1
Feasibility Study of Power System
Interconnection Between Russia and ROK
Jong-Yul Kim, Jae-Young Yoon , Ho-Yong Kim, Dong-Wook Park
Abstract- This paper evaluates minimum and maximum
exchange power considering economic and technical
characteristics between Russia and ROK. First, we evaluate
minimum exchange power to assure economic feasibility by
comparing with the total cost and benefit of interconnected line.
For evaluating maximum exchange power, two constraints are
considered, which are composed of Interconnected line constraint
and system constraint. Interconnected line constraint depends on
geographical situation of Russia and Korean peninsula. System
constraint is evaluated through PSS/E power system analysis. As
a result of these evaluations, we propose the maximum exchange
power. As a conclusion, we suggest the reasonable range of
exchange power between ROK and Russia considering economic
and technical constraints with the interconnection scenario that
power system interconnection between ROK and Russia will be
realized in the year of 2010.
Index Terms-- Economic constraint, Exchange power, Power
system interconnection, Technical constraint
I. INTRODUCTION
T he power system of ROK (Republic of Korea) is like an
island after having been isolated from the DPRK
(Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) network in 1945
and, therefore, there has never been any effort to connect it to
power systems of neighboring countries. Instead of that, all
the efforts have been focused on developing generating
resources and enhancing network in order to supply the power
demand and to support the booming economy of ROK during
the last three decades. However, the Korean power industry
has been confronted with many difficulties and will continue
to be so in the future. Among the many reasons why the
industry has faced such difficulties, the most important things
are as follows. Firstly, ROK is very poor in natural resources
and must import 97.4% of the total primary energy
domestically consumed. Secondly, ROK is very much small
mountainous country and 70% of its territory is covered with
mountains.
Furthermore, due to military and political tension between
Jong Yul Kim is with KERI, Chang Won, ROK (e-mail: jykim@keri.re.kr).
Jae Young Yoon is with KERI, Chang Won, ROK (e-mail: jyyoon@keri.re.kr).
Ho Yong Kim is with KERI, Chang Won, ROK (e-mail: hykim@keri.re.kr).
Dong Wook Park is with KERI, Chang Won, ROK (e-mail: dwpark@keri.re.kr).
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ROK and DPRK until recently, there are many limitations to
develop generating resources and expand network for
supplying the heavy load in the northern part near Seoul. In
this situation, one of the best ways to overcome such
difficulties in supplying the power demand seems to be cross-
border system interconnection. Especially, power system
interconnection in NEA(Near East Asia) region, so called
NEAREST (Near East Asian Region Electrical System Tie), is
taking much attention in recent [1-4]. Now, research project
on NEAREST has been carrying out in university and
research institute in Korea. In this paper, interconnection
scenario between ROK and Russia is investigated in technical
and economic aspects for verifying the feasibility of
NEAREST project. For the realizing power system
interconnection, many economic and technical analyses
should be achieved in advance. Therefore, minimum
exchange power in economic aspect is evaluated by
comparing with life cycle cost and benefit of interconnected
line. In addition, evaluation of maximum exchange power in
technical aspect is carried out.
For this evaluation, technical constraints such as
transmission line constraint and system constraint are
considered with power system configuration of 2010.
II. SCENARIO FOR THE “RUSSIA-ROK” POWER SYSTEM
INTERCONNECTION
In this scenario, we assume that power system
interconnection between Russia and ROK will be set up in the
year of 2010 and DPRK will provide its land only for
interconnected line instead of being integrated into the
Russia-DPRK-ROK interconnected line as shown in Fig 1. So,
DPRK has no convert station in Pyongyang. The elements of
this interconnection scenario are:

The length of interconnected line between
Vladivostok and Sin Po-Chun is 1,260km.

±500kV two-terminal HVDC system is applied and
consists of two-bipole system, which means that the
power divides into four DC transmission lines
respectively. Although one-bipole transmission line
is tripped due to disturbance, another bipole system
can supply a half of power flowed before
 2

disturbance. Therefore, this configuration can
increase the reliability of interconnected line.

Interconnection bus voltage is set to 1.0pu and
receives the reactive power from capacitor banks
and converter itself. Each terminal has capacitor
banks for filtering the high frequency noise, which
is 10% of converter rating.

The power exchange scenario is that ROK imports
power from Russia. We assume Russia has infinite
surplus power and Russia power system has no any
system constraint to supply power.
assuring of the economic feasibility. In this paper, we assume
that initial annual decreasing rate of electricity tariff
difference is 10% and it will decrease annually to 2030, which
results in the annual decreasing rate of 2030 is 0%. Another
key factor is average utility factor of transmission line. The
higher utility factor makes interconnection more beneficial.
The 60% of average utility factor is used to calculate the
benefit. Table I shows input parameter for estimating life-
cycle cost and benefit of interconnected transmission line.
TABLE I
INPUT PRAMETER

Items Data
Life-cycle span 30 years
Maintenance cost 4% of initial cost
C/S
Power Loss factor 0.7%
Maintenance cost 4% of initial cost
T/L
Power Loss factor 2.52%
Cost rate of ROW of DPRK 20% of tariff benefit
Electricity Russia $0.0259/kwh
tariff ROK $0.0642/kwh
Average utility factor of T/L 60%
Fig.1. Concept diagram of Russia-ROK power system interconnection
Table II shows total cost and benefit of interconnected
line. If 1GW of power is exchanged between ROK and
III. MINIMUM POSSBILE EXCHANGE POWER Russia, total cost is much more than benefit, which can’t
assure of economic advantage. However, more than 2GW of
A. Cost of interconnected line exchange power can guarantee interconnection project to be
in the black. Therefore, we propose that minimum exchange
Total cost of interconnected line, life cycle cost, consists of
power in economic aspect is 2GW.
initial and operating cost. Initial cost includes the construction
cost of transmission line (T/L) and converter station (C/S), TABLE II
operating cost means the maintenance cost and power losses TOTAL COST AND BENEFIT
of transmission line and converter station. In this paper, Exchange
Cost (billion $) Benefit (billion $)
annual maintenance cost can be calculated by multiply initial power
cost with annual maintenance rate of transmission line and 1GW 1.62 1.29
converter station. Cost from power losses is also evaluated by
using power loss factor [5-7]. As mentioned before, 2GW 2.51 2.58
interconnected line will go through the territory of DPRK,
which means Russia and ROK should pay some amounts of 3GW 3.31 3.88
money for using ROW (Right of way) of DPRK. The cost of 4GW 4.12 5.17
ROW is calculated by multiply cost rate of ROW with annual
electricity tariff benefit between Russia and ROK.
IV. MAXIMUM POSSIBLE EXCHANGE POWER
B. Benefit of interconnected line
Benefit of interconnection comes from the electricity tariff Maximum exchange power is evaluated by taking account
difference between ROK and Russia. The electricity tariff of following technical aspects:
difference in 2001 was $0.0383/kWh, but this difference has
been getting decreased because the annual increasing rate of  System constraint
electricity tariff in Russia has been higher than that of ROK.  Interconnection line constraint
Therefore, decreasing rate of electricity tariff difference
between ROK and Russia is one of the key factors for

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3

A. System constraint TABLE III

INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY (GW)
To evaluate maximum exchange power with Russia taking
Generation Capacity %
account of system constraint, we carry out power system
analysis such as load flow and dynamic analysis by using Nuclear 15.7 31.2
PSS/E program. Because the objective of this study is to
investigate system constraint from the standpoint of ROK, Steam 21.7 43.0
Russia system constraints are excluded. C/C &internal
Firstly, we look into methodology and results of PSS/E load 10.1 20.0
combustion
flow analysis to find maximum exchange power without any
Hydro 2.9 5.8
violation like overload and voltage problem in ROK power
system. Secondly, we carry out PSS/E dynamics analysis to Total 50.4 100.0
evaluate the impact of interconnected line trip caused by
disturbance on ROK system in terms of frequency.
1) Load flow analysis Table IV shows the production of electricity that was
Load flow analysis is performed in case of not only steady generated in 2003: 42.3% from nuclear plants, 45.7% from
state but also (N-1) contingency. The PSS/E program and steam turbine plants, 10.9% from C/C & internal combustion
peak load data of Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO) and 1.1% from Hydro plants. 88.0% of total electricity
in 2010 are used. For the load flow analysis on interconnected produced in 2003 was generated by nuclear and steam turbine
power system, we make the equivalent network model of power plants. As mentioned above context, production of
interconnected power system including reduction of electricity in ROK has been highly relying on nuclear and
generation in ROK. With this equivalent network model, load steam turbine power plants [8].
flow analysis is done.
TABLE IV
a) Equivalent network model PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY (TWh )
Fig. 2 shows the equivalent network model of Russia-ROK
interconnection. In this equivalent network, detailed network Generation Production %
of Russia is not included. Therefore, Russia power system is Nuclear 129.7 42.3
represented as an equivalent source that has infinite capacity.
Steam 140.3 45.7
b) Reduction of generation in ROK
In case of importing the power from Russia, the total C/C &internal
33.4 10.9
generation of ROK should be decreased to meet power combustion
balance. Hydro 3.5 1.1
The installed generating capacity of ROK in 2003 is shown
in Table III. In 2003, total installed generating capacity was Total 306.9 100.0
50.4GW, which nuclear, steam, combined cycle and hydraulic
generation capacities accounted for 31.2%, 43.0%, 20.0% and
5.8% of the total generating capacity in ROK, respectively As looking at the unit cost of electricity of each generation
[8]. type, nuclear generation is the cheapest one and next is coal-
Because of the lack of hydraulic resources, ROK must be fired generation. Otherwise, LNG and C/C generation is
highly reliant on nuclear and steam power. higher than any other types of generation. With the
consideration of above statistics, we reduce generation of
ROK in accordance with inflow power from Russia through
disconnecting some of LNG and C/C generators from ROK
power system.

c) Results of load flow analysis

Fig. 2. Equivalent network model
(1) Steady state condition
In steady state, interconnection between Russia and ROK
makes the change in power flow of ROK power system. Table
V shows power flow changing of nearby bus 1900 (Sin po-
chun) caused by interconnection. In Table V, positive sign
means the power flows into bus 1900 from other bus, negative
sign is vice verse. Before the interconnection, large amount of
power flows into bus 1900 from bus 1200 where is connected
with east coast nuclear plants. The power from bus 1200

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 4

flows out to bus 1910, 1300, 1301 and 1400. As inflow power
from Russia is getting increase, the power from bus 1200
becomes decreasing gradually. In case that 4GW of power
inflows from Russia, bus 1900 provides power to all of the
connected neighboring buses. As a result of load flow
analysis, no transmission line and transformer violates
overload criteria in steady state, which means that no
transmission line and transformer loadings exceed the 100%
of rating.
TABLE V
POWER FLOW (MW)
Bus Inflow power from Russia
transmission line and transformer should have loading of less
than 120% of rating and bus voltage should keep the range
from 0.95pu to 1.05pu. Table VII shows the results of (N-1)
contingency analysis. In Table VII, “number of violations”
means the number of contingency case that overload or
voltage violation happens. No overload and bus voltage
violation occurs until 4GW. However, if inflow power from
Russia is more than 5GW, some violations show up.
TABLE VI I
RESULTS OF (N-1) CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS
Inflow power Number of violations
from Russia Overload Bus voltage

From To None 2GW 4GW 6GW 2GW 0 0

3GW 0 0
1900 1910 798.9 969 1126.5 1266.3
4GW 0 0
1900 1200 -1138.6 -555.6 22.2 709.8
5GW 1 0
1900 1300 11.1 379.7 749.3 1075.9 6GW 1 0
1900 1301 11.1 379.7 749.3 1075.9
As a conclusion, there is no violation of overload and bus
1900 1400 317.6 827 1353 1872.2 voltage in steady state up to 6GW of inflow power. However,
some violations appear as the inflow power increases under
TABLE VI (N-1) contingency. Therefore, in viewpoint of load flow
BUS VOLTAGE (PU) study, 4GW is maximum exchange power that can be flowed
Inflow power from Russia without reinforcement of ROK power system.
Bus
None 2GW 4GW 6GW 2) Dynamic analysis
1900 1.048 1.0 1.0 1.0 In dynamic analysis, we look at the impact of
interconnected line trip on ROK power system in terms of
1910 1.044 1.034 1.033 1.033 frequency. When interconnected line is tripped caused by a
1200 1.041 1.025 1.027 1.026 certain disturbance in one of interconnected power systems, it
impacts on the other interconnected power systems. This
1300 1.046 1.023 1.019 1.015 impact on the power system can be evaluated in terms of
1301 1.046 1.023 1.019 1.015 power system frequency deviation. Fig. 3 shows the frequency
variation caused by interconnected line trip. In Fig. 3, some
1400 1.047 1.026 1.024 1.020 amounts of power are coming from Russia in normal
operating condition and then one-bipole or two-bipole is
In the viewpoint of bus voltage, bus 1900 can keep the tripped caused by disturbance, which means that ROK loses
voltage at 1.0pu through receiving reactive power from not some portion of generation. The power system frequency of
only converter itself but also shunt capacitors in HVDC ROK will be dropped to under peak frequency due to
system. unbalance of generation and load. After transient state for a
After interconnection, voltage profile of buses where are few seconds, frequency converges to new steady state by
located nearby bus 1900 is a little lower than before AGC and governor free with some frequency deviation.
interconnection as shown in Table VI. In steady state, bus
voltage meets the operating standard ranging from 0.95pu to
1.05pu, which means there is no voltage problem up to 6GW
of inflow power.

(2) N-1 contingency condition

Total 59 cases of N-1 contingency are considered to check
overload and voltage profile of ROK power system. Outage of
one transmission line or one transformer outage is considered
as a (N-1) contingency. Under (N-1) contingency,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 5

2GW 59.89 59.95 59.76 59.88

3GW 59.83 59.92 59.58 59.82
4GW 59.75 59.88 59.32 59.75

B. Interconnected line constraint

Interconnected line between Russia and ROK has to pass
through land of DPRK. Therefore, we have to consider
following geographical constraint between Russia and Korean
peninsula to evaluate acceptable maximum exchange power.

Fig. 3. Frequency variation under contingency
a) Methodology
We use the PSS/E dynamic simulation program and peak
load data of Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO) in
2010.
The equivalent network model and generation reduction
method are same with those of load flow analysis. As
mentioned before, we assume that two- bipole HVDC system
is built for interconnection between Russia and ROK. One-
bipole and two-bipole trip are considered with the case of
having a range from 1GW to 4GW of inflow power. Operating
standard of power system frequency of KEPCO asks
frequency in steady state to keep the range of 59.8Hz to
60.2Hz and under peak should be over 59.6Hz in transient
state. So, we can find acceptable maximum exchange power
without severe violation of frequency operating standard
under interconnected line trip.

Only one route can be built from Russia to the
Korean Peninsula because the border is too narrow
(18km) and the Russian side goes through an
environmentally protected area as shown in Fig. 4.

As an alternative, there is a way to pass through
Chinese territory via West Sea or East Sea. Yet, it is
not advisable since it can cause conflicts among
related countries.
Considering above situation, maximum two-bipole HVDC
system is possible for interconnection between Russia and
ROK.

b) Results of dynamic analysis

Table VIII shows the results of dynamic analysis with 1GW
to 4GW inflow power. As inflow power increases gradually,
frequency deviation and under peak is getting larger.
In case of losing 2GW of power, under peak of frequency is
59.76Hz and frequency deviation is 59.88Hz, which means
that loss of 2GW of power doesn’t impact on ROK power Fig. 4. Geographical constraint of Russia and Korean peninsula
system so much and ROK power system can stand it.
However, losing more than 3GW of power makes under peak The capacity of transmission line depends on conductor
frequency exceed operating standard in transient state as size used. In order to make more power flow in transmission
shown in Table VIII. In real power system, two-bipole trip at line, the larger size of conductor is required. Table IX shows
same time is very rare situation because two-bipole means the list of ASCR conductor size and current ratings [9]. As
four AC transmission lines. Therefore, we evaluate the shown in Table IX, the biggest conductor is Joree with current
maximum exchange power taking account of one-bipole trip. rating of 1751Amps, which can deliver the 875MW of power
Considering above results, we can say that 4GW of power is per pole in ±500kV HVDC system.
maximum exchange power from the viewpoint of dynamic
analysis. TABLE IX
LIST OF ASCR CONDUCTOR SIZE

TABLE VIII Current

Diameter DC resistance
RESULTS OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Conductor Rating
(inches) (Ohms/1000ft)
One-bipole trip Two-bipole trip (Aamps)
Inflow Cardinal 1.196 0.0179 996
power Under Under
Deviation Deviation Nuthatch 1.465 0.0114 1313
peak peak

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Chukar 1.602 0.0097 1543
Thrasher 1.802 0.0075 1673
Joree 1.880 0.00689 1751
In addition to conductor size, the number of conductor of
transmission line is also design factor to determine the
capacity. If we use one Joree conductor per pole, the capacity
is 875MW. In case of using two Joree conductors per pole,
the capacity can be increased up to 1.75GW. Therefore, the
maximum capacity of transmission line can be varied
according to transmission line configuration such as
conductor size and the number of conductor used. If we
design the transmission line of HVDC system with two Joree
conductors per pole, 4GW power can flow through two-bipole
HVDC system.
C. level of maximum possible exchange power
In previous analyses, level of maximum possible exchange
power is proposed as follows:

Load flow analysis
There is no violation of overload and voltage in steady
state up to 6GW of inflow power. In (N-1) contingency,
however, some violations occur as inflow power exceeds
4GW. Therefore, 4GW seems to be maximum exchange
power.

Dynamic analysis
Power system frequency of ROK can keep the standard
when losing 2GW of power. However, loss of more than
3GW of power makes frequency violate the standard.
Considering one-bipole trip, 4GW is maximum exchange
power.

Interconnection line constraint
Considering the geographical situation between Russia
and Korean peninsula, two-bipole system having a
capacity of 4W can be built.
Finally, we can say that 4GW of power exchange is
maximum acceptable power between Russia and ROK in the
year of 2010 taking account of technical aspect.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper evaluates minimum and maximum exchange
power between Russia and ROK in 2010 from the viewpoints
of economic and technical. Two technical constraints are
considered to determine maximum exchange power. Firstly,
system constraints such as overload of transmission line and
transformer, voltage profile of bus and frequency variation
caused by interconnection trip are investigated. Secondly, we
look at transmission line capacity limited by interconnected
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6
line constraint. As results of these investigations, we propose
4GW as a maximum exchange power with Russia in the year
of 2010. In addition to maximum exchange power, we
evaluate minimum exchange power by comparing with total
cost and benefit of interconnected line. 2GW seems to be
minimum exchange power to assure economic feasibility.
Finally, we can say that the range of 2GW to 4GW seems to
be reasonable power exchange level of ROK-Russia
interconnected line in the year of 2010. This study is
performed under the hypothesis and based on research
concept. Therefore, more detailed engineering works from the
technical and economic viewpoints are required for the
realization of NEAREST.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] KERI, KEPCO, “A preliminary study of the power system
interconnections in Northeast Asia countries”, Tech Rep. 2000
[2] L. Belyaev and S. Podkovalnikov, “An approach to and results of
effectiveness assessment of inter-tie <<RFE – DPRK – ROK>>”, 2000
[3] Asia Pacific Energy Research Institute, “Cross-border power”, 2002
[4] Belyaev L.S., Chudinova L.Yu.,·, Podkovalnikov S.V. “Studies of
Interstate Electric Ties in Northeast Asia”, International Journal of Global
Energy Issues.- 2002.- Vol.17.- ¹ 2.- pp. 228-249.
[5] CIGRE Working Group 14.20, "Economic Assessment of HVDC Links",
CIGRE Annual Report, 2000.
[6] D. Wilhelm, "High-Voltage Direct Current Handbook", Electric Power
Research Institute, TR-104166, 1994.
[7] Harold L. Hill, "Transmission Line Reference Book HVDC To ±600kV",
Electric Power Research Institute, RP-104.
[8] KEPCO, “Statistics of Electric Power in Korea”, Vol. 72, 2003
[9] SURAL, “Product catalog of ACSR”, http://www.sural.com
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Jong–Yul Kim is with the Korea Electrotechnology
Research Institute (KERI) as a Research Engineer since
2001. He received the B.S and M.S degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Pusan National University. His research
interests are power system Interconnection of Northeast
Asia, application of superconducting devices to power
systems and AI applications to power systems.
jykim@keri.re.kr
Jae-Young Yoon Yoon Jae-young is the head of the
Power System Research Group at the Korea
Electrotechnology Research Institute (KERI). He
received his BSc., MSc. and Ph.D degree in electrical
engineering from Busan National University. Currently,
he is managing a research project, application of HTS-
equipment such as cables, current limiting reactors and
transformers and also playing a key role in the research
project related to the Northeast Asia Power System
Interconnection, including North Korea.
Kim, Ho-yong is with the Korea Electrotechnology
Research Institute(KERI) as a Principle Research
Engineer since 1986. He is currently a Director
of Power System Research Lab. He received BS degree
from Seoul National University, Korea in 1979 and MS,
Ph.D. from University of Texas at Austin ,USA in 1982
and 1985 respectively. His main research areas are
distribution automation and AI applications to power
systems and Power System Interconnection.
 7

Park, Dong-wook is vice president of R&D and Testing at

the Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute (KERI).
He received a BSc in Electrical Engineering from Seoul
National University in 1978, MSc. from Busan National
University, and Ph.D from University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in
England. He has been with KERI since 1978. He has
mainly worked in the field of high power testing, system
insulation coordination, and reliability assessment, and,
he is very interested in Northeast Asia System
Interconnection, including North Korea.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on July 05,2023 at 23:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.