepare an

Interconnection Evaluation Study to assess the impact of the Interconnection
Request on the reliability of the Manitoba Hydro System, and of any other
affected systems;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and subject to the mutual

covenants contained herein, it is agreed as follows:
1.0 The terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings specified in the
Manitoba Hydro Open Access Interconnection Tariff.
2.0 Manitoba Hydro shall perform or cause to be performed an

Interconnection Evaluation Study and prepare an Interconnection
Evaluation Study Report in accordance with the Manitoba Hydro Open
Access Interconnection Tariff.
3.0 As described in the Manitoba Hydro Open Access Interconnection Tariff,

Generator elects to have Phase 1 and Phase 2 performed (X) concurrently
or (__) sequentially (select one option). This election is not available for
Resource Solicitation Studies.
Page 47
3.1 If Phase 1 and Phase 2 are performed concurrently, Manitoba Hydro

estimates that it will be able to complete the Interconnection Evaluation
Study Report on or before October 30, 2008.
3.2 If the Generator elects to have Phase 1 and Phase 2 performed

sequentially, Manitoba Hydro estimates that it will be able to complete the
preliminary report on Phase 1 of the Interconnection Evaluation Study on
or before .
4.0 The scope of the Interconnection Evaluation Study (“Study”) shall be as

set forth in the Manitoba Hydro Open Access Interconnection Tariff
subject to the assumptions set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement.
5.0 The Study shall be based on the technical information provided by

Generator in Exhibit B to this Agreement. Manitoba Hydro reserves
the right to request additional technical information from Generator
as may become necessary during the course of the Interconnection
Evaluation Study. If Generator’s Interconnection Request is
modified or the technical information provided in Exhibit B is
modified, incomplete, or inaccurate, the time to complete the
Interconnection Evaluation Study may be extended and/or the
results may be inaccurate.
6.0 The final Interconnection Evaluation Study Report (“Study Report”)

shall provide the following information:
(i) Identification of any thermal overload or voltage limit

violations resulting from the interconnection.
(ii) Identification of any circuit breaker short circuit capability

limits exceeded as a result of the interconnection.
(iii) Identification of any instability or inadequately damped

response to system disturbances resulting from the
interconnection.
(iv) A preliminary identification of the Transmission Owner

Interconnection Facilities and Interconnection System
Upgrades required to accommodate the Interconnection
Request.
(v) A preliminary, non-binding estimate of the costs and time

required to construct the Transmission Owner
Upgrades.
7.0 Generator shall make an initial payment of the estimated cost for
performance of the Study and preparation of Study Report in the
Page 48
amount of $43,000.00 minus the $10,000 deposit = $33,000.00 at

the time of delivering the executed Agreement to Manitoba Hydro.
Manitoba Hydro shall charge and Generator shall pay for all actual
costs of the Study and Study Report (including the provision of
supporting documentation) in excess of the deposit paid by
Generator (at the time of submitting its Interconnection Request)
after completion of the Study Report or withdrawal or termination of
the Interconnection Request, whichever occurs first. Actual costs
of the Study and Study Report shall include overhead costs. Such
payment shall be due and payable within 30 days of the Generator
being invoiced unless Generator’s Interconnection Request is
terminated for insolvency pursuant to Section 16.2 of the Manitoba
Hydro Open Access Interconnection Tariff, in which case the
provisions of Section 16.2 of the Tariff shall apply. If after
completion of the Study Report or upon withdrawal or termination of
the Interconnection Request, the deposit paid by Generator
exceeds the actual costs of the Study and preparation of the Study
Report, Manitoba Hydro shall refund the excess amount to the
Generator within 30 days or, at the direction of the Generator, apply
the excess amount towards the costs of an Interconnection
Facilities Study.
8.0 Actual interconnection of the Facility shall be subject to the

provisions of the Manitoba Hydro Open Access Interconnection
Tariff and applicable regulatory and any other required approvals.
9.0 This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Manitoba Hydro

Open Access Interconnection Tariff and the provisions of said Tariff
are incorporated by reference herein.
10.0 This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance

with the laws of the Province of Manitoba.
11.0 This Agreement shall not be assigned without the prior written
consent of the other Party.
12.0 Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed

by the Parties.
13.0 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the

parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and terminates and
supersedes all prior oral and written representations. There are no
representations, conditions, warranties or agreements, express or
implied, with respect to or collateral to this Agreement other than
those contained or expressly incorporated herein.
14.0 Manitoba Hydro is an independent contractor. This Agreement

shall not create the relationship of employer and employee,
Page 49
principal and agent, partnership or joint venture between Manitoba

Hydro and Generator or between Generator and any officers,
employees or agents of Manitoba Hydro.
15.0 Generator acknowledges that Manitoba Hydro is relying upon

information provided by the Generator and other parties in the
preparation of the Study and Study Report.
16.0 Manitoba Hydro makes no representations or warranties with

respect to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the
Study and Study Report. Generator assumes any and all risk and
responsibility for use of, and reliance on, the Study and Study
Report. Generator disclaims and waives any rights or remedies
that it might otherwise have against Manitoba Hydro in contract,
tort, equity or other legal cause of action for faults, errors, defects,
inaccuracies, omissions, suitability or reliability of the Study and
Study Report.
17.0 Generator agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Manitoba Hydro

and its successors and assigns from and against all actions,
causes of action, claims, damages, costs, liability, debts, demands,
damage to property or persons, including damages, costs and
losses suffered by Manitoba Hydro and claims brought against
Manitoba Hydro by any third party whatsoever, in respect of, or
arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement.
18.0 All products of, or resulting from, the performance of the Study and
preparation of the Study Report by Manitoba Hydro in the course of
performing this Agreement, including but not limited to, all
information, drawings, Reports, records, documents, research
notes, data, photographs, maps, materials, drafts, working drafts,
documents or tangible assets and any intellectual property therein,
including patent, trademark, copyrights, design and trade secrets
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Service Product”) shall
become the exclusive property of Manitoba Hydro immediately
upon creation or assembly, notwithstanding the fact that all or a
portion of the data provided by Generator may be incorporated
within the Service Product. The Generator shall have no right to
copy, modify, amend, alter, sell, lend or dispense of any such
Service Products in any manner for any reason.
19.0 The Generator shall have no right to use the Service Products
except for the purpose of determining whether the Generator shall
proceed with having Manitoba Hydro perform an Interconnection
Facilities Study.
20.0 Neither Party shall be considered in default as to any obligation

under this Agreement if prevented from fulfilling the obligation due
Page 50
to an event of Force Majeure. However, a Party whose

performance under this Agreement is hindered by an event of
Force Majeure shall make all reasonable efforts to perform its
obligations under this Agreement. Neither Party shall be relieved of
liability for failure of performance to the extent that such failure is
due to a remediable cause which it fails to remove or remedy within
a reasonable period of time.
20.1 In this Agreement, an event of “Force Majeure” means any act of

God, labour disturbance, act of the public enemy, war, insurrection,
riot, fire, storm or flood, explosion, breakage or accident to
machinery or equipment, any order, regulation or restriction
imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian
authorities, or any other cause beyond a Party’s reasonable control
which cause could not have been avoided by the exercise of Good
Utility Practice. A Force Majeure event does not include an act of
negligence or intentional wrongdoing or economic hardship or
insolvency.
20.2 If there is a Force Majeure event that has affected a Party’s ability
to perform its obligations under this Agreement the Party shall
forthwith (and in any event no later than the end of the next
business day after it first becomes aware that an occurrence
constitutes a Force Majeure event) notify the other Party in writing
of the reasons why it believes the occurrence constitutes a Force
Majeure event, identifying the nature of the event, its expected
duration, and the particulars of the obligations affected by the
event, and furnish to the other Party reports with respect to the
Force Majeure event at such intervals as the other Party may
reasonably request during the continuance of the Force Majeure
event.
20.3 If there is a Force Majeure event affecting a Party’s ability to

perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Party shall be
prompt and diligent in removing, if practicable, the cause of such
inability to perform, but nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed as permitting a Party to continue to fail to perform after
said cause has been removed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
Party shall not be obligated to agree to any settlement of a strike or
labour dispute which, in that Party’s sole opinion, may be
inadvisable or detrimental.
21.0 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,

including counterparts signed by facsimile, each of which shall be
deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument. A photocopied and/or facsimile copy of
this Agreement bearing a signature of each Party, in a single
Page 51
document or as counterparts thereof as provided for herein, shall

be deemed an original executed version of this Agreement.
Page 52
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be

duly executed by their duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first
above written.
Manitoba Hydro Manitoba Hydro

Transmission and Distribution Power Supply
Business Unit Business Unit
By: _________________________________ By:

________________________________
Name : Ron Mazur Name (typed or printed):
_______________
Title: Manager T & D System Planning Title:
______________________________
Page 53
EXHIBIT A
to
Interconnection Evaluation Study Agreement For
Great Falls Generating Facility
The Interconnection Evaluation Study will evaluate the impact of 3 MW of

additional generation and a substantial modification to the unit excitation and
governors connected to the Great Falls 115 kV switchyard, at the point
designated for the location of the site at Great Falls Generating Station on the
Winnipeg River, near the town of Great Falls, Manitoba, with a projected In-
Service Date of 2009.
The Interconnection Evaluation Study will be completed in two phases;
(i) In one phase the upgrades to unit excitation and governors will be studied
in conjunction with Pine Falls G.S.(units 1-6), Great Falls G.S.(units 1,2,5
& 6), Slave Falls G.S.(units 1-6) and McArthur Falls G.S (units 1-8) based
upon the following:
a. Existing Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVRs) and rotating main
exciters replaced with full static exciters and;
b. Existing electro mechanical governors replaced with digital governors.
c. The study will investigate options at McArthur Falls G.S in order to
recommend either full static excitation systems or static pilot exciters to
function with existing rotating main exciters.
The study will assume that Great Falls units 3 & 4 are already equipped
with full static exciters and that all proposed full static exciters for the
generating stations under consideration will be of similar type (functionality
and speed of response) to the ABB full static excitation systems with
modern power system stabilizers, recently installed on Great Falls units 3
& 4. Studies will be performed with the assumption of Pointe du Bois G.S.
as it exists today and with some anticipated features of the proposed
redevelopment.
The study will consider steady state, transient and small signal stability
effects of the new excitation and digital governors systems versus existing
ones from a system perspective (Manitoba Hydro as well as the
surrounding MRO interconnected system). Studies will be conducted
under several simulated system scenarios, generator loading and
seasonal conditions.

recommendations pertaining to the procurement of generator protection
and control equipment, equipment ratings, control parameter design
ranges along with settings used in the study.
Page 54
This portion of the Interconnection Evaluation Study may be completed

earlier than the Interconnection Evaluation Study report. The estimated
cost for this part of the study is $10,000.00.
(ii) The second phase of the Interconnection Evaluation Study will investigate
the possible generation increase of an additional 3 MW of Network
Resource Interconnection Service. The second phase of the
Interconnection Evaluation /study will be based upon the following
assumptions:
The generation output associated with the Unit 3 and 4 re-runnering

project will exceed the original 8 MW increase in generation studied for the
project in the IFS report dated July 14 2003. The 3 MW increase exceeds
the approved Facility generation level of 139.6 MW of Network Resource
Interconnection Service associated with the project and the IFS report
dated July 14 2003. This phase of the study is estimated to cost
$33,000.00.
Study Models
1. Steady-state post-disturbance analysis

a. This study will utilize MAPP PSS/E models 2007 series models:
 2012 summer off peak (70% peak load)
Study will investigate new 115kV breaker configuration and local

contingencies only.
Study parameters will be adjusted to include the preceding projects

identified by the ISDs within the generation queue.
The maximum power export from Manitoba to the US is 2175 MW.

Transfers to the US will be maximized based on available accredited
generation above native load, allowing for spinning reserve.
Page 55
b. Transient stability analysis
2007 series MAPP models:

2012 and 2017 summer off peak with maximum (725 MW) Winnipeg
River generation.
2. Transient stability analysis
The following NERC category B (single component) and C (multiple

components) disturbances will be tested to determine the impact on
transfer capability and overall system stability within Manitoba using the
2012 summer-peak stability model:
i. 3-phase normal clearing faults with system intact
ii. Single line to ground stuck breaker (slow clearing) faults with
system intact
4. Interconnection System and Network Upgrades
 Solutions to any limitations discovered during steady-state post-

disturbance and transient stability analysis will be determined.
Short Circuit Analysis is required to asses any increased short circuit

levels on proposed new breaker layout. Three phase and single-line-to-
ground fault levels will be calculated with PSS/E.
Page 56
ATTACHMENT 2

FOR McArthur Falls Generating Station
RECITALS

McArthur Falls Generating Facility (Facility); and

affected systems;





Page 57

or before .






interconnection.

Request.

Upgrades.
amount of $10,000.00 minus the $10,000 deposit = $0.00 at the
time of delivering the executed Agreement to Manitoba Hydro.
Page 58

Facilities Study.




by the Parties.


Page 59


Study Report.

Facilities Study.

Page 60


insolvency.
event.


Page 61

above written.

By: _________________________________ By:

________________________________
_______________
______________________________
Page 62
EXHIBIT A
to
McArthur Falls Generating Facility
The Interconnection Evaluation Study will evaluate the impact of a

substantial modification to the unit excitation and governors connected to the
McArthur Falls 115 kV switchyard, at the point designated for the location of the
site at McArthur Falls Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, near the town of
Great Falls, Manitoba, with a projected In-Service Date of 2011.
(iii) In one phase the upgrades to unit excitation and governors will be studied
upon the following:
redevelopment.

Page 63
The estimated cost for the McArthur Falls Generating Station portion of
the study is $10,000.00.
Page 64
ATTACHMENT 2

FOR Slave Falls Generating Station
RECITALS

Slave Falls Generating Facility (Facility); and

affected systems;





Page 65

or before .






interconnection.

Request.

Upgrades.
amount of $43,000.00 minus the $10,000 deposit = $33,000.00 at
the time of delivering the executed Agreement to Manitoba Hydro.
Page 66

Facilities Study.




by the Parties.


Page 67


Study Report.

Facilities Study.

Page 68


insolvency.
event.


Page 69

above written.

By: _________________________________ By:

________________________________
_______________
______________________________
Page 70
EXHIBIT A
to
Slave Falls Generating Facility
The Interconnection Evaluation Study will evaluate the impact of 28 MW of

additional generation and a substantial modification to the unit excitation and
governors connected to the Slave Falls 138 kV switchyard, at the point
designated for the location of the site at Slave Falls Generating Station on the
Winnipeg River, near the town of Pointe du Bois, Manitoba, with a projected In-
Service Date of 2009.
The Interconnection Evaluation Study will be completed in two phases;
(iv) In one phase the upgrades to unit excitation and governors will be studied
upon the following:
redevelopment.

Page 71
This portion of the Interconnection Evaluation Study may be completed

earlier than the Interconnection Evaluation Study report. The estimated
cost for this part of the study is $10,000.00.
(v) The second phase of the Interconnection Evaluation Study will investigate
the possible generation increase of an additional 30 MW of Network
Resource Interconnection Service. The second phase of the
Interconnection Evaluation Study will be based upon the following
assumptions:
A potential re-runnering project of Slave Falls units 1 to 6 and possibly

units 7 and 8 with a potential generation increase of up to 30 MW in two
incremental steps over the current 68 MW of Network Resource
Interconnection Service. The upgrade may only require 6 units with the
efficiency of the new runners, when available further details should be
provided before the completion of the study. This study will investigate the
Slave Falls Generating Station with a generation output of;
1. 83 MW with 6 units,
2. 98 MW with 6 units, and
3. 98 MW with 8 units.
This phase of the study may be able to take advantage of the results of a
previous study for the new facility at Pointe du Bois and is estimated to
cost $18,000.00.
Study Models
1. Steady-state post-disturbance analysis

a. This study will utilize MAPP PSS/E models 2007 series models:
Study will investigate new 115kV breaker configuration and local

contingencies only.
Study parameters will be adjusted to include the preceding projects

identified by the ISDs within the generation queue.
Page 72
The maximum power export from Manitoba to the US is 2175 MW.

Transfers to the US will be maximized based on available accredited
generation above native load, allowing for spinning reserve.
b. Transient stability analysis
2007 series MAPP models:

2012 and 2017 summer off peak with maximum (725 MW) Winnipeg
River generation.
2. Transient stability analysis
The following NERC category B (single component) and C (multiple

components) disturbances will be tested to determine the impact on
transfer capability and overall system stability within Manitoba using the
2012 summer-peak stability model:
iii. 3-phase normal clearing faults with system intact
iv. Single line to ground stuck breaker (slow clearing) faults with
system intact
4. Interconnection System and Network Upgrades
 Solutions to any limitations discovered during steady-state post-

disturbance and transient stability analysis will be determined.
Short Circuit Analysis is required to asses any increased short circuit

levels on proposed new breaker layout. Three phase and single-line-to-
ground fault levels will be calculated with PSS/E.
Page 73
APPENDIX B: Correspondence
Page 74
APPENDIX C :
MRO Model Single Line
Page 75
Page 76
APPENDIX C : MRO Study Case Single Line Diagram
Page 77
Page 78

Interconnection Evaluation Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interconnection Evaluation Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Falls, McArthur Falls and Slave Falls Generator Uprate and Excitation and Governor

Systems Upgrade Interconnection Evaluation Study

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................. 4

4. Base Case Study Models ...................................................................... 16

5. Short Circuit Analysis............................................................................ 17

6. ACCC Analysis ......................................................................................... 17

7. Transient Stability Analysis ................................................................. 19

8. Small Signal Stability Studies ............................................................. 31

9. Governor Replacement Considerations .......................................... 38

10. Stability Model Requirements .......................................................... 41

11. References .............................................................................................. 44

Specifically the joint IES study addresses the following:

1. Great Falls G.S.: The impact of 3 MW of additional generation above

2. McArthur Falls G.S.: The impact of replacing existing AVRs and

3. Slave Falls G.S.: The impact of an additional 28 MW of generation

The IES makes the following conclusions:

1. There are no detrimental effects to the Manitoba Hydro power system if

2. The installation of high initial response static exciters provides some

3. The installation of high initial response exciters excites local oscillatory

inclusion of Power System Stabilizers (PSSs) as part of the excitation

4. The proposed replacement of existing electromechanical governors

5. AC Contingency Calculations (ACCC) analysis shows that in terms of

The IES makes the following recommendations:

4. Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

5. New digital governors to replace the existing electro-mechanical

6. Suppliers shall provide both detailed as well as standard IEEE

7. Should this project proceed to the Interconnection Facility Study (IFS)

2.1 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Re- runner

The impact of 3 MW of additional generation above the original 8 MW

2.2 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S. Generator Excitation

 The exciter voltage regulator shall be specified to include Line Drop

 Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

 A standard IEEE PSS2A power system stabilizer, to be part of the

 Great Falls U 1,2,4,5,6 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges and

Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended Parameter

Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended Parameter

2.3 Recommendations for McArthur Falls G.S. Excitation

The following are recommended for the proposed excitation system

 The exciter voltage regulator shall be specified to include Line Drop

 Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

 A standard IEEE PSS2A power system stabilizer, to be part of the

lead/lag block which may be bypassed. Parameter ranges and study

 McArthur Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges

Parameter Description Simulation Recommended

Ks3 Integral of Electric Power gain 1.0 0.0  Ks 3  1.0

Vpssmax Stabilizer output maximum limit 0.05 pu 0  Vpss max  0.2

Vpssmin Stabilizer output minimum limit -0.05 pu  0.2  Vpss min  0

2.4 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Generator Re-runner

Based on ACCC, short circuit and transient stability analysis completed in

Should this project proceed to the Interconnection Facility Study (IFS)

2.5 Recommendations for Slave Falls G.S. Excitation Systems

The following are recommended for the proposed excitation system

 The exciter voltage regulator shall be specified to include Line Drop

 Excitation system limiters included in the excitation system package

 A standard IEEE PSS2A power system stabilizer, to be part of the

 Slave Falls U1-8 Recommended PSS Parameter Ranges and Study

Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended Parameter

Ks3 Integral of Electric Power gain 1.0 0.0  Ks 3  1.0

Parameter Description Simulation Value Recommended Parameter

2.6 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S.

Different suppliers provide different forms of speed governing systems. It is

Based on the above it is recommended that governors be specified according to

Parameter Suggested Range Study

2.7 Recommendations for Great Falls G.S., McArthur Falls G.S.