Columbia Report On Load-Forecast-And-Substations VR-10

Columbia Water & Light
Geographical Land Spatial Study

City of Columbia
June 2020 Update
Unrestricted © Siemens 2020 siemens.com/power-technologies

City of Columbia Missouri Geographical Land Spatial Study
Spatial Load Forecast and Substation Assessment
• Objective
• Planning Criteria and General Considerations
• Spatial Forecast overview
• Spatial Forecast aggregated results
• Substation Size Study
• Summary of Results
• Conclusions
• Study Files
Restricted © Siemens 2020

Page 2 2020-02-27 SI DG SW&C PTI
Spatial Load Forecast and Substation Assessment
This presentation provides an update to the initial load forecasts to account that the energy efficiency
gains are likely to be limited spatially to places where the existing customers are located. It covers the
following:
 Overview of spatial load Allocation Methodology
 Load allocation results and reference files.
 Overview of changes of substation coverage areas.
 Details on changes for each existing substation in terms of proposed coverage areas, new capacity
additions and new substations.
• Present and future load by substation, including two options.
−Proposal I: With no new substation, only expansions.
−Proposal II: With a new substation at south and some expansions.
 Summary of capacity additions by substations
 Summary of recommendation and conclusions
 Details on supporting files including AutoCAD maps and excel files.

Planning Criteria and General Considerations for Substation Review
The analysis of the substations coverage areas and the need for new substations included the
following considerations:
a) The substations must be able to sustain an outage in one transformer without overloading the remaining
transformers (Firm Capacity or N-1 in the tables); this means that the ratio Load/Firm Capacity should no be
more than 100%. Slight increases are allowed considering that the analysis is done for the substation peak
and there is always the possibility under emergency to transfer load out.
a) When assessing the coverage areas of substations estimated “optimal radius” was considered that would
provide a balance between the cost of technical losses and feeder length and the cost of building a second
substation. This “optimal radius” is used as an indicator of the potential for a new substation, however it is
only one consideration as there should also be enough load in the area to justify two substations.
a) When redefining the coverage area of the substations, we took into account the location of the load centers
and in some cases, proposed a redefinition of boundary in order to bring these load centers closer to the
substation’s location. This resulted in shorter feeders, lower losses and better reliability.

Spatial Load Forecast
Step by Step Procedure
Step 1: Load Allocation - Zoning
Spatial Load allocation is based on Land Use

 Zoning is basic for this method; By using
zoning we are able to establish what customer
type can be developed in a portion of land.
 The above and the electrical saturation factor
that represents the ratio of current load to
maximum load according to the zone is critical
to identify the additional load that can appear
on the cell.
 Zoning also helps to understand the dynamics
of the city and forecast which areas or
neighborhoods are likely to demand more
energy in the future.

Step 2: Existing Transformer Load Allocation
Existing load allocation

 From the GIS model transformer capacity and
geographic location was extracted
 Using energy metered at the transformer and
using the load factor measured at the feeder head
a conversion to KW was made.
 Coincidence factors where computed to first
match, first the Feeder head load, and then the
total system load Peak for 2019.
 The final coincident load was placed on the
Geographic model for Spatial Allocation. This
means that the forecast is done for the coincident
peak load. The in the network the coincident load
will be converted to maximum (non-coincident)
load in the feeders, for assessment of local
impact. Similarly each substation individual peak
is identified for assessment of transformer
loadings
Step 3: Review growth areas
Metro 2020 Zoning Map
The following aspects were considered when assessing

which areas are likely to grow first:
 Pattern recognition; in general we expect higher development
or demand growth in the proximity to the main roads, cross
roads and closeness to other developed areas.
 Comprehensive development plans, transportation plan and
other city-made guidelines for the development, are important
Transportation Map hence given higher weight on the allocation. However, the City
of Columbia plans do not target specific areas for
development
 Given the above and considering that there is space left in the
metro area, the procedure for the allocation was to give the
higher weight to development of empty lots near to the
developed areas and already built neighborhoods.
 The CWL service territory was assumed fixed (no annexation
in the period of analysis).
 No demolition and rebuilt was assumed.
Step 4: Definition of “City Cells” on a grid
The spatial load forecast is based on a grid:

• That divides the city into quadrants (image on the left)
with each quadrant made of 25 different cells. These
cells are 2240x1600 FT^2 and are labeled from A to Z
(excluding w). Within the quadrants coordinates, each
cell can be identified with three letters. The example in
the figure below is BAI:

Step 5: Zoning by Cell and land surface
Next step is to asses how much land coverage each Zone represents in every cell.
 In Columbia there are 13 different Zones (MU, R-1, etc. see example below)
 The column “Other” takes into count the areas outside the city limits that are still served by CWL.

Step 6: Zone Load Index determination
For each Zone a Load Index is determined. The

Load Index gives information on load density of
the Zone in term of demand (kVA) per unit of
area developed; we use kVA/million sq. ft.
The figure to the left is an example:
 In the image the index calculated is for the zoning
“PD” (Planned Development), that is reserved for
different activities, in the sample shown in the
image there is a bank, a drugstore, a dental clinic
and others and the zone is fully occupied. Dividing
the load by the area the resulting index is 1847.81
kVA for million Square Feet, 2000 was selected as
indicative.
 In general we look for several fully occupied Zones
like the one above and determine various
preliminary Load Indices that were then averaged.

Step 7: Load Saturation and Maximum possible Load According to
Indexes and zoning
Multiplying the Load Index with each Zone’s area in each cell we estimated the maximum load possible (Max
Load) for the cell according to the zoning. This also allows establishing the Electric Saturation of the cell
(aka Saturation Factor), i.e. the ratio of exiting load to its Max Load and it is the basic unit for the Spatial
Forecast.
Saturation over 100% trigger investigation and in the example below there is a cell with a 533% saturation.
This is McBaine Water Treatment plan, located outside the city limits (zone “Other”).

Step 8: By Cell Potential to Growth determination.
This step identifies for each cell the inherent potential of the load on it to grow. For this we take into
consideration:
1. The percentage of unoccupied terrain in CWL territory; (100% – Used Terrain) * % CWL service Territory.
2. Development Level; this takes into consideration the likelihood of being developed; closer to the downtown
area, other customers of the same type and roads for example results in a higher number. Flooding risks
or distance to roads result in the opposite.
3. Chances to Grow: This takes into consideration the location and suitability of the yet to be developed
terrain. There could be terrain but poorly located results in a low number, the opposite in a high number.

Step 8: By Cell Potential to Growth; examples
Two “Cell” development are shown below:

 Cell FIJ (center figure) has 0 % of the land to be used, but it is far from any developed area, therefore the
used terrain is 0%, it has development level of 1 (undeveloped) and the chances to grow 1 (no roads
nearby); Hence its inherent potential to grow is very low.
 In Cell FIQ (right figure), 30% of the terrain is available for growth. Currently, FIQ has housing and
industrial facilities (mixed), therefore the Development Level is 3. FIQ has adequate space to build and
hence Chances to Grow is 4.
FIJ
FIQ

Step 9: By Cell Potential to Growth other adjustments
The cells inherent potential to grow is a function of its characteristics; land available, level of development and
chances to grow as discussed. However, not all will develop at the same time and a further adjustment is made to
assess the final Potential to Grow considering timing:
 Only cells with “Chances to Grow” of 4 and 5 were given a Potential to Grow equal to its inherent potential by 2025
 This range was expanded to 3 to 5 for 2030; i.e. the Potential to Grow is equal to the inherent potential if Chances to Grow >2
 By 2040 the range was expanded to 2 to 5 for 2030; it the chances to grow is 1; it is considered to zero Potential to Grow.

Step 9: Load Forecast allocation using Potential to Grow
Year Gross (MW) PV EE EV Net (MW)

The spatial load forecast is done for the coincident load as indicated earlier
2020 274.6 0.18 1.6 0.2 273.0
2021 276.8 0.25 3.3 0.3 273.6 and the impact of non coincident at the feeder level is considered in the
2022 279.1 0.31 4.9 0.4 274.2 network model.
2023 281.3 0.42 6.6 0.5 274.8
2024 283.5 0.64 8.2 0.6 275.2 This is taken into account in this step; where the Potential to Grow is
2025 285.8 1.05 9.9 0.8 275.6 considered to allocate the CWL aggregated load growth, considering the
2026 288.0 1.68 11.6 1.0 275.7 following:
2027 290.2 2.53 13.3 1.2 275.6
2028 292.4 3.56 15.0 1.5 275.3
2029 294.7 4.70 16.8 1.8 275.0  The coincident peak load forecast after EE was obtained from the forecast
2030 296.9 5.91 16.9 2.1 276.2 provided using econometrics, weather and population.
2031 299.1 7.14 17.0 2.5 277.5
2032 301.3 8.40 17.1 2.9 278.7
 The load shape needs to be accounted for and for that we used the 5-
2033 303.6 9.68 17.2 3.3 280.0 minute data submitted by CWL and the shape for maximum load day for
2034 305.8 10.97 17.3 3.7 281.2 2019 was determined.
2035 308.0 12.28 17.4 4.2 282.5
 Using this shape the impact of the EV load was assessed. PV is modeled
2036 310.3 13.59 17.6 4.6 283.7
2037 312.5 14.90 17.7 5.1 285.0 separately.
2038 314.8 16.22 17.8 5.5 286.3  This final coincident system load value for the entire system was used to
2039 317.1 17.54 17.9 5.9 287.5
adjust the potential to grow of each cell as it will be presented next.
2040 319.4 18.87 18.0 6.3 288.8

EV adjustment
The coincident load is affected by the EV.

 We considered the load shape and this was applied to the various horizons of
load modeling.
 The example shows how the shape changes from 2020 to 2040
 The peak load becomes higher and moves from 4 pm to 5 pm.
 The energy (area under the curve) also increases as expected and more
energy will be delivered by CWL to its customers.
 The system peak load for each term (2025, 2030 and 2040) was considered
to adjust the potential to grow of each cell.
 The table below shows the new coincident peaks for 2020, 2025, 2030 and
2040 and the corresponding growth.
 PV contributes a negligible amount at the time of peak
Forecasted New Load YEAR WITH PV (MW) NO PV (MW) DIFF (MW) Diff (%)
Year 2020 273.062 273.090 0.028 0.0%
Demand (MW) (MW)
2025 276.071 276.229 0.158 0.1%
2020 273.09
2030 280.203 281.099 0.895 0.3%
2025 276.23 7.58
2040 302.487 304.611 2.124 0.7%
2030 281.10 15.05
2040 304.61 29.94
Energy Efficiency consideration adjustment
Energy efficiency, i.e. improving the efficiency of the way electricity is used will happen largely on the
existing customers, as new customers are expected to have new efficient facilities and dwellings. The
existing customers demand change is expected to have two components the vegetative growth as more
load is added (very small component) and a decrease due to the energy efficiency. To this load the new
load needs to be allocated, including the EV. The table below shows these load components and the values
used for the allocation. Note that the existing load consumption is expected remain about contant, so the
growth is concentrated on the new load locations
Existing Load Adjustments MW

Adjusted Adicional Aditional EV Adjusted
Resdential Total
Comm Existing New Load Total Load EV Load Load Existing New Load Existing Load
Year Residential Total Vegetative Less EE Load with
& Ind Load before before EV Before EV Residential Industrial Load with (MW) Ratio
Growth EV (MW)
EV (MW) (MW) EV
2020 158 117 274.6 - (1.6) 273.0 - 273.0 0.052 0.044 273.09 - 273.09
2025 158 117 274.6 3.6 (9.9) 268.3 7.6 275.8 0.213 0.181 268.65 7.58 276.23 98%
2030 158 117 274.6 7.2 (16.9) 265.0 15.1 280.0 0.585 0.496 266.05 15.05 281.10 97%
2040 158 117 274.6 14.9 (18.0) 271.4 29.9 301.4 1.748 1.481 274.67 29.94 304.61 101%

Step 9: Load Forecast Allocation Using Potential to Grow
 In this final step the load growth for the period (2025, 2030 or 2040) is allocated back to each cell considering the
Potential to Growth and the forecast.
 For each term the load ratio adjust the existing and previous located load, and the adjustment factor equals the growth
with the forecasted new load.
 The tables below show the adjustment factors and how sum of the adjusted loads in all cell are confirmed to match the
total load.
Forecasted Existing New Load Calculated New Adjustment

Year
Demand (MW) Load Ratio (MW) Load (MW) Factor
2020 273.09
2025 276.23 0.98 7.58 35.143 0.21568
2030 281.10 0.96 15.05 123.188 0.12218
2040 304.61 0.98 29.94 169.800 0.17632
Match
Step 9: Substation Peak Factors
 Demand was computed for System peak, but some substations have their peak at different time, so a
Peak factor was computed to cover the real load that one substation could experience for expansion or
change in coverage areas purpose.
 The table below shows the factors to apply to the sum of all distribution transformers for each
substations.

Step 10: Apply cell’s load growth to distribution transformers
 In order to make the feeders analysis and to have a better granularly, the cell growth is applied to the
transformers inside the cell proportionally to the previous load.
 After this step the transformers will have the future load allocated
 The partial view of the excel file bellow shows how this is done for all the transformers and for each term.

Example – Load Growth by Cell
For each cell covering CWL territory the current and future load is shown as in the example below
In each cell the future load assigned proportionally to the actual load of the distribution transformers in the cell
and it is transferred to the network model
Substation Transformer loading is also found by aggregating the load assigned to each distribution transformer
(recall it is coincident) the substation coverage area.
The cell EFZ experience a decrease in the demand due the energy efficiency and low chances to redevelop.
EFZ 2020 EFZ 2040

1541.26 kW 1468.87 kW

Example –Load Growth by Cell
Below is another example of expected growth on an industrial area and we observe that this cell will
experience a high growth by 2040 due the proximity to main roads and space available for new constructions.
EHP 2020 EHP 2040

735.46 kW 1238.24 kW

Load Forecast results and
substation impacts
Columbia Spatial Load Forecast and Substation Assessment
Spatial Load Forecast; overall load growth
Columbia – Load Forecast Current Term
 The figure shows the 2020 expected peak

2020: 273.1 MW load for CWL as well as a high level view
the substation coverage areas and the
load centers (equidistant load weighted
point to all loads in the substation
coverage areas.
 Following slides will show the increase in
load, movement of load centers

Columbia – Load Forecast for Medium and Long Term
 The figure show the projected load for the

2025: 276.2 MW city by the year 2025
 Note the recommended changes in
substation coverage areas and the load
centers (more details later)
 Substations that are expected to require
increase in capacity are shown.


2030: 281.1 MW
city by the year 2030
increase in capacity are shown.


2040: 304.6 MW
city by the year 2040
increase in capacity are shown; two more
added.

Substation loading
 The tables below shows the substation loading at the time of system peak and the individual substation
peak load. Both considering the current coverage area
 We note that most substation peak close to the time of the system peak (both peaks are similar) with the
exception of Bolstad and Grindstone that have significant differences followed by Power Plant. This is due
to load shapes and timing differences as shown in the next slid.
 Substation capacity is check against the projected individual substation peak load and possible actions, for
each substation are proposed to meet the requirements as shown later in this presentation.
Substation load at System Peak (MW) Substation Individual Peak Load MW

Substation Peak 2020 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load Substation Peak 2020 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load
Blue Ridge 24 24 25 28 Blue Ridge 24 24 25 28

Bolstad 14 16 19 25 Bolstad 24 27 32 43
Grind Stone 35 37 38 41 Grind Stone 42 44 45 49
Harmony Branch 40 40 40 41 Harmony Branch 40 40 40 41
Hinckson Creek 45 44 45 47 Hinckson Creek 45 44 45 47
Perche Creek 35 35 34 35 Perche Creek 36 36 35 36
Power Plant 48 47 48 51 Power Plant 51 51 51 55
Rebel Hill 32 33 33 36 Rebel Hill 32 33 33 36
Total 273 276 281 305
Substation Load Profile
 As mentioned earlier Bolstad, Grindstone and Power Plant have
differences between its load at the time of system peak and the
individual substation peak (see figure below).
 This is due to two reasons, a) the load shape see top left where we
observe that in general Bolstad peaks earlier in the day (shape
expressed as % of peak) and/or b) the substation peaked at a
different day as is the case of Grindstone, Power Plant and Bolstad to
a lesser extent.

 The figures below provide another view of the results of the spatial load forecast. These figures show a “heat
map” where shifts from green to red reflects increases in the load density. Note that from 2019 to 2040 there an
slight but noticeable increase in the load density northeast of the City towards Bolstad Substation and the load
centers shift in that direction.

Details by substation
Bolstad (BD)
Substation Peak Load
2020: 24.22 MW 2025: 27.47 MW 2030: 32.38 MW 2040: 42.93 MW
Observation: The load presented is the individual substation peak and we observe that it needs a capacity expansion (from 2
X 22.4 to 3 X 22.4 MVA) by 2025 as the firm capacity (22.4 MVA) is already exceeded by the substation peak (27.5 MW).
No other changes expected.

Blue Ridge (BR)
2020 2025-2030 2040
2025: 23.92 MW 2030: 24.99 MW 2040: 27.96 MW

2020: 23.84 MW
2025: 18.94 MW 2030: 19.57 MW 2040: 18.28 MW
Observation: This substation’s firm capacity (22.4 MVA) is expected to be exceed by 2030 and the loading is expected to reach
134% of the firm capacity by 2040. As there is no physical space to expand its capacity it is recommended that Rebel Hill take the
excess load Southeast by 2025. By 2040 part of the load Northwest should be transferred to Harmony Branch.
The text in red above is for the condition before the change in the boundary and the load in black is after changing the boundary.
Grindstone (GS)

2040: 48.96 MW
2020: 41.73 MW 2025: 43.91 MW 2030: 44.80 MW
2040: 46.48 MW
Observation: This substation’s firm capacity (44.8 MVA) will be exceeded by 2040. As there is no space to expand it, Rebel
Hill can take about 2 MW at Northwest.

Power Plant (PP)
2020 2025-2030 2040

2025: 51.03 MW 2030: 51.42 MW 2040: 54.95 MW
2020: 51.34 MW
2025: 44.02 MW 2030: 44.41 MW 2040: 39.19 MW
Observation: This substation’s firm capacity (44.8 MVA) is already exceeded, and by 2040 the loading will be 120% of the firm
capacity. By 2030 load to the east should be transferred to Rebel Hill and by 2040 Harmony Branch could take the excess load
to the West.
Rebel Hill (RH) 2020 2025-2030 2040

2025: 32.48 MW 2030: 33.10 MW 2040: 35.96 MW
2020: 31,72 MW
2025: 43.79 MW 2030: 44.83 MW 2040: 50.71 MW
Observation: This substation’s firm capacity (28 MVA) is already exceeded, therefore a new transformer (28 MVA) has to be added.
This also will allow this substation to take the excess load from Blue Ridge and Power Plant by 2025, and to relieve Grindstone by 2040.

Harmony Branch (HB) 2020-2030 2040

2040: 41.01 MW
2020: 40.55 MW 2025: 40.15 MW 2030: 39.64 MW
2040: 58.13 MW
Observation: This substation is not expected to experience any problem. However as neighboring substations may become
overloaded, by 2040, it is recommended that it be expanded (from 67.2 to 89.6 MVA) and take the excess load from Power
Plant and Hickson Creek from South and East.
Perche Creek(PC)
2020 2025-2030 2040
Proposal I

2040: 36.42 MW
2020: 36.08 MW 2025: 36.01 MW 2030: 35.32 MW
2040: 43.10 MW
Observation: This substation’s firm capacity (22.4 MVA) is currently exceeded and one option to address this (Proposal I is to
add a new transformer for a total installed of 67.2 MVA or 44.8 MVA firm. With this added transformer by 2040 this substation
may take excess load from Hickson Creek to the East, without exceeding materially the new firm capacity. Another option is to
place a New Substation at the southwest but this substation would be relatively lightly as discussed next under Proposal II.
Hickson Creek(HC) 2020-2030 2040
Proposal I

2040: 47.41 MW
2020: 45.17 MW 2025: 44.47 MW 2030: 44.83 MW
2040: 34.92 MW
Observation: This substation firm capacity (44.8 MVA) will be exceeded (13%) by 2040. Perche Creek (under Proposal I)
and Harmony Branch can take the excess load from the north and west.

New Substation
Proposal II: New Substation
A new substation south of Perche Creek would be another solution to the issues identified with Perche Creek and
Hickson Creek. For its design we considered the following:
 Future development southwest of Perche Creek: This is a large area where future load could appear and served
by the new substation, avoiding overextension of feeders from Perche Creek. However analyzing satellite image,
future land use, CATSO Major Roadway plan and the Columbia Imagined Comprehensive plan, this area is not
expected to experience significant growth.
 The Existing Mill Creek lot as a location for a new

substation. This was investigated but it was found to be
too far from the possible problem area (south of Perche
Creek), and a new substation there would largely
replicate the function of Hickson creek.
 Load to be served; in principle the new substation

should be able to serve sufficient load to avoid the need
to expand Perche Creek. This is discussed in the next
slide.
New Substation
Proposal II: New Substation
 The new substation function is to supply loads

south of Perche Creek and southwest of Hickson
Creek addressing over-extension of feeder issues
and loading.
 In defining its coverage area we also attempted to
reduce the load served from Perche Creek to
levels that would avoid the need for adding a third
transformer, however as shown in the figure to the
right to reduce Perche Creek load to 22.4 MW, the
new substation coverage area would need to be
expanded to almost the location of Perche Creek
and this defats the objective of reducing the length
of feeders.
 The next slide shows the selected coverage area
and load.

New Substation
Proposal II New Substation
 As indicated earlier, the new substation would serve
load beyond Perche Creek’s optimal coverage radius
and would be closer the city’s Water Treatment plant.
The new substation will also take load in the
southeastern area currently served from Hickson Creek.
 The best Location found for this New substation is near
S Scott Blvd and Thornbrook Ridge next to the
communications tower.
 2x22.4 MVA transformer bank would be required
according to the planning criteria adopted,
 With this we found that i) the new station would be lightly
loaded at about 13 MW even in the long term, unless
there further development in the area and that ii) Perche
Creek Substation would still require an expansion
 Given the above, the new substation is unlikely to be
part of the optimal solution, but it is maintained at this
2025: 13.42 MW 2030: 13.25 MW
time pending model results and discussions.
Restricted © Siemens 2020 2040: 13.50 MW
Perche Creek(PC) under Proposal II
2020 2025-2040
Substation Peak Load 2025: 36.01 MW 2030: 35.32 MW 2040: 36.42 MW

2020: 36.08 MW
2025: 28.63 MW 2030: 27.98 MW 2040: 28.88 MW
Observation: As mentioned earlier, this substation’s firm capacity (22.4 MVA) is already exceeded and the feeder PC221
reaches is fairly long. The New Substation by 2025 may address the long feeder and take part of the load, but as can be seen
above a new transformer is still needed to avoid exceeding the firm capacity.
Hickson Creek(HC) under Proposal II
2020 2025-2030 2040
Substation Peak Load 2025: 44.47 MW 2030: 44.83 MW 2040: 47.41 MW

2020: 45.17 MW
2025: 38.38 MW 2030: 38.89 MW 2040: 35.42 MW
Observation: This substation will be overload by 2040. With the New Substation by 2025 it can take the load west southwest
from this substation, improving the load Center. However by 2040 Harmony Branch needs to take the excess load to the North.

Other Options
5.6 MVA
South of Perche Creek combined

2.8 MVA load for 2025 10.6 MVA (including
load from Hinckson Creek)
2.2 MVA
Year South PC PC Load PC load Without Firm Cap Result/ Firm Cap
Load (MW) Load (MW) South (MW) (MVA) (%)
2025 7.17 35.01 27.84 22.40 1.24
2030 6.51 34.35 27.84 22.40 1.24
2040 7.33 35.42 28.08 22.40 1.25
One option to address the over extension of feeders out of Perche Creek and reliability issues is to create
microgrids with local generation (PV + Storage). A high level review identified approximately 10.6 MW that could
be served locally and reduce the load at Perche Creek to 27.84 MW by 2025 and 28.08 MW by 2040, which is
still over the firm capacity . This will also be assessed as a option during the network studies.
The tables below summarize the present and future load, capacity by substation and loadings over firm capacity
( N-1) before any of the recommended changes. As shown earlier Perche Creek, Power Plant and Rebel Hill
capacity is already exceeded under N-1. Other substations like Bolstad have this capacity exceeded but by an
small value and this would be acceptable as load could be transferred in the unlikely effect of a transformer
failure at the time of the peak.
Summary Results for 2020
Capacitors Transformers Transformers Coincident Coincidence Peak Load PRESENT LOAD Nº TRX
NAME N-1
Installed Load Load Load (2020) Factor (2020) CAP. /CAP. 2020
[MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MW] [MVA] [%] [%]
Bolstad 12.90 14.28 8.57 14.28 1.6961 24.22 44.8 54% 108% 2
Blue Ridge 10.80 23.84 9.23 23.84 1.0000 23.84 44.8 53% 106% 2
Grindstone 15.00 34.90 15.33 34.90 1.1956 41.73 67.2 62% 93% 3
Harmony Branch 29.70 40.55 17.59 40.55 1.0000 40.55 67.2 60% 91% 3
Hinkson Creek 20.10 45.15 18.57 45.15 1.0004 45.17 67.2 67% 101% 3
Perche Creek 13.50 35.08 10.89 35.08 1.0285 36.08 44.8 81% 161% 2
Power Plant 19.50 47.56 23.93 47.77 1.0749 51.34 67.2 76% 115% 3
Rebel Hill 16.95 31.72 14.13 31.72 1.0000 31.72 56 57% 113% 2

The tables below summarize the present and future load, capacity by substation and saturation over firm
capacity ( N-1), before any of the recommended changes. By 2025 Bolstad is added to the substation
overloaded under N-1 requiring attention.

LOAD Capacitors Transformers Transformers Coincident Coincidence Peak Load PRESENT FUTURE FUT.LOAD
NAME N-1 Nº TRX 2020
(2020) Installed Load Load Load (2025) Factor (2025) CAP. CAP. /CAP.
[MVA] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MW] [MVA] [MVA] [%] [%]
Bolstad 14.28 12.90 16.20 9.49 16.20 1.6961 27.47 44.8 44.8 61% 123% 2
Blue Ridge 23.84 10.80 23.92 9.37 23.92 1.0000 23.92 44.8 44.8 53% 107% 2
Grindstone 34.90 15.00 36.73 16.31 36.75 1.1956 43.94 67.2 67.2 65% 98% 3
Harmony Branch 40.55 29.70 40.15 17.36 40.15 1.0000 40.15 67.2 67.2 60% 90% 3
Hinkson Creek 45.15 20.10 44.45 18.29 44.45 1.0004 44.47 67.2 67.2 66% 99% 3
Perche Creek 35.08 13.50 35.01 10.82 35.01 1.0285 36.01 44.8 44.8 80% 161% 2
Power Plant 47.77 19.50 47.28 23.83 47.48 1.0749 51.03 67.2 67.2 76% 114% 3
Rebel Hill 31.72 16.95 32.48 14.53 32.48 1.0000 32.48 56.0 56.0 58% 116% 2

( N-1), before any of the recommended changes. By 2030 Blue Ridge is added to the list of substation requiring
attention.

LOAD Capacitors Transformer Transformers Coincident Coincidence Peak Load PRESENT FUT.LOAD
NAME FUTURE CAP. N-1 Nº TRX 2020
(2025) Installed s Load Load Load (2030) Factor (2030) CAP. /CAP.
Bolstad 16.20 12.90 19.09 11.10 19.09 1.6961 32.38 44.8 44.8 72% 145% 2
Blue Ridge 23.92 10.80 24.99 10.07 24.99 1.0000 24.99 44.8 44.8 56% 112% 2
Grindstone 36.75 15.00 37.48 16.70 37.51 1.1956 44.85 67.2 67.2 67% 100% 3
Harmony Branch 40.15 29.70 39.64 17.09 39.64 1.0000 39.64 67.2 67.2 59% 88% 3
Hinkson Creek 44.45 20.10 44.82 18.59 44.82 1.0004 44.83 67.2 67.2 67% 100% 3
Perche Creek 35.01 13.50 34.35 10.58 34.35 1.0285 35.32 44.8 44.8 79% 158% 2
Power Plant 47.48 19.50 47.62 24.12 47.84 1.0749 51.42 67.2 67.2 77% 115% 3
Rebel Hill 32.48 16.95 33.10 14.63 33.10 1.0000 33.10 56.0 56.0 59% 118% 2

( N-1), before any of the recommended changes. Grindstone and Hickson creek start becoming overloaded
under N-1 and both over loads are addressed by reducing the coverage areas of these substations.

LOAD Capacitors Transformers Transformers Coincident Coincidence Peak Load PRESENT FUTURE FUT.LOAD
NAME N-1 Nº TRX 2020
(2030) Installed Load Load Load (2040) Factor (2040) CAP. CAP. /CAP.
Bolstad 19.09 12.90 25.31 14.64 25.37 1.6961 43.03 44.8 44.8 96% 192% 2
Blue Ridge 24.99 10.80 27.95 11.64 27.96 1.0000 27.96 44.8 44.8 62% 125% 2
Grindstone 37.51 15.00 40.83 18.13 40.95 1.1956 48.96 67.2 67.2 73% 109% 3
Harmony Branch 39.64 29.70 41.01 17.60 41.01 1.0000 41.01 67.2 67.2 0% 92% 3
Hinkson Creek 44.82 20.10 47.39 19.74 47.39 1.0004 47.41 67.2 67.2 71% 106% 3
Perche Creek 34.35 13.50 35.42 10.75 35.42 1.0285 36.42 44.8 44.8 81% 163% 2
Power Plant 47.84 19.50 50.72 25.88 51.12 1.0749 54.95 67.2 67.2 82% 123% 3
Rebel Hill 33.10 16.95 35.96 15.49 35.96 1.0000 35.96 56.0 56.0 64% 128% 2

( N-1) with the recommended changes but not including the new substation (Proposal I). Note the solutions in
terms of a) new capacity additions, b) substation areas expanded (taking load from other substations) and c)
areas reduced (transferring load to other substations).
Summary Results for 2025 Proposal I

Capacitors 1200 kVAr Coincident Peak Load
LOAD Transformers Transformers Coincidence PRESENT FUTURE FUTURE Nº TRX Nº TRX
NAME Installed in Capacitors Load 2025 2025 N-1
(2020) Load Load Factor CAPACITY CAPACITY LOAD/CAP. 2020 2025
new area needed (FP=1) (FP=1)
[MVA] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MVA] [MVA] [MVA] [%] [%]
Bolstad 14.28 12.90 3 16.20 9.49 16.20 1.6961 27.47 44.8 67.2 41% 61% 2 3
Blue Ridge 23.84 8.70 0 18.94 6.81 18.94 1.0000 18.94 44.8 44.8 42% 85% 2 2
Grindstone 34.90 15.00 4 36.73 16.31 36.73 1.1956 43.91 67.2 67.2 65% 98% 3 3
Harmony Branch 40.55 29.70 0 40.15 17.36 40.15 1.0000 40.15 67.2 67.2 60% 90% 3 3
Hinkson Creek 45.15 20.10 0 44.45 18.29 44.45 1.0004 44.47 67.2 67.2 66% 99% 3 3
Perche Creek 35.08 13.50 0 35.01 10.82 35.01 1.0285 36.01 44.8 67.2 54% 80% 2 3
Power Plant 47.77 18.30 3 40.95 20.29 40.95 1.0749 44.02 67.2 67.2 66% 98% 3 3
Rebel Hill 31.72 19.05 2 43.79 20.64 43.79 1.0000 43.79 56.0 84.0 52% 78% 2 3
Area Reduced Capacity Expanded
Area Expanded

( N-1) with the recommended changes but not including the new substation (Proposal I).

Bolstad 16.20 12.90 5 19.09 11.10 19.09 1.6961 32.38 44.8 67.2 48% 72% 2 3
Blue Ridge 18.94 8.70 0 19.57 7.24 19.57 1.0000 19.57 44.8 44.8 44% 87% 2 2
Grindstone 36.73 15.00 5 37.48 16.70 37.48 1.1956 44.80 67.2 67.2 67% 100% 3 3
Harmony Branch 40.15 29.70 0 39.64 17.09 39.64 1.0000 39.64 67.2 67.2 59% 88% 3 3
Hinkson Creek 44.45 20.10 0 44.82 18.59 44.82 1.0004 44.83 67.2 67.2 67% 100% 3 3
Perche Creek 35.01 13.50 0 34.35 10.58 34.35 1.0285 35.32 44.8 67.2 53% 79% 2 3
Power Plant 40.95 18.30 4 41.31 20.58 41.31 1.0749 44.41 67.2 67.2 66% 99% 3 3
Rebel Hill 43.79 19.05 2 44.83 20.99 44.83 1.0000 44.83 56.0 84.0 53% 80% 2 3

Area Expanded

( N-1) with the recommended changes but not including the new substation (Proposal I).

Bolstad 19.09 12.90 10 25.31 14.64 25.31 1.6961 42.93 44.8 67.2 64% 96% 2 3
Blue Ridge 19.57 6.30 1 18.28 7.45 18.28 1.0000 18.28 44.8 44.8 41% 82% 2 2
Grindstone 37.48 15.00 5 38.88 17.15 38.88 1.1956 46.48 67.2 67.2 69% 104% 3 3
Harmony Branch 39.64 36.90 0 58.13 22.88 58.13 1.0000 58.13 67.2 89.6 65% 87% 3 4
Hinkson Creek 44.82 14.70 1 34.91 15.09 34.91 1.0004 34.92 67.2 67.2 52% 78% 3 3
Perche Creek 34.35 15.90 0 41.91 13.43 41.91 1.0285 43.10 44.8 67.2 64% 96% 2 3
Power Plant 41.31 16.50 4 36.46 19.81 36.46 1.0749 39.19 67.2 67.2 58% 87% 3 3
Rebel Hill 44.83 19.05 4 50.71 23.42 50.71 1.0000 50.71 56.0 84.0 60% 91% 2 3

Area Expanded

( N-1) with the recommended changes and including the new substation (Proposal II).
Summary Results for 2025 Proposal II

NAME Installed in Capacitors Load 2025 2025 N-1 RADIUS
[MVA] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MW] [MVA] [MVA] [%] [%] [FT]
Bolstad 14.28 12.90 3 16.20 9.49 16.20 1.6961 27.47 44.8 67.2 41% 61% 12269 2 3
Blue Ridge 23.84 8.70 0 18.94 6.81 18.94 1.0000 18.94 44.8 44.8 42% 85% 17086 2 2
Grindstone 34.90 15.00 4 36.73 16.31 36.73 1.1956 43.91 67.2 67.2 65% 98% 15438 3 3
Harmony Branch 40.55 29.70 0 40.15 17.36 40.15 1.0000 40.15 67.2 67.2 60% 90% 11989 3 3
Hinkson Creek 45.15 16.50 0 38.37 16.07 38.37 1.0004 38.38 67.2 67.2 57% 86% 17843 3 3
Perche Creek 35.08 12.60 0 27.84 7.45 27.84 1.0285 28.63 44.8 67.2 43% 64% 14100 2 3
Power Plant 47.77 18.30 3 40.95 20.29 40.95 1.0749 44.02 67.2 67.2 66% 98% 14437 3 3
Rebel Hill 31.72 19.05 2 43.79 20.64 43.79 1.0000 43.79 56.0 84.0 52% 78% 16127 2 3
New Substation 0.00 4.50 1 13.25 5.60 13.25 1.0127 13.42 0.0 40.0 33% 66% 20600 0 2

Area Expanded

Columbia Spatial Load Forecast and Substation
Assessment
(N-1) with the recommended changes and including the new substation (Proposal II).

[MVA] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MW] [MVA] [MVA] [MVA] [%]
Bolstad 16.20 12.90 5 19.09 11.10 19.09 1.6961 32.38 67.2 67.2 67.2 48% 2 3
Blue Ridge 18.94 8.70 0 19.57 7.24 19.57 1.0000 19.57 44.8 44.8 22.4 44% 2 2
Grindstone 36.73 15.00 5 37.48 16.70 37.48 1.1956 44.80 67.2 67.2 44.8 67% 3 3
Harmony Branch 40.15 29.70 0 39.64 17.09 39.64 1.0000 39.64 67.2 67.2 44.8 59% 3 3
Hinkson Creek 38.37 16.50 0 38.87 16.43 38.87 1.0004 38.89 67.2 67.2 44.8 58% 3 3
Perche Creek 27.84 12.60 0 27.21 7.28 27.21 1.0285 27.98 44.8 67.2 44.8 42% 2 3
Power Plant 40.95 18.30 4 41.31 20.58 41.31 1.0749 44.41 67.2 67.2 44.8 66% 3 3
Rebel Hill 43.79 19.05 2 44.83 20.99 44.83 1.0000 44.83 56 84 56.0 53% 2 3
New Substation 0.00 4.50 1 13.09 5.46 13.09 1.0127 13.25 0 40 20 33% 0 2

Area Expanded

Columbia Spatial Load Forecast and Substation
Assessment
The tables below summarize the present and future load, capacity by substation and loading over firm capacity
(N-1) with the recommended changes and including the new substation (Proposal II). Note changes at
Grindstone and Hinkson Creek.

NAME Installed in Capacitors Load 2040 2040 N-1 N-1
[MVA] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAr] [MVA] [MW] [MVA] [MVA] [MVA] [%] [%]
Bolstad 19.09 12.90 10 25.31 14.64 25.31 1.6961 42.93 44.8 67.2 44.8 64% 96% 2 3
Blue Ridge 19.57 6.30 1 18.28 7.45 18.28 1.0000 18.28 44.8 44.8 22.4 41% 82% 2 2
Grindstone 37.48 15.00 5 38.88 17.15 38.88 1.1956 46.48 67.2 67.2 44.8 69% 104% 3 3
Harmony Branch 39.64 36.90 0 58.13 22.88 58.13 1.0000 58.13 67.2 89.6 67.2 65% 87% 3 4
Hinkson Creek 38.87 13.50 2 35.40 15.70 35.40 1.0004 35.42 67.2 67.2 44.8 53% 79% 3 3
Perche Creek 27.21 12.60 0 28.08 7.46 28.08 1.0285 28.88 44.8 67.2 44.8 43% 64% 2 3
Power Plant 41.31 16.50 4 36.46 19.81 36.46 1.0749 39.19 67.2 67.2 44.8 58% 87% 3 3
Rebel Hill 44.83 19.05 4 50.71 23.42 50.71 1.0000 50.71 56.0 84.0 56.0 60% 91% 2 3
New Substation 0.00 4.50 1 13.33 5.45 13.33 1.0127 13.50 0.0 40.0 20.0 33% 67% 0 2

Area Expanded

Summary of results
The table below show the current and recommended capacity expansion by substation
Future capacity 2020 2025 2030 2040 Observations

Substation Name [MVA] [MVA] [MVA] [MVA]
Bolstad 44.8 67.2 67.2 67.2 Add a new Transformer by 2025
Blue Ridge 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8
Grindstone 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2
Harmony Branch 67.2 67.2 67.2 89.6 Add a new Transformer by 2040
Hinkson Creek 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2
Perche Creek 44.8 67.2 67.2 67.2 Add a new Transformer by 2025
Power Plant 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2
Rebel Hill 56 84 84 84 Add a new Transformer by 2025

Summary of results
The tables below show the substation loading under proposal I & II
Proposa I At system peak load Non Coincident Peak Load
Peak 2020 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load 2020 Load 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load
NAME [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW]
Bolstad 14.28 16.20 19.09 25.31 24.22 27.47 32.38 42.93
Blue Ridge 23.84 18.94 19.57 18.28 23.84 18.94 19.57 18.28
Grindstone 34.90 36.73 37.48 38.88 41.73 43.91 44.80 46.48
Harmony Branch 40.55 40.15 39.64 58.13 40.55 40.15 39.64 58.13
Hinkson Creek 45.15 44.45 44.82 34.91 45.17 44.47 44.83 34.92
Perche Creek 35.08 35.01 34.35 41.91 36.08 36.01 35.32 43.10
Power Plant 47.77 40.95 41.31 36.46 51.34 44.02 44.41 39.19
Rebel Hill 31.72 43.79 44.83 50.71 31.72 43.79 44.83 50.71
Total 273.28 276.21 281.08 304.59 295.58 298.75 305.79 333.75
Proposa II At system peak load Non Coincident Peak Load
Peak 2020 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load 2020 Load 2025 Load 2030 load 2040 Load
NAME [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW] [MW]
Bolstad 14.28 16.20 19.09 25.31 24.22 27.47 32.38 42.93
Blue Ridge 23.84 18.94 19.57 18.28 23.84 18.94 19.57 18.28
Grindstone 34.90 36.73 37.48 38.88 41.73 43.91 44.80 46.48
Harmony Branch 40.55 40.15 39.64 58.13 40.55 40.15 39.64 58.13
Hinkson Creek 45.15 38.37 38.87 35.40 45.17 38.38 38.89 35.42
Perche Creek 35.08 27.84 27.21 28.08 36.08 28.63 27.98 28.88
Power Plant 47.77 40.95 41.31 36.46 51.34 44.02 44.41 39.19
Rebel Hill 31.72 43.79 44.83 50.71 31.72 43.79 44.83 50.71
New Substation 13.25 13.09 13.33 13.42 13.25 13.50
Total 273.28 276.21 281.08 304.59 295.54 298.71 305.75 333.52
Summary of results
The table below show the number of 1x1200 kVAr capacitor needed each term to maintain the PF=1
SS Name Capacitors New Capacitor New Capacitor New Capacitor

installed 2020 banks needed 2025 banks needed 2030 banks needed 2040
[MVAR] [x1200 kVAr] [x1200 kVAr] [x1200 kVAr]
Bolstad 12.9 3 5 10
Blue Ridge 10.8 0 0 1
Grindstone 15 4 5 5
Harmony Branch 29.7 0 0 0
Hinkson Creek 20.1 0 0 1
Perche Creek 13.5 0 0 0
Power Plant 19.5 3 4 4
Rebel Hill 16.95 2 2 4
Totals 12x1200 kVAr 16x1200 kVAr 25x1200 kVAr
(All terms counted respect 2020)

Summary of Recommendations and Conclusions
1. Expand in capacity four substations : Perche Creek (22.4 MVA in 2025), Harmony Branch (22.4
MVA by 2040), Bolstad (22.4 MVA by 2025) and Rebel Hill (28 MVA by 2025) and redistribute the
service area of the affected substations to warrant the firm capacity of each substation and
reliability of the system
2. If a new substation is to be built (Proposal II), it should be build at S Scott BLVD . It would require
a 2x22.5 MVA bank and would address overextension of feeders out of Perche Creek, however
Perche Creek Substation would still need to be expanded, making this option less likely to be on
the optimal plan.
3. Non-Wire- Alternatives could be used to address the supply of loads during emergency conditions
south of Perche Creek and could delay the need for the expansion of this substation. However as
the expansion is still needed in the long term, this option needs to be assessed by more detail
during the network studies.

Report Files:
Together with this report the following files are provided
Map with the base 2020 load and zoning Substation Analisys file for each Term as presented in the slides
• Columbia Load Forecast 2020 Base.dwg • Columbia_Substation_Load_Forecast_June.xlsx
Maps with Spatial load for each term Files used in data analysis and Transformers Load check
• COLUMBIA_LOAD_FORECAST_2020..DWG • Spatial Load Allocation-Transformer_LOADS_VF_5.xlsx

• COLUMBIA_LOAD_FORECAST_2025.DWG
• COLUMBIA_LOAD_FORECAST_2030.DWG Files used to calculate PV and EV contribution to the system peak
• COLUMBIA_LOAD_FORECAST_2040.DWG
• System_demand_EV_PV_analysis-VF.xlxs
Maps with new Substation areas for each term – Proposal I • CWL Forecast.03092020.vF_v3.2-01 MS.xlsx
• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_1.1_2025.DWG Zoning Maps

• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_1.1_2030.DWG
• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_1.1_2040.DWG • Zoning_final.dwg (Autocad)
• Zoning_Grid_Final.idx (ArcGis)
Maps with new Substation areas for each term – Proposal II • Zoning_Grid_Final.sbx (ArcGis)
- Zoning_Grid_Final.sbn (ArcGis)
• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_2.1_NEW_SS_2025.DWG • Zoning_Grid_Final.shx (ArcGis)
• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_2.1_NEW_SS_2030.DWG • Zoning_Grid_Final.shp.xml (ArcGis)
• Columbia_Spatial_Allocation_PROPOSAL_2.1_NEW_SS_2040.DWG • Zoning_Grid_Final.dbf (ArcGis)
• Zoning_Grid_Final.cpg (ArcGis)
• Zoning_Grid_Final.shp (ArcGis)
File used to make the spatial load allocation for each cell and transformer • Zoning_Grid_Final.prj (ArcGis)
• Zoning-Indexes-Spatial-Transformers-Allocation-VR-9.xlsx
Summary maps with substation areas
• Columbia_SS_Proposal-1.1-Solution.dwg
• Columbia_SS_Proposal-2.1-New-SS-Solution.dwg

Columbia Report On Load-Forecast-And-Substations VR-10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Columbia Report On Load-Forecast-And-Substations VR-10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Columbia Water & Light

Geographical Land Spatial Study

Unrestricted © Siemens 2020 siemens.com/power-technologies

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Spatial Load allocation is based on Land Use

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Existing load allocation

The following aspects were considered when assessing

The spatial load forecast is based on a grid:

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

For each Zone a Load Index is determined. The

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Two “Cell” development are shown below:

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Year Gross (MW) PV EE EV Net (MW)

Restricted © Siemens 2020

The coincident load is affected by the EV.

Existing Load Adjustments MW

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Forecasted Existing New Load Calculated New Adjustment

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

EFZ 2020 EFZ 2040

Restricted © Siemens 2020

EHP 2020 EHP 2040

Restricted © Siemens 2020

 The figure shows the 2020 expected peak

Restricted © Siemens 2020

 The figure show the projected load for the

Restricted © Siemens 2020

 The figure show the projected load for the

Restricted © Siemens 2020

 The figure show the projected load for the

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation load at System Peak (MW) Substation Individual Peak Load MW

Blue Ridge 24 24 25 28 Blue Ridge 24 24 25 28

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation Peak Load

2020: 24.22 MW 2025: 27.47 MW 2030: 32.38 MW 2040: 42.93 MW

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation Peak Load

2025: 23.92 MW 2030: 24.99 MW 2040: 27.96 MW

Substation Peak Load

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation Peak Load

Substation Peak Load

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation Peak Load

Substation Peak Load

Substation Peak Load

Restricted © Siemens 2020

 The Existing Mill Creek lot as a location for a new

 Load to be served; in principle the new substation

 The new substation function is to supply loads

Restricted © Siemens 2020

Substation Peak Load 2025: 36.01 MW 2030: 35.32 MW 2040: 36.42 MW