21, rue dArtois, F-75008 PARIS http : //www.cigre.

org

CIGRE-101

CIGR Canada Conference on Power Systems Vancouver, October 17- 19, 2010

Probabilistic Transmission Planning Method at BCTC and A Case Study

WENYUAN LI, JERRY K. KORCZYNSKI, WIJARN WANGDEE System Planning and Performance Assessment, British Columbia Transmission Corporation, CANADA

SUMMARY
The paper presents the probabilistic transmission planning method at British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC). The traditional technical studies and economic analysis are combined with probabilistic reliability evaluation in the method. The feasible alternatives for a planning project are identified first based on the technical feasibility studies including power flow and contingency analysis. The economic analysis and reliability evaluation are performed to determine the best alternative which is most reliable and cost efficient. The reinforcement planning of the North Shore regional system at BCTC was used as a case study to demonstrate the procedure and details of the presented probabilistic transmission planning method.

KEYWORDS
Economic analysis, planning criteria, probabilistic planning, reliability evaluation, transmission systems.

Wen.yuan.Li@bctc.com, Jerry.Korczynski@bctc.com, Wijarn.Wangdee@bctc.com

1. INTRODUCTION
A fundamental task in system planning is to balance cost and system performance. The deterministic N-1 criterion has been used in transmission planning for years. One weakness of the deterministic criterion is its incapability to reflect the probabilistic nature of system behaviors, load forecasts and component outages. Probabilistic reliability evaluation has been presented to conduct probabilistic planning [1-8]. Although considerable reliability evaluation methods have been developed, applications to actual transmission system planning have not become a common practice yet in the utility industry. One essential question asked by many planners is: since the deterministic planning criterion has served the industry for years, why should we move to the probabilistic planning? Actually, in the authors view, there is no conflict between the two. Fig. 1 provides the conceptual explanation [1]. Seven candidate planning alternatives are assumed at the beginning. Two of them are excluded based on environmental, societal or political considerations. The deterministic technical criteria including the N-1 principle are applied to the remaining five alternatives. Two more alternatives are eliminated from the list due to incapability to meet the deterministic contingency criterion. The economic analysis and probabilistic reliability assessment are performed next to select the best option. Both the N-1 principle and probabilistic reliability evaluation can be applied. In other words, probabilistic planning includes traditional societal, environmental, technical and economical assessments in which probabilistic reliability evaluation is added as a part of the whole process. This paper documents the experience in probabilistic transmission planning at British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) in Canada through a study case. BCTC has carried considerable number of applications in this area [9] and this is a typical example.
Initial 7 alternatives Environmental, societal and political assessment 5 alternatives Deterministic technical analysis including N-1 principle 3 alternatives

Economic analysis The best alternative

Probabilistci reliability evaluation

Fig. 1. Concept of probabilistic transmission planning. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The basic methods in probabilistic planning are summarized in Section II. A case study is detailed in Section III, followed by conclusions in Section IV.

2. PROCEDURE PROBABILISTIC PLANNING METHODS

As mentioned earlier, probabilistic planning includes both the traditional planning activities and probabilistic reliability assessment. Three basic aspects are summarized in this section.

A. Traditional Technical Analysis

The traditional technical assessment includes feasibility studies, impact studies, power flow, contingency analysis, and transient and voltage evaluations if necessary. These are commonly used techniques in transmission planning.

B. Economic Analysis
The economic analysis is based on cash flow and present value approach. The cash flow of capital investment can be calculated using the capital return factor (CRF) by [10]
A = V CRF
CRF = i( 1 + i ) n (1 + i )n 1

(1) (2)

where, A is the annual equivalent capital; V is the actual investment in the initial year; i is the discount rate; and n is the useful life (years) of the investment V. The present value of investment is calculated by
m

PV =
j =1

Aj (1 + i) j 1

(3)

where, PV is the present value; Aj is the annual cost in Year j, i is the discount rate and m is the number of years considered in system planning.

B. Probabilistic Reliability Evaluation

The probabilistic reliability evaluation procedure includes the following steps: 1) A multiple step load model is created which eliminates the chronology and the load states are aggregated using hourly load records during one year. Annualized indices are calculated first by using only a single load level and expressed on the one year basis. All the load level steps are considered successively and the resulting indices for each load level are weighted by its probability of being in that load state to obtain annual indices. 2) The system states at a particular load level are selected using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. This includes the following: 2.1) Generating unit states can be modeled using the multiple state random variables. However, generating units usually do not create different impacts on selected transmission planning alternatives for a local system. In this case, the generating units can be assumed 100% reliable. 2.2) Transmission circuit states are modeled using the two-state (up and down) random variables. For some special transmission components such as HVDC lines, a multiple state random variable can be applied. Weather-related transmission line forced outage frequencies and repair times can be determined using special modeling method. Transmission line common cause outages are simulated by separate random numbers. 3) The quick contingency analysis technique is used to perform the contingency analysis and contingency state "filtering". The minimization model for load curtailments is solved only for those contingency states that may lead to load curtailments. 4) The following linear programming minimization model is used to re-dispatch generations, eliminate line overloads and avoid load curtailments if possible or minimize the total load curtailment if unavoidable:
min f =

iND

Wi C i

(4)

subject to:
N

Tk = Aki ( PGi PDi + C i )

i =1

(k L)

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

PGi +

iND

(C i PDi ) = 0 ( i NG )

iNG PGimin

PGi PGimax (i ND )

0 C i PDi

Tkmax Tk Tkmax

( k L)

where f is the weighted total load curtailment; Ci is the load curtailment variable (MW) at Bus i; Wi is the weighting factor reflecting bus load importance; PGi and PDi are the generation variable and load demand at Bus i respectively; Tk is the real power flow on Line k; PGimin, PGimax and Tkmax are the limit values, respectively, of PGi, and Tk; Aki is an element of the relation matrix between real power flows and power injections at buses; ND, NG and L are the sets of load buses, generator buses and lines respectively; and N is the number of buses in the system. 5) The reliability indices are calculated. In probabilistic planning, the most important indices are the Expected Damage Cost (EDC) and Expected Energy Not Supplied (EENS). The EENS index is used in the following case study.

3. CASE STUDY A. Problem Description

The North Shore 69 kV subsystem in the BCTC system is used in the study and shown in Fig. 2.

230 kV Supply Point

230 kV Supply Point

Fig. 2. The North Shore system used in the study. It can be seen that the North Shore 69 kV system is supplied by two main substations Cypress (CYP) and Walters (WLT) that are connected to the Lower Mainland 230 kV transmission system. There are three 230/69 kV transformers at WLT and only one 230/69 kV transformer at CYP. By the winter 2009 the loss of CYP-T2 transformer will result in the thermal and voltage violations in the North Shore 69 kV transmission system. This indicates the North Shore system will no longer meet the N-1 planning criteria and therefore system reinforcement is necessary.

B. Four Planning Options

Based on technical assessments including feasibility studies, power flow and contingency analysis, the following four options are identified: Option 1: Adding a second 168 MVA, 230/69 kV transformer at the CYP substation to increase the station firm transformation capacity. Option 2: Reinforcing the North Shore 69 kV system: Uprating 69 kV transmission circuits; Replacing underrated 69 kV; Adding capacitor banks at some substations. Option 3: Converting the North Shore 69/12 kV system to 230/25 kV system: Constructing a new 230/25 kV distribution substation; Connecting a new substation to 230 kV system via underground cables; Expanding the existing 230/69 kV CYP substation by adding 230/25 kV distribution switchyard; Converting the existing 230/12 kV LYN distribution substation to the 230/25 kV level. Option 4: Transferring some distribution loads from CAP and NVR substations to LYN substation and upgrading LYN capacity to accommodate a new load.

C. Technical and Economic Analysis Results

The traditional studies indicated that all the four options are technically feasible. The economic assessments are performed. The technical and economic analysis results are presented in Table I. It can be seen that Option 3 cost is high and this is not a cost effective alternative. Option 4 also has a high cost and provides a short-term solution only. Option 4 is not supported by the distribution system planning as it involves longer feeders, which will decrease distribution reliability and pose operational challenges. Therefore, options 3 and 4 are excluded from further consideration. Table I: Comparison in Technical and Economic Analysis Results Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Technical feasibility feasible feasible feasible feasible Investment cost ($M) 5.66 / 6.16 * 12.7 400.0 25.0

* $5.66M for a new transformer only; $6.16 for a new transformer plus a breaker addition

D. Probabilistic Reliability Evaluation Results

In the reliability evaluation, Options 1 and 2 are considered. Option 1 is further classed into two suboptions: Option 1-1: Adding a second 168 MVA, 230/60 kV transformer at the CYP substation without installation of a circuit breaker to sectionalize circuit 2L13; Option 1-2: Adding a second 168 MVA, 230/60 kV transformer at CYP substation with installation of a circuit breaker to sectionalize circuit 2L13 The connection between the circuits 2L13 and 2L14 and substation is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. The existing CYP substation configuration at the 230 kV level.

Study Conditions and Assumptions:

The study focuses on the 60 kV North Shore system. The power sources supplying this system from the 230 kV networks are modeled using two equivalent generating units connected directly to the substations CYP and WLT. The equivalent generating unit at WLT is assigned with a zero forced unavailability (100% reliable). However, the equivalent generating unit at CYP was assigned with a unavailability of 0.11 % to represent the outage impact due to the forced outage of circuit 2L13, which will cause the 230/60 kV transformer at CYP out of service simultaneously. This is because the circuit and transformer are in the same relaying protection zone, as shown in Figure 2 and there is no circuit breaker to sectionalize 2L13 from the 230/60 kV transformer at CYP. In addition, the fault on 2L13 will cause an adjacent circuit breaker protecting 2L14 to trip, and therefore 2L14 will be open ended at CYP and also out of service. The forced outage rate of 0.11% is based on the forced outage rate of the transformer in conjunction with the assumption of one outage per year on 2L13 and the average restoration time of 2 hours. This restoration is assumed to be achieved by system operator action to manually sectionalize 2L13, and reclose the adjacent circuit breaker to re-energize 2L14 to supply CYP after the fault. The system reliability evaluation is performed for the 10 years from 2011 to 2020. The 2008 load forecast is used in the study. The 2008 North Shore area historical load shape is used. It is assumed that the load shape remains the same for the 10 years but the peak load level is increased each year due to the load growth.

The historical average reliability data in the previous 10-year is applied to the North Shore area transmission circuits assuming that circuit outage frequencies are proportional to the circuit lengths. The terminal-related outages are also considered in the study using the average terminal-related outage statistics in the past ten years. The MECORE software, which was designed using the probabilistic reliability evaluation method given in Section II-C, is used to conduct the study. The coefficient of variation (tolerance error) of the EENS index is used as the stopping rule in Monte Carlo simulation and is set at 1.5%. Expected Energy Not Supplied (EENS) Results: The EENS indices for the following four different scenarios in the 10 year period are presented in Table II: Base Case: Do Nothing Option Option 1-1: Adding a new transformer at the CYP substation without additional breaker installed Option 1-2: Adding a new transformer at the CYP substation with additional breaker installed Option 2: Reinforcing the North Shore 69 kV system The results in Table II indicates that all three reinforcement options provide considerable reliability improvement as observed from the EENS reductions compared to the Base Case (Do Nothing option). Option 1-2 offers the greatest reliability improvement followed by Option 2. Option 1 provides the least reliability improvement, in which, without the new circuit breaker installed, any fault on 2L13 will cause the supply interruption to the substation CYP, and adding the second transformer alone cannot prevent this power supply interruption. Table II: EENS (MWh/year) for Four Different System Scenarios Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Base Case 1140 1191 1226 1250 1281 1305 1324 1342 1361 1387 12807 Option 1-1 754 783 785 802 820 832 840 858 867 879 8220 Option 1-2 679 703 697 711 726 734 741 757 763 772 7283 Option 2 718 739 729 737 747 753 761 767 773 780 7504

The reliability improvement/cost ratios for three reinforcement scenarios can be calculated, where the reliability improvement is the total EENS reduction of each reinforcement scenario in the 10 years against the base case whereas the cost is its total capital investment. The ratios represent the EENS reduction per million $ for each scenario and it has the unit in MWh/$M. If the unit interruption cost of $3.4/kWh, which is based on the gross domestic product (GDP) and electric energy consumption in the province where BCTC is located, is used to convert the EENS reduction index to the EDC reduction so that the benefit/cost ratio for each scenario can be obtained. The reliability improvement/cost ratios and the benefit/cost ratios for the three scenarios are given in Table III. It can be seen that Option 1-2 has the best performance (highest ratio), followed by Option 1-1 whereas Option 2 has the lowest performance although it still can be economically justified as the benefit/cost ratio is larger than 1.0.

Table III: Reliability Improvement/Cost Ratios and Benefit/Cost Ratios for the Three Options Option Option 1-1 Option 1-2 Option 2 EENS reduction (MWh) 4587 5524 5303 Investment cost ($M) 5.66 6.16 12.70 Reliability improvement /cost ratio (MWh/$M) 810.42 896.75 417.56 Benefit /cost ratio 2.76 3.05 1.42

Compared to Option 1-1, installing the new breaker in Option 1-2 to sectionalize 2L13 protection zone will prevent the 230 kV supply interruption to the CYP substation, and therefore further reduce the EENS by 5524-4587 = 937 MWh in the 10 years with an additional investment cost of $0.5 M. The EENS reduction due to installing the new breaker is quite significant against its capital investment cost. If the same unit interruption cost of $3.4/kWh is used, the benefit/cost ratio for adding this new breaker is as high as 9373.41000/500000 = 6.37.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The paper presented the probabilistic transmission planning method used at British Columbia Transmission Corporation in Canada. The traditional technical studies and economic analysis are combined with probabilistic reliability evaluation in the method. The feasible alternatives for a planning project are identified first based on the technical studies including power flow and contingency analysis. The economic analysis and reliability evaluation are performed to determine the best alternative which is most reliable and cost efficient. The reinforcement planning of the North Shore regional system at BCTC was used a case study to demonstrate the procedure and details of the presented probabilistic transmission planning method. The results indicate that adding a new transformer plus a new breaker at CYP substation is superior to other options in terms of system reliability improvement and investment cost efficiency.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] [2] [3] [4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9]

W. Li, Risk Assessment of Power Systems: Models, Methods, and Applications, IEEE Press and Wiley & Sons, 2005. R. Billinton and W. Li, Reliability Assessment of Electric Power Systems Using Monte Carlo Methods, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1994. R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1996. R. Billinton, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad and L. Bertling, Bibliography on the Application of Probability Methods in Power System Reliability Evaluation 1996-1999, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, Nov. 2001, pp 595 602. W. Li and P. Choudhury, Probabilistic Transmission Planning, IEEE Power & Energy magazine, Vol. 5. No.5, September/October, 2007, pp 46-53. W. Li, Application of Reliability Evaluation in Transmission Planning, Chapter 7 of the IEEE Tutorial Course on Electric Delivery System Reliability Evaluation, 05TP175, June 2005. W. Wangdee, W. Li, W. Shum and P. Choudhury, Applying Probabilistic Methods in Determining the Number of Spare Transformers and Their Timing Requirements, Proceedings of the IEEE CCECE conference, Vancouver, April 2007. S. Varadan, W. A. Mittelstadt, R. K. Aggarwal, V. VanZandt and B. Silverstein, Transmission planning risk assessment, 2008 IEEE PES general meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, July 2008. BCTCs selected technical reports on reliability evaluation and probabilistic planning. Available online at:

[10]

http://www.bctc.com/transmission_system/engineering_studies_data/studies/probabilistic_studies/ selected_tech_reports.htm. C. S. Park, Contemporary Engineering Economics, third edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2002.

BIOGRAPHIES
Wenyuan Li (F02) is currently the Principal Engineer at British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Vancouver, Canada. He is a fellow of EIC (Engineering Institute of Canada) and an honorable advisory professor at Chongqing University in China. He has authored four books and published over one hundred papers in reliability, power system planning, operation, maintenance, and optimization. He was the winner of the Outstanding Engineer Award by IEEE Canada in 1996, and a recipient of three IEEE PES Technical Committee Working Group Recognition Awards in 2007 and 2008. Jerry Korczynski M.Sc., P.Eng. (LSM10) is currently the Senior Engineer in System Planning and Performance Assessment Division at British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Vancouver, Canada. He is a Professional Engineer in the Province of British Columbia. Wijarn Wangdee (M06) received the B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He is currently the Senior Engineer in System Planning and Performance Assessment Division at British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Vancouver, Canada.