A Hydro Manitoba

TRANSMISSION PLANNING & DESIGN DIVISION SYSTEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT ON

ULTIMATE HVDC DEVELOPMENT IN MANITOBA SPD 201 0/14

PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: P. WangIR.W. Mazur

OF
Cot, c, ~
I-,

PROVED BY for information

1~
-~

P. WANG
Member 22889

DEPARTMENT:

(p

~I4floio
DATE:

October 1 , 2010
Others L. Demers (Executive Summary) C.A. Nieuwenburg (Executive Summary) Office of Mgr, Property Department Transmission System Operations L. Midford Leo St. Hilaire A.A. (Tony) Clark M.A. Matiowsky B.A. Poff M. Neufeld Apparatus Maintenance W. Wittmeier G. Parent Distribution Const. Division John Kreml

DISTRIBUTION: Executive T.E. Tymofichuk L. Kuczek B. Reed L. Wray Transmission Planning & Design Division G.H. Neufeld Trent Hreno B. Petterson B.C. Jorowski G. Mullin P. Gordon M. Aiken Distribution Planning & Design Division E.H. Wiebe G. Paskaruk J. Cooke

TC & LM Division S. A. Mailey W. Mueller J. Wortley G.B. Penner M. Adamkowicz Industrial & Commercial Solutions Division A.P. Gibson B. De Moyne Customer Service Dave Case Scott Dunn

Executive Summary Early planning concepts for delivering lower Nelson River generation to southern Manitoba involved the development of three HVdc links between common stations in both the north and the south and on a common corridor. Three HVdc links would have been marginal in terms of capacity for the expected hydraulic configuration on the lower Nelson. Essentially no dynamic studies on this ultimate system were performed, so important technical aspects of full development were not revealed. Studies concentrated on the development of the first two bipoles, which left any technical issues with a third (or even fourth) bipole to be resolved in the future. Since those early days, actual and expected hydraulic ratings on the lower Nelson have grown to the point where more than three HVdc links would be required to transmit such power to the south, plus certain truths are starting to emerge concerning the dynamic behavior of the transmission system. Considering the distances involved, HVdc would also be a transmission contender for northern generation not part of the lower Nelson River. This report examines what limits may exist in the choice of HVdc transmission for the development of new generation in northern Manitoba. In forming the conclusions of this report, recognition is given to the historical development and to the timeline of required new transmission. Based on currently available technology and reliability considerations, this report concludes that three major north-south HVdc bipoles is a recommended maximum for the Manitoba Hydro system. If Bipoles I and II had been geographically separated from the start, it is debatable whether a third bipole would be favored over ac transmission due to the complexity and negative effects of having such a high percentage of load fed by HVdc transmission into a concentrated area. Negative effects include low inertia, control complexity, power recovery after faults, and high ac fault current levels resulting from the requirement of installing a large number of synchronous condensers at converter stations. Bipoles I and II today have many of the attributes of one giant bipole. However, at this point Bipole III is definitely the best next addition to the system considering the Bipole I&II catastrophic outage exposure, the risks associated with moving Bipole II to another location, and the need for further transmission from the north. Transmission development from the north beyond the third bipole should be on the ac system. The rapidly growing VSC technology, if implemented in the future, would not improve the low system inertia, leaving the system susceptible to potential system instability for common mode faults occurring at either the rectifier or inverter buses. Therefore, the Manitoba Hydro system would require a significant ac transmission development before the benefits of VSC technology can be fully utilized. An HVdc rectifier placed strategically in the north for direct export may still be

possible. There is a pressing need from a reliability perspective for the third bipole. If building Bipole III is delayed for some reason, then at some point relocating Bipole II will have to be considered to address the risk of a Dorsey Station outage, even considering the risks that moving the Bipole II inverter entails.

Key Findings: 1. Based on a review of the currently available new HVdc technology, system response to faults, and other technical and reliability factors, a high capacity high voltage ac transmission line should be considered for the next major north-south transmission addition beyond Bipole III. 2. As a long term reliability goal, splitting of the Dorsey Bipole I and II inverters into two separate converter station locations shall be considered to reduce the amount of power loss due to catastrophic events.

Conclusions The following are the main conclusions of this report: 1) Two HVdc inverter locations, Dorsey and Riel, are best for delivery of northern power into southern Manitoba. With two links terminating at Dorsey and one at Riel, this places as three a manageable maximum number of north-south HVdc links. The desirable splitting of Dorsey into physically separate stations for Bipoles I and II may be possible but will be a significant technical challenge. Unless a link is of very small capacity or is extending onwards to the west or south, a termination at Brandon would be extremely problematic [3]. 2) There are fewer constraints on the number of northern HVdc rectifier stations as their locations are primarily governed by generating stations locations. Southern constraints may therefore limit the manageable number of north-south HVdc links to three, but the possibility exists for HVdc direct export. 3) The best development sequence from a reliability perspective is to have the third bipole in a separate corridor and then future ac transmission should also be in a separate corridor with corridor separation maximized. This approach exhibits the best technical characteristics while improving reliability through corridor diversity. If building the Bipole III transmission line is significantly delayed, then at some point relocating Bipole II from Dorsey will have to be considered. 4) New technology such as the Voltage Sourced Converter is undergoing rapid development. While the VSC technology addresses failure of commutation which results in loss of HVdc power delivery during a Manitoba southern system fault, it does not address the lack of system inertia in southern Manitoba. Even with VSC technology applied to the existing Bipole I and II and the proposed Bipole III, reduced power delivery is observed for solid rectifier bus faults resulting in large frequency dips in the south. The VSC technology, while being able to address certain limitations of todays Manitoba Hydro system, is not fully able to alleviate the effects of its unique configuration. Therefore, the full benefits of VSC can only be achieved after significant ac development.

Acknowledgments The initial draft of this report was prepared by J. B. Davies and K. L. Kent and was endorsed by the HVdc Task Force. Their valuable contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AS IT AFFECTS FUTURE TRANSMISSION CHOICES ............................... 7 3.0 DEVELOPMENTAL STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 8 4.0 TECHNICAL ISSUES.................................................................................................................................... 9
TECHNICAL ISSUE 1 - SOUTHERN SYSTEM ELECTRICAL TOPOGRAPHY ........................................................................ 9 TECHNICAL ISSUE 2 MULTI-INFEED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 10 TECHNICAL ISSUE 3 - LINE COMMUTATED HVDC COMMUTATION FAILURE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND FAULT RECOVERY 12 TECHNICAL ISSUE 4 - AC BREAKER RATINGS ................................................................................................................ 16 TECHNICAL ISSUE 5 - AUXILIARY CONTROL COMPLEXITY.......................................................................................... 19 HVdc Reduction Controls and Allocator.................................................................................................................... 19 Inverter Power/Voltage Instability.............................................................................................................................. 21 Inverter JVC Strategy.................................................................................................................................................. 22 Synchronous Compensator Exciter Response............................................................................................................ 22 Damping Controls ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Frequency Based Capability Controller (FBCC) ....................................................................................................... 22 Comparison of Options from a Control Complexity Perspective............................................................................... 23 TECHNICAL ISSUE 6 - SYSTEM INERTIA .......................................................................................................................... 24 TECHNICAL ISSUE 7 - PARALLELING .............................................................................................................................. 27

5.0 RELIABILITY.............................................................................................................................................. 28 5.1 VULNERABILITY OF BIPOLE I & II TO CATASTROPHIC OUTAGES ........................................................... 29 5.2 SYSTEM LOSS OF LOAD EXPECTATION...................................................................................................... 30 5.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF OPTIONS IN ADDRESSING RELIABILITY..................................................................... 33 5.4 SPLITTING THE BIPOLE I AND II INVERTERS ............................................................................................. 36 6.0 DEVELOPMENT OF VSC TECHNOLOGY IN HVDC ......................................................................... 37 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ON THE VIABILITY OF THE OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION ............... 38 8.0 A COMPARISON WITH OTHER WORLD SITUATIONS................................................................... 40 9.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................. 42

1.0 Introduction This report will discuss transmission options for future northern generation possibilities, with particular emphasis on generating stations that could be incorporated into the northern collector system. The genesis of this discussion is related to new HVdc transmission within Manitoba, is it technically the correct choice or are ac alternatives better suited? Particularly, at what point in time of the development cycle would a change in direction be warranted? The answer to these questions will have serious cost and technical implications affecting the evolution of the Manitoba Hydro system.

2.0 A Historical Perspective To fully analyze and understand the recommended developmental strategy, it is first necessary to review the expected transmission development at a time in the 1970s when rapid load growth was accelerating building of new northern generating stations. The discussion can be broken into two segments, southern Manitoba system development and northern collector system expansion. The selection of HVdc as the preferred transmission option for lower Nelson River development was driven fundamentally by cost, but additionally by perceived technical advantages within Manitoba and with new interconnections, such as with the United States and neighboring provinces. Specifically, it was realized that if northern generation could be isolated from the remaining ac system through HVdc transmission then there would be no need for either elaborate ac cross tripping schemes or redundant ac transmission. Additionally, ac development from the north could have precipitated the need for HVdc interconnections to other utilities at a time when HVdc was generally less employed and accepted. It was also later realized that the controllability of the HVdc plus the electrical isolation of the collector system could be exploited to maximize export levels without the need for further interconnection transmission. Collector system development was last discussed formally in the 1980s [1]. All generating stations from Kettle downriver were to be fit on to three bipoles, with acknowledgment that a fourth bipole could be developed. Since that writing, generating stations beyond Long Spruce were built or are anticipated to be of a much larger megawatt size than first envisioned, to the point where four or even five bipoles would be required to fully accommodate all lower Nelson generating stations. The situation is exacerbated by developing HVdc criteria within Manitoba Hydro in which adequate spare HVdc transmission must be maintained.

Transmission requirements for new generation outside of this lower Nelson development have been even less well formulated, other than the well studied Wuskwatim, which is relatively small and placed on the ac system. Generally speaking and from a cost perspective, major northern plants such as Keeyask were expected to transmit power through HVdc transmission. Transmission for northern plants on the ac system has been developed incrementally without consideration of larger plants on the ac system since they were assumed to be on the HVdc system. As such, the 230 kV voltage level used for the majority of the transmission cannot accommodate or will not mesh well with ac transmission for a larger generating station. It is understandable that advanced explicit plans were not in place, for such generation development was usually promoted as part of a wider conceptual scheme such as the western grid or the clean energy initiative to Ontario. So far, such concepts have not progressed to more detailed stages. The need for HVdc controllability will remain into the future, for new ac interconnection transmission to provide redundancy without increasing transmission capacity would likely be required to avoid this aspect, and such prospects explicitly for stability are unlikely. So, sufficient HVdc controllability must remain in Manitoba to stabilize the ac interconnections. However for further expansion for domestic need, the other technical considerations that helped drive the initial choice of HVdc must be weighed against other technical considerations that are only recently being more fully understood. Cost, of course, will also always be an important consideration.

2.1 The Historical Development as it Affects Future Transmission Choices In this section, an examination will be conducted as to how choices made in the past may skew the selections necessary in the future. The transmission for Keeyask (Gull) was not as advanced as that of either Conawapa or Gillam Island. In the early stages Keeyask was expected to transmit power via HVdc through the collector system, but this was potentially feasible when the other collector system plants had much lower total ratings. Keeyasks geographical location immediately upstream of Kettle indicates a potential for being incorporated into the collector system. But Keeyasks proximity to the northern ac network and smaller size in relation to Conawapa indicates similar potential for incorporation into that ac system. The ultimate choice for Keeyask transmission will be guided by technical and economic factors, with a greater degree of freedom from the historical expectations of the past. New northern generating stations, other than Conawapa and Gillam Island, will likely have the same selection freedom. Conawapa and Gillam Island present more of a challenge. The power of the full Lower Nelson River was expected to be part of the collector system, a system in which

generating station power could flexibly be redirected amongst the HVdc links for outages within the HVdc. The geographical location of Conawapa and Gillam Island at the eastern end of the collector system is far from the majority of the northern ac system. Combined with the relatively large size of these stations, new ac transmission to bring this power into southern Manitoba would be of such a size as to be somewhat independent of the remaining northern ac system. Conawapa power transmitted on the ac system would lack the operational flexibility of being incorporated into the collector system. Existing collector system generation would also lose the additional flexibility provided by new Conawapa related HVdc transmission, especially being able to transmit a full 2000 MW on Bipole III for a catastrophic common event to Bipoles I and II. Losses would be higher. A third north-south bipole is urgently required for the Manitoba Hydro system as a reliability element and Conawapa is expected to be of a size which naturally fits on to that bipole. For domestic needs, ac transmission on the west side of the province would be a more compatible addition to the existing northern ac system and for possible new interconnections with Saskatchewan. An express HVdc link on the west side would be very difficult and undesirable to tap into, yet the line would travel through populated areas for a significant part of its route. Gillam Island presents an even greater challenge for the Manitoba Hydro system with a fourth bipole, as discussed below. The technical challenges are greatest in southern Manitoba. A direct fourth HVdc line from the collector system to a location outside of Manitoba has a greater chance of being technically acceptable.

3.0 Developmental Strategies To help shape the technical and reliability discussions on the future of north-south transmission, it will be useful to describe possible developmental scenarios, as driven by new generation and reliability, to compare and contrast with each other and the status quo. Most of these options have been described before in various forms [2-4]. Status Quo - Bipoles I and II inverters both located at Dorsey. Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - Strictly a reliability improvement which does not accommodate new north-south transmission capacity, this option greatly reduces the catastrophic vulnerability presented by Dorsey station. The Bipole II inverter could be connected to Henday through the existing Interlake line. Option 2: The Existing System plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - New generation transmission capacity is added here which is also a significant system reliability

improvement. The rectifier would be at Conawapa. Routing of Bipole III to Riel should be a different corridor with significant physical separation from the Bipole I & II Interlake corridor. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole II at a New Location - Not unlike option 2 but with further splitting of Dorsey station, this variation provides the greatest three bipole reliability benefit. A possible Bipole II inverter location could be at or near Laverendrye Station or along the future south Winnipeg transmission corridor. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter Location - Option 4 accommodates even further generation development, such as Keeyask or Gillam Island, and is consistent with the expectations of early Nelson River development. The second and third inverter locations would greatly enhance system reliability against catastrophic events. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - The greatest dc related reliability improvement with further generation development. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - This is option 1 extended with new generation on an expanded ac north-south transmission system. This option could include transmission for Conawapa or Keeyask. The ac transmission from the north would be kept separate from the collector system as it is today. The existing isolated northern collector system is key to allowing the tie lines to be operated beyond loading allowing for a single contingency line loss, and also to not require generator tripping to maintain system stability. These options are mostly HVdc related as HVdc is expected to continue as the most economic choice. An AC option, such as option 6, may come to the fore if HVdc related technical considerations as described below influence choices.

4.0 Technical Issues Cost will always be a factor in engineering decisions, but beyond cost certain technical realities may significantly influence the decisions being made. So what are the issues that might tilt the balance between future ac and HVdc development? Technical Issue 1 - Southern System Electrical Topography The electrical transmission system in Southern Manitoba is largely concentrated around the major load area and export hub, which is Winnipeg. This is not expected to

change significantly in the foreseeable future and as such it is difficult and inefficient to locate a new large HVdc converter station anywhere but the Winnipeg area. The Winnipeg area is the largest load concentration in the Province, has the least local generation, and requires further power infeed for both load growth and reliability of supply. Reliability gains accrue from the placement of new stations around the hub and in completing transmission rings, at various voltage levels, around the city. Such advancements are consistent with worldwide practice. It is unusual and technically difficult to terminate a major long distance transmission line at a point where there is not an immediate or foreseen demand for the power. Typically, special measures are required to ensure that events related to the high capacity transmission line do not cause significant power disturbances to the local network, which cannot absorb high levels of power flow change. Since the southern converter stations are best located in the Winnipeg area they would be very electrically close, which leads to the multi-infeed HVdc issues discussed later. Locating a large HVdc Converter station in the Brandon area was addressed in [3] where it was not recommended for the reasons discussed above and also because of the cost, number of synchronous compensators required, and already existent high fault current levels in the Brandon area. Technical Issue 2 Multi-infeed Analysis CIGRE Working Group B4-41 is charged with developing a planning guide for systems which have two or more inverters in relatively close proximity. During the development of the guide certain truths emerged which have relevance to the development of the Manitoba Hydro system. A new concept introduced by the working group is that of the Multi-infeed Interaction Factor (MIIF) [5]. The MIIF between any two inverter buses is determined by applying a small ac voltage change at one inverter and observing the relative ac voltage change at the other inverter bus. The MIIF is dependent on the impedance between buses, the shunt impedance at each bus, and the ac system operating point, so generally speaking the MIIF matrix is asymmetric. An MIIF value of zero means two buses infinitely far apart and values approaching one mean buses virtually at the same location. The Dorsey - Riel MIIF matrix from studies of the future system is as follows:
Bp I & II/ Dorsey
BP I & II/Dorsey (Existing) BP III/Riel (Proposed) 1.0000 0.9521

BPIII/ Riel
0.6528 1.0000

10

The ability of inverters at the Dorsey and Riel sites to affect each other depends not only on the MIIF numbers but also the amount of dc power injected at each site, essentially the MIIF X Pdc product. Dorsey, with generally twice the power as would exist at Riel, has a product which indicates that, for many phenomena, Bipoles I and II would have more influence over the Riel bus than Bipole III itself. This would likely be true even if the Bipole II inverter was relocated at another southern Manitoba station, the combined product is still greater than the rating of Riel. A second important outcome from the work of B4-41 is a multi-infeed definition of ESCR as given below [5].
MIESCRi ( SCC i Qf i ) Pdci j ( MIIF j ,i Pdc j )

Where:

SCCi is the short circuit capacity at bus i Qfi is the MVAR capacity of the filters at bus i Pdci is the operating dc power level at bus i Pdcj is the operating dc power level at bus j MIIFji is the MIIF representing the impact of bus i on bus j

The definition makes intuitive sense to HVdc planners. For phenomena in which different HVdc links must share system strength, such as fault recovery and maximum available power, then a calculation of ESCR cannot be done in isolation and must recognize this sharing of system strength amongst participating inverters. A conventional calculation of ESCR at Riel with shunt filters for compensation produces a value of 4.5, but an MIESCR calculation produces a value just under 2.0. The shunt filters or capacitors need to be partially replaced by four 250 MVAR synchronous compensators to bring the MIESCR calculation above 2.5, an accepted planning level with contingencies for the Manitoba Hydro system, both at Riel and Dorsey. A lack of generation in southern Manitoba plus the general electrical closeness would mean that each and every new bipole added would require additional synchronous compensators with conventional HVdc technology. The new synchronous compensators are required to meet the minimum required MIESCR but, as analyzed below, introduce certain undesirable attributes detrimental to the system. New technologies, such as voltage sourced converters, may ameliorate MIESCR considerations without the need for synchronous compensators for reactive compensation and fault recovery performance, but with a possible exacerbation of other technical considerations such as inertia. Inertia is discussed in Technical issue 6. HVdc related power voltage instability was another topic discussed in the work of B441. Future HVdc links within the Province would be expected to have similar technical parameters and therefore similar critical ESCRs below which operationally voltage

11

collapse would ensue without corrective action. Each and every new inverter introduced into southern Manitoba would be close enough electrically that impending voltage collapse at one inverter likely means impending voltage collapse at all other inverters. Corrective action can be taken but it will be a challenge taking the right action. Corrective action with the single infeed Dorsey system today is relatively simple since there is only converter station to deal with. With Dorsey and Riel it becomes more complex, and with further inverters even more so. It is expected that corrective action will be possible, but a robust solution may require over-reduction of power, wherein the total amount of power reduced on the HVdc system is much greater than the power flowing on or controlled by the element that trips. The CIGRE Working Group B4-41 Planning Guide also suggest that as a general conservative indicator if the inverter megawatt capacity starts to exceed about 50% of the generation MVA in the receiving ac network, then developmental choices between HVdc and HVac expansion must be carefully considered. The Manitoba Hydro system is already well beyond the 50% level and thus faces developmental choices between ac and dc. B4-41 also has some insights into fault recovery and control issues and is discussed separately below. Technical Issue 3 - Line Commutated HVdc Commutation Failure Susceptibility and Fault Recovery Commutation failure in an HVdc inverter can be a serious event, for while the commutation failure is occurring, no power is being injected into the ac system by the HVdc link. Commutation failure is not necessarily all bad, since the phenomenon is usually triggered by low inverter ac voltage, a situation in which the ability to transmit power in the ac network and load levels are both diminished. Nevertheless, the energy lost in the ac system is more than would be experienced by long distance ac transmission equivalents and can affect system stability. Further, once the fault is cleared, ac transmission capabilities and loads are very quickly restored to pre-fault levels whereas HVdc systems must be controlled to recover at a rate determined by ESCR levels, or rather more correctly MIESCR levels in a multi-infeed environment and the ability of the ac system to support the recovery rate. Into the future, MIESCR levels will most likely be kept at or above the 2.5 value because of the Bipole I and II design and the desire not to prolong any dc recovery. Each new inverter in southern Manitoba will introduce further energy losses in the post fault recovery period, even considering consistency in MIESCR. While it is not expected that the further energy lost with up to three bipoles will cause instability, it is a negative consequence of line commutated HVdc development and the voltage dips caused by the commutation failures are a power quality issue and will be more noticeable to customers than if the system were developed with ac transmission.

12

Commutation failure should not be viewed strictly as an either or event. The lower the sudden ac voltage that the inverter is subjected to, the more difficult it is for the controls to re-synchronize to the waveform, likely followed by longer duration HVdc recoveries to full power will follow. Clearance of a fault in the ac network generally does not immediately re-establish pre-fault ac voltage at the inverter. Rather, the lower the ac voltage seen at the inverter during a system fault, the lower the immediate post fault value, thus extending recovery times to full ac voltage and dc power. As long as the Dorsey ac voltage is not too low, both Bipoles I and II have the ability to re-synchronize to the ac waveform and transmit some power during the fault. The present Bipole II design is particularly susceptible to voltages below 0.5 per unit and results in no power being transmitted until the voltage recovers and the firing circuits are recharged. Improvements in technology would dictate even further gains for Bipole III. It is reasonable to conclude that, for any particular ac system fault, the higher the inverter ac voltage that exists during the fault, the better off the ac system will be. Also it should be recognized that as the ac system becomes lighter in overall inertia through the addition of more bipoles rather than ac transmission to generation, as discussed below in the inertia section, the more easily it will be to influence commutation crossover points for both balanced and unbalanced faults. Synchronization of the HVdc converter controls to the converter bus voltage waveforms would be more difficult and thus the southern converters would be more susceptible to commutation failures. The very high MIIF values between Dorsey and Riel would hint at very high common mode fault vulnerability. A useful tool in assessing this vulnerability is the contour map, essentially a visualization of the ac voltages appearing at Dorsey and Riel for solid three phase faults applied at different locations within the electrical system. The following figure is the contour map for Dorsey and Riel at the 230 kV level.

13

Dorsey and Riel also have common mode fault vulnerability to extensive regions of

Figure 1: Commutation Failure Contours for Riel and Dorsey the 115 kV network and even extending to some buses on the 66 kV network, such as Transcona. Over time, this vulnerability is expected to intensify as the ac system becomes more meshed in its load serving capacity. Also, any desire to place more transmission between inverters to manage other discussed difficult issues, such as HVdc power order reduction strategies, will exacerbate commutation failure vulnerability and related energy losses.

14

The question can be asked as to when the number of inverters subject to a common mode fault would become problematic. This would be difficult to answer without numerous studies and with assumptions so extensive that interpretations would be questionable. It is reasonable to say that as each new inverter is added, then the greater the effect of commutation failures on the system. Common mode fault vulnerability has been recognized in HVdc intensive regions such as south China and Denmark. No other major network has anywhere near as high a percentage of transmission by HVdc as Manitoba Hydro and thus common mode fault vulnerability is not as high in those other systems. As a minimum, general southern system ac development must be mindful of the electrical effect of new bus and line locations on southern converter performance. Examining now the various developmental strategies as they relate to commutation performance: Status Quo - Commutation failure susceptibility increases as the system becomes more meshed and connections to lower voltages are strengthened. It should be recognized here that the addition of three 300 MVAR synchronous compensators at Dorsey for Limestone power helped protect the Bipoles I and II inverters from commutation failure. Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - Some gains would be made through the physical diversity in location, but are counteracted by less of a protective influence from fewer synchronous compensators at each bus. Overall, this option is mildly negative in terms of commutation failure performance. Option 2: The Existing System Plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - The existing Dorsey compensation continues to provide some protection against commutation failure but nevertheless faults at a significant number of southern system ac buses would induce commutation failure at all three bipoles. Since this variation introduces a third southern inverter with further commutation failure energy losses, the outcome is somewhat negative in terms of commutation failure performance. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole II at a New Location - The commutation failure performance would be not unlike that of option 2, perhaps marginally worse considering the splitting of Bipoles I and II. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter The presence of a fourth inverter, which will be in relatively close proximity to the other three inverters, has an even greater effect on commutation failure performance. Although not studied in detail as of yet, it is expected that there will be many southern

15

system ac buses wherein a bus fault would induce commutation failure at all inverters. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - Likely the worst performing option in terms of commutation failure performance. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - This option would be second only to the status quo and is the best from a commutation failure perspective, for transmission necessary for new northern generation. In summary it can be said that each new inverter added into southern Manitoba raises the level of HVdc interrupted power for southern Manitoba faults which can be considered undesirable. The possibility of multiple simultaneous commutation failures in the southern converter stations would cause voltage and power dips that are worse than for ac transmission. Essentially, due to the expected tight coupling of the converter stations around Winnipeg a fault at one point in the network near Winnipeg is likely to cause commutation failures, which can be thought of as transient high impedance faults at all the other converter stations. The voltage dip experienced by customers will certainly be worse than for ac development. VSC technology has shown significant improvements in terms of commutation failure. Unlike the conventional LCC scheme which relies on the line voltage to switch off the thyristor, the VSC converter is self-commutating as its controllable semiconductor switches can be switched on and off by external control signals. This selfcommutating feature ensures the VSC converter to be immune to the commutation failure that the conventional LCC suffered from. Since the active power control of the VSC converter depends on the bus voltages, the temporary interruption in power flow will also occur for a significant reduction in the ac voltages. DC line fault remains as an inherent weakness of VSC overhead transmissions. The DC line faults draw currents from the AC systems through the VSC dioes, behaving as a remote fault to the AC system. If one bipole scheme in our system is employed with the VSC technology, the other two LCC bipoles will likely suffer from commutation failure for a DC line fault due to their electrical closeness. The system response to a DC line fault improves as the number of LCC links replaced with VSC links increases, as fewer LCC links will fail commutation and temporarily lose power transfer during the DC line fault.

Technical Issue 4 - Ac Breaker Ratings The main issue of ongoing concern in ac circuit breakers which is affected by future system development is that short circuit current levels in southern Manitoba are very high, and without mitigating action are expected to exceed the ratings of presently

16

available breakers for our climate. The main transmission voltage level of 230 kV at Dorsey combined with the significant HVdc inverter input results in high short circuit level requirements for proper HVdc operation. To allow for contingencies with adequate fault recovery, the typical Equivalent Short Circuit Ratio (ESCR) level at Dorsey is about 3 or slightly higher. With an ESCR of 3.0 and the other parameters at Dorsey the required short circuit current level at Dorsey can be calculated with the equation below. With the PDC being set by the required HVdc transmission and the Qcapacitors being set by the filtering and reactive power requirements, the main variable affecting the short circuit current ISC in the ESCR equation is the bus voltage VOC. Based on the equation, when VOC is low then ISC will be high.
ESCR SCC Qcapacitors Pdc 3 * Voc * I sc Qcapacitors Pdc

Assuming the existing bipole loading in the south would be about: Bipole I = 1480 MW Bipole II = 1600 MW The single phase short circuit current at Dorsey is typically 25% higher than the three phase short circuit current or 1.25 x 26.7 kA = 33 kA. If Bipole III is developed at Riel a multi-infeed system results and the Multi-infeed Equivalent Short Circuit Ratio equation as defined earlier applies. Assuming only Conawapa is added to the collector system with Bipole III, the bipole III loading in the south would be about 1620 MW:
MIESCRi ( SCCi Qf i ) Pdci j ( MIIF j ,i Pdc j )

3 .0

230,000 3 I SC 756e 6 3080e 6 0.95 1620e 6

I SC 36.7 kA

The single phase short circuit current at Dorsey would be about 1.25 x 36.7kA = 46kA. The above short circuit values are for normal system operation. The worst case fault levels with all generation in the south in service are much higher. Most of the existing breakers at Dorsey are rated for 63 kA, which is the present maximum rating available with state of the art technology for cold climates. The minimum normal single phase short circuit current level of 46kA expected with

17

Bipole III at Riel is quite high and indicates that 230 kV may not have been the best long term choice for the power levels being injected by the bipoles, especially with both Bipole I&II in one station. While 230 kV is a reasonable major transmission voltage level for Manitoba load into the foreseeable future, the envisioned generating station plant sizes on the Nelson River for economic development and the HVdc transmission method into the Winnipeg area would suggest a higher transmission voltage to contain short circuit current levels. Horizon year short circuit current level calculations indicate that it will be difficult to stay under available circuit breaker maximum ratings and this will have to be considered in future system development. It would not likely be possible to terminate four bipoles in the Winnipeg area with present circuit breaker technology without taking significant steps to minimize the short circuit current levels contributed by the development of the fourth bipole. These significant steps will be discussed further as specific development options are discussed in the following section. No other HVdc schemes in the world with a single converter bus have developed to the power levels of the Nelson River HVdc system with a main ac transmission voltage level as low as 230 kV. A somewhat analogous system is the Pacific Intertie with about 2850 MW supplying 220kV and 230 kV voltage levels. However the inverter station of the Pacific Intertie scheme is not subject to cold weather requirements, and has power split between two ac buses which are separated by a transformer that would limit short circuit current levels. How does the issue of high short circuit current levels affect future development? Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - This would lower the short circuit levels with the salvaging of some synchronous compensators at Dorsey, but the ac network has been developed with both bipoles at Dorsey. Unless the number of transmission lines between the stations is reduced the short circuit level will not be minimized. Also, synchronous compensators will have to be added at Riel which will still have a significant effect on the short circuit current level at Dorsey. Option 2: The Existing System plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - The example calculations of short circuit current given above are based on this option. As indicated above there are concerns with exceeding the Dorsey Station circuit breaker ratings with this development in the horizon system. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole II at a New Location - This option is expected to be better than option 2, but would be affected by the number of transmission lines between the converter stations as in Option 1. Any envisioned location for Bipole II is expected to result in fairly high MIIF values and thus high short circuit currents as in the multi-infeed calculation above. It may become

18

necessary to connect Bipole II at 500 kV, but this would increase the cost and affect the reliability of power for Manitoba at the 230 kV level. The 500 kV transmission voltage is more affected by disturbances on the 500 kV intertie and would require very reliable and thus costly transformation to the 230 kV level to minimize the impact of outages of the transformers. Also, a converter station at the 500 kV level would have a weaker converter bus due to the small network at 500 kV and thus would require more synchronous compensators for adequate operation. This is a difficulty in introducing a large converter station in the Manitoba Hydro system; it needs to be well connected to the network which would point to 230 kV, but 230 kV is too low a voltage for ongoing HVdc development. So if the converter is now connected at the 500 kV level, which is not well developed domestically at this point in Manitoba, the system would be too weak to support adequate HVdc operation without significant compensation. Adding more compensation is costly, results in more maintenance, and increases the complexity of the HVdc transmission scheme. With 230 kV being too low a voltage for 2000 MW converter stations around Winnipeg it may have been worthwhile originally developing a 345 kV or 500 kV major transmission network for HVdc input in Manitoba. There is the consideration that with higher station voltage the station size would be significantly larger and this also was not envisioned for the Riel site. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter Location - This option is mentioned above after the example calculation where it is indicated that it would not likely be possible to terminate four bipoles in the Winnipeg area with present circuit breaker technology, without taking significant steps to minimize the short circuit current levels contributed by the development of the fourth bipole. A reasonable way to reduce the short circuit current at 230 kV is to terminate a fourth bipole at 500 kV. Introducing the fourth bipole at the 500 kV voltage level would be subject to the issues discussed in Option 3 making the system more costly and complex. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - This option would be similar to Option 4 but not as severe for short circuit currents, however would still require vigilance and mitigation as the system develops. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - Option 6 would generally be better for ac system short circuit levels, but there may be some localized short circuit issues depending on where southern terminations are located.

Technical Issue 5 - Auxiliary Control Complexity

HVdc Reduction Controls and Allocator

19

Bipoles I&II terminating in one station has made HVdc power order reductions easier to handle as ac system flows between bipoles in the south would be an issue if they were in separate stations. Since Bipoles I&II, having further bipoles terminate in one southern station has been deemed unacceptable from a reliability point of view, leading to unavoidable complexity in the future allocator strategy for HVdc reductions. In the north, separate converter stations are more manageable in terms of HVdc reductions because the collector system is a contained system with only the HVdc converters as loads. However, even the northern collector system may present problems for separate southern inverters because power order reductions with a large difference in MW value between the bipoles will be more frequent. The collector system is designed to handle a bipole shutdown at any time so a sudden change in power between the bipoles is expected, but it does leave the collector system more unbalanced and vulnerable to other contingencies. For example, if two lines are out of service and then one of the bipoles receives a much large power order reduction than the other, the remaining lines may not be able to handle the resulting power flows in the collector system. There are presently 37 separate initiating events that would require an HVdc power order reduction depending on power transfer levels. The need for power order reductions for a single contingency in the future depends on whether the existing or new tie lines are operated beyond the power levels where a single contingency line outage can be accommodated on the tie lines. The sectionalization of D602F at Riel will require the addition of at least three more reductions. If Bipole III is developed at Riel it wont add many more reductions, but it will necessitate allocating reductions to two separate inverter stations. The development of Bipole III at Riel requires a re-evaluation of the allocator control strategy and the HVdc reductions. The allocators task wont only be to apportion the HVdc power order reductions to balance the northern collector system it will also have to make sure the southern ac system is balanced for the HVdc reduction. This is a significant but unavoidable jump in complexity in the southern system controls. System studies may determine that the northern collector system balance will have to be sacrificed to reach an acceptable control solution. The low inertia in the southern Manitoba system results in a rapid rate of frequency decay, but it also leads to a situation where power angles in our system are relatively easy to change with greater angular swings. The HVdc reduction scheme relies on the ability to quickly change the power angle, and thus power flows, to stabilize the tie lines.

20

New tie lines will likely require the implementation of additional HVdc reductions, further increasing the complexity of the controls and Manitoba Hydros reliance on special controls. Tie lines that do not emanate from the converter stations will be an even bigger challenge in a multi-infeed system, in terms of determining how to apportion any required power order reduction to the inverter stations without adversely affecting ac system power flows. Further, outages within the southern ac system not directly affecting a tie line but affecting flows between inverters will now need to be considered. In order to make the situation manageable additional lines between the inverter stations may be necessary, but in addition to adding significant costs this would worsen commutation failures, transient overvoltage interactions, short circuit current levels and possibly other multi-infeed considerations. It is unlikely that there is another utility system in the world so critically dependent for day-to-day stability on such a unique and complex control system. Future planning should endeavor to minimize complexity in the system to reduce risk, and minimize the intellectual capital required to manage a unique and complex system. Inverter Power/Voltage Instability HVdc inverters in systems that are in power control are prone to power/voltage instability and the Dorsey bus is no exception, having suffered a number of voltage collapses around 1980. The situation at Dorsey is managed in three coordinated actions: by freezing the P/U (power/voltage) logic in the controls upon sensing low ac voltage, by applying a relatively small power reduction to the two bipoles terminating at Dorsey, and finally by ramping in the end of the MIL synchronous compensator 500 MVAR overload sequence. These coordinated actions ensure that there are sufficient MVAR to support the power levels on the Dorsey bus and that any transition state minimizes the system impact. At present, impending voltage collapse is detected by monitoring the voltage and the HVdc power reduction is managed through the allocator. When two or more inverters are present, the strategy becomes much more complicated. History at Dorsey has shown that the start of any collapse occurs with the completion of the synchronous compensator overload sequences. In a multi-infeed environment and considering the electrical closeness, as indicated by the high MIIF numbers, and considering that all possible inverters will have synchronous compensators, then voltage collapse will only start when all synchronous compensators have completed their overload sequences. To avoid power/voltage instability, ideally any reduction should occur at the bus where the MVAR shortage is occurring, so allocation to different inverter buses would not seem likely. The reduction strategy will need careful consideration of relative synchronous compensator overload sequences. The strategy will probably not be trivial with even two inverter locations especially with possible outages and given that

21

Riel may have a different sized synchronous compensator than what exists at Dorsey. Three or more inverter locations would imply even greater complexity. The tight coupling cannot be relied on for significant reactive power transfer to aid in voltage stability. The converters ultimately need to be self compensated as that is the optimum for cost and reliability. Inverter JVC Strategy The Dorsey Joint Var Control strategy is relatively simple; the JVC controls the Dorsey 230 kV ac bus to a set value while apportioning the MVAR loading amongst the operating synchronous compensators. The Dorsey JVC is a potentially powerful device, with control of up to 1860 MVAR of synchronous compensators. The studies performed for the Dorsey JVC recognized the electrical tightness between Dorsey and the future Riel and incorporated a droop feature, ostensibly to allow sharing MVAR disturbances, in some way, between the synchronous compensators at Dorsey and Riel. The coordinated strategy was not studied in any great detail at that time. At present, the Dorsey JVC droop setting is set to zero, and the voltage set point is what is achieved. With a non-zero droop line, setting becomes more complex for the actual voltage depends not only on the voltage set point but also on the synchronous compensator MVAR output. With the lower voltage network in close electrical proximity to the inverter buses, simultaneous demands for Dorsey, Riel and the remaining network will be challenging. Three or more inverter locations would be even more challenging. Synchronous Compensator Exciter Response The Dorsey 300 MVAR synchronous compensators incorporated an exciter with very high field forcing limits and fast response. This form of exciter is very beneficial to the stability of the interconnected system. Coordination between Dorsey and Riel synchronous compensator exciter response will need to be carefully considered. With three or more inverter buses the strategy becomes even more complex. Damping Controls The angle damping controls at Dorsey were put in place to provide a fast transient response to sudden bus angle changes and to improve the damping of observable power oscillations that occur on the ac power system. With both Bipole I&II inverters at Dorsey the coordination of the angle damping controls on the two bipoles and its effect on the ac system is straightforward. With Bipole II or III at Riel, a complex multi-infeed system results and the coordination of the angle damping controls at the inverter stations is more complex.

22

Frequency Based Capability Controller (FBCC) The purpose of the FBCC is to reduce the bipole power orders based on the collector system frequency to prevent the collector system from collapsing if generators trip or if HVdc power orders are set too high resulting in the HVdc load exceeding generation. In the existing system with both Bipoles I&II terminating at Dorsey, an FBCC power order reduction reduces the power injected into Dorsey. If Bipole I&II were in separate terminals in the south, then if the collector system separated due to a fault situation and an FBCC based power order reduction occurred, then the unbalanced reduction in power at the southern converter stations would cause significant power flows to occur on southern system transmission between the converter stations. Comparison of Options from a Control Complexity Perspective Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - This option requires a re-evaluation of the allocator control strategy and the HVdc reductions as discussed earlier. It would also require the coordination of the FBCC controls, angle damping controls and other strategies. Option 2: The Existing System plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - Similar to Option 1, requires a re-evaluation of the allocator control strategy and the HVdc reductions, and also coordination of the FBCC controls, angle damping controls and other strategies. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole II at a New Location Significantly more complex than Option 2 due to the three inverter terminals. While this option has not been evaluated in detail, the permutations and combinations of outage scenarios due to the three terminals would be very difficult to deal with and may result in significant over-reductions of power in order to avoid overloading southern ac transmission, or operating restrictions. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter Location - Option 4 is expected to exhibit the difficult complexity as in Option 3 since it has three inverter terminals. However adding to that, maintaining Bipole I&II at Dorsey would result in one of the inverter terminals having approximately twice the rating of the others. This difference in terminal ratings could result in larger southern network flows for some disturbances and may require HVdc reductions for multiple line outages between converters. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - This option, with four inverter terminals is expected to be significantly more difficult than even option 4 in dealing with HVdc reductions than Options 3 and 4 with three inverter

23

terminals. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - This option only has the complexity of two inverter terminals in the south and is considered manageable, bearing in mind that an HVdc reduction and allocator scheme for two inverters has not been developed yet.

Technical Issue 6 - System Inertia Manitoba Hydros high percentage of HVdc transmission results in a system that has limited inertia in the south. The synchronous compensators at Dorsey add some inertia, but the compensators are mainly sized to maintain an acceptable electrical performance, that is, adequate fault recovery, an acceptable equivalent short circuit ratio for Bipoles I & II in consideration of voltage stability and maximum available power, and to provide voltage control. Further increase in system inertia may be achieved by installing additional synchronous compensators or use of higher ratings, but its not deemed as a cost effective approach considering the equipment cost and the impact of elevated fault levels on circuit breaker capability. The synchronous compensators total to 1860 MVA at an average H (inertia constant) of around 2.0 MW-s/MVA giving a stored energy of 3720 MW-s. If Lower Nelson River power was instead supplied through ac transmission rather than HVdc, the MVA rating would be about 4000 MVA with a typical H value of 3.5 MW-s/MVA, giving a stored energy of 3.5 X 4000 = 14000 MW-s. Thus, as a result of using HVdc transmission, the inertia is about 27 percent of what it would have been if ac transmission were used. As such, the frequency or power angles in our system are relatively easy to change with attendant effects on ac power flows. A drawback to the HVdc development is that it has essentially isolated southern Manitoba from the beneficial effects of the collector system inertia. It should be noted that local synchronous compensators are not the same as remote generators in the way that they affect system stability. Remote generators can lead to more stability problems than local machines, especially synchronous compensators which carry no appreciable load angle. The addition of more HVdc transmission will perpetuate the low inertia situation in southern Manitoba relative to installed generation capacity, from what it would have been with ac transmission. However, the addition of another bipole for export would provide a short-term improvement in inertia relative to the southern Manitoba load. In other words, as long as there is excess HVdc transmission to Manitoba firm load, as there is today, then the full effect of the low inertia will be somewhat masked. Since this is not sustainable, the low inertia must be given due consideration in the planning of the Manitoba system.

24

The low inertia in the southern Manitoba system can result in a very rapid rate of decay of frequency for a significant HVdc outage if the tie lines open circuit. With the tie lines in-service the frequency is very stable as the Manitoba Hydro system is connected to tens of thousands of MVA of generators in the Eastern Interconnection. However, for a significant HVdc outage, if the tie lines trip, then the rate of frequency decay is so rapid that it is difficult to use normal load shedding techniques based on frequency. For other power systems, a slower rate of decay allows time to gradually shed enough load to arrest a frequency decay, which otherwise would ultimately lead to a system collapse. This difficult challenge has been met in Manitoba Hydro firstly by endeavoring to operate the system to avoid tripping the tie lines, and secondly through the implementation of an islanding scheme in an attempt to divide the system into manageable sections during a severe under-frequency event. Islanding is also difficult to implement with a quickly collapsing system. The excess HVdc transmission capacity to Manitoba firm load as discussed earlier has helped to reduce the impact of disturbances that stress the tie lines. As Manitoba firm load depends more on Bipoles I & II, the import stress on the tie lines will increase for a Bipole I & II block. A further complication that arises due to the rapid rate of frequency decay is that additional combustion turbine based southern generation would likely not be effective in mitigating the problem. The new combustion turbines at Brandon are disconnected from the system at 57.8 Hz, and the Selkirk thermal units (recently changed over to natural gas) are switched off the system at 58 Hz. Hydraulic generators typically will stay on the network down to a significantly lower frequency and thus are more effective in stabilizing the network. The low inertia of the Manitoba System may not result in adverse effects on stability of the interconnections for the severe disturbance of a double bipole block. Instead, the low inertia allows the Manitoba system to follow the U.S. system rather than swinging against it and tripping the tie lines. However, the double bipole block disturbance results in an extremely high import level which highlights the overdependence on Dorsey Station and can result in tripping of the tie lines. With the Manitoba system being connected to the U.S. system with long transmission lines, instability can occur if the two systems swing against each other. The low inertia of the Manitoba system results in the Manitoba system tending to follow the U.S. system rather than pull away from it. However, during power exports, the low inertia requires that the HVdc reductions for tie line trips are not delayed. Otherwise the Southern Manitoba generators will accelerate rapidly leading to instability which would be avoided by tripping the remaining tie lines.

25

Comparison of Options Synchronous Compensators and Generators that are on AC Transmission (MW-seconds) 1860 x 2.0 = 3720 2200 x 2.0 = 4400 Total Generation Inertia (MW-seconds) (full ac development) Percent of inertia compared to full ac development 27% 31% 29%

Existing System Option 1

BPI @ Dorsey BPII @ Riel

4000 x 3.5 = 14000 4000 x 3.5 = 14000

Option 2
BPI&II @ Dorsey BPIII @ Riel Conawapa added (1700 MVA)

3720 + 1000 x 2.0 = 5720 14000 + 1700 x 3.5 = 19950

Option 3
BPI @ Dorsey, BPIII @ Riel, BPII at another station Conawapa added (1700 MVA)

4400 + 1000 x 2.0 = 6400 14000 + 1700 x 3.5 = 19950

32%

Option 4
BPI&II @ Dorsey BPIII @ Riel BPIV at another station Conawapa added (1700 MVA) Keeyask & Gillam Island added (1700 MVA)

5720 + 1000 x 2.0 = 7720 19950 + 1700 x 3.5 = 25900

30%

Option 5
All converters at separate stations Conawapa added (1700 MVA) Keeyask & Gillam Island added (1700 MVA)

6400 + 1000 x 2.0 = 8400 19950 + 1700 x 3.5 = 25900

32%

Option 6
BPI @ Dorsey BPII @ Riel future generation on AC Conawapa added (1700 MVA) Keeyask & Gillam Island added (1700 MVA)

4400 + 3400 x 3.5 = 16300 19950 + 1700 x 3.5 = 25900

63%

In the above table the amount of generation added for bipoles is such that spare HVdc transmission is increasing with each bipole. As such, the percentage inertia doesnt deteriorate the way it would if only one valve group of spare transmission was maintained. For example, if Keeyask generation was added to Option 2 then the percentage of inertia compared to full ac development would be about 25% instead of 29% as in the table (note that adding all Keeyask generation would reduce total spare HVdc transmission below one valve group, which is not acceptable).

26

Although not explicitly incorporated in the table, it should be recognized that continued development of wind turbines in southern Manitoba would reduce the effective inertia per megawatt since wind turbines tend to have relatively very light rotors. The greater the penetration of wind in southern Manitoba, the more of an issue this would become. The above table shows that the various HVdc only transmission options do not change the percentage of inertia compared to full ac development significantly, as long as spare HVdc transmission is increased with each additional bipole. If the system were developed as in the existing system with very little spare HVdc transmission, then the percentage of inertia compared to full ac development would continue to deteriorate with each additional bipole. Option 6 where all future transmission is ac would greatly increase the Manitoba system inertia without a significant increase in fault levels, and thus the viability of a conventional frequency based load shedding scheme in Manitoba.

Technical Issue 7 - Paralleling Paralleling is the ability to place more than one set of converters on a transmission line. The initial conceptual development of Nelson River transmission recognized paralleling as an important cost effective measure to avoid building an additional HVdc transmission line for existing HVdc transmission line outages. The latest evaluation of corridor threats states the probability of losing the existing HVdc corridor from a tornado as 1 in 16 and from icing as 1 in 50. Paralleling remains important both as a reliability element, and in minimizing the impact of any event on the corporate finances. Paralleling was important during the corridor outage event of 1996, more so from a financial perspective considering the relatively low fall loading. The importance of paralleling may not be fully recognized considering that there has only been the 1996 event. But there is no doubt that, considering the probabilities, more corridor events will happen and that paralleling will be an important mitigation tool. With the present system, paralleling can occur between Bipoles I and II and the control infrastructure is in place to allow paralleling between Bipole II and the future Bipole III. Studies have identified that a western routed Bipole III line would exhibit a second harmonic resonance which would require special filtering at the converter ends. In this scenario, loss of the Bipole III line likely would allow Bipole III converters to be paralleled with Bipole II through the Interlake. But the more problematic scenario from load serving and financial perspectives is an Interlake corridor loss which would encompass both HVdc lines and quite possibly other ac transmission. Bipole II could

27

not be paralleled with Bipole III on the western corridor because of the lack of second harmonic filtering on Bipole II. It is considered very risky and hence unacceptable to attempt to retrofit Bipole II with additional filtering to make this paralleling scenario work [6]. The extension of paralleling to a fourth bipole has never been contemplated to any great degree. There would be significantly greater control complexity as a minimum. If four north-south bipoles were to be built as in options 4 and 5, use of all three corridors would be highly desirable from a catastrophic reliability perspective. Yet the resonance issue associated with the western routing would preclude a western routed bipole from significantly participating in a paralleling strategy intended to eliminate the need of building spare transmission. 5.0 Reliability Future planning for the Manitoba Hydro system in consideration of reliability is largely influenced by the vulnerability of the existing system. If the existing system was less vulnerable to catastrophic outages then decisions about the future system may be different than what is otherwise considered necessary. For example, a 2000 MW bipole presents a significant contingency for a utility the size of Manitoba Hydro, but Bipole III rated at 2000 MW has been recommended by System Planning to help cover for the vulnerability of Bipole I&II. Note that it may be possible to have a higher rated Bipole III to help cover for some outages within the bipole, but it would likely be undesirable to use the full higher rating at all times due to the bigger contingency it would present. HVdc technology is not burdened with the transmission related stability issues of ac transmission and thus enables the possibility of very high power levels on a single transmission line. The ratings of Bipoles I&II have crept up over the years as the generating stations on the Lower Nelson River have been built at power ratings that were higher than originally envisioned. Bipoles I & II were originally nominally rated at 450 kV and 1800 Amperes or 1620 MW. Early on, Bipole I was modified for continuous 463.5 kV operation in the north for a rating of 1669 MW. Since then Bipole I was re-rated for continuous operation at 110%, for a rating of 1836 MW. Finally, with valve replacement and other upgrades Bipole I is rated at 463.5 kV and 2000 Amperes for a rating of 1854 MW which is 14.4% above the original rating. Bipole II had a specified nominal rating of 500 kV and 1800 Amperes (1800 MW) with an overload rating to 2000 Ampere below a certain ambient temperature for a power rating of 2000 MW. Bipole II has since been upgraded for operation under most conditions at the overload rating which is an increase of 23.5% over the originally envisioned 1620 MW rating. In terms of power, Bipoles I & II are presently rated 614 MW over what was originally envisioned. The change in ratings is summarized in the following table:

28

Original Rating Present Rating Change in Rating (MW) (MW) (MW) Bipole I 1620 1854 +234 Bipole II 1620 2000 +380 Total 3240 3854 +614 Many components of Bipole I have been rated in recent years for possible future operation at 500 kV and 2000A, like Bipole II, which would further increase the ratings. Load growth was so high during collector system concept formulation that the longer range transmission view was only towards ultimate lower Nelson development. A continuous program of generation and transmission development was expected, with full development of the lower Nelson River by the early 1990s. With the collapse of the high rate load growth in the late 1970s, more focus was placed on intermediate steps, specifically the transmission necessary to carry the next plant Limestone. Added to this mix was the increasingly higher price Manitoba Hydro was receiving for export power, which not only required adequate and reliable bipole capability but also made a higher power rated Limestone desirable. Upgrades carried out in the early 1990s which increased the bipole capabilities, along with a committed program of converter transformer spares, worked cost effectively with the desired Limestone megawatt size. The next step for significantly improved reliability was Bipole III or a stage of Bipole III which would have had a significantly negative effect on Limestone economics. Reliability considerations were incremental and worked against the catastrophic susceptibility which is more fully understood today. The cost effective tendency was to maximize the utility of assets like Bipoles I & II, but reliability considerations would usually suggest that power levels may need to be limited for transmission corridors and stations. 5.1 Vulnerability of Bipole I & II to Catastrophic Outages Much has been written on the vulnerability of Bipoles I&II to catastrophic outages and it can be dealt with in two ways: 1. Make changes to the system only for reliability which essentially would mean changing the existing transmission scheme. 2. Make changes for reliability while allowing for future generation. This approach would slowly address the possible consequences of catastrophic outages over time. Depending on which of the above two approaches is chosen, the future development of north-south transmission in Manitoba is greatly affected. If the first approach is

29

chosen then basically Bipoles I & II would have to be routed in separate corridors with separated converter stations at each end to improve the reliability situation. There would still be the issue of the bipole ratings being too high if the bipoles are too highly loaded for Manitoba load. Also, the geographic location of the load and generation means that the sending and receiving stations are not all that far apart, but this is difficult to mitigate. The separation of Bipole I&II would not be trivial due to the present high dependence on these facilities. The second approach is a way of managing the problem without drastic action. However, in order to be effective from a reliability perspective, significant spare transmission should be carried on the HVdc system to make the loss of Dorsey station or the Bipole I&II corridor more tolerable. Also, in the second approach Manitoba Hydro has to be more vigilant, and may have to take future steps to mitigate the risk of a Dorsey or Bipole I&II corridor outage.

5.2 System Loss of Load Expectation The widely used index Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) for generation adequacy assessment was extended to include transmission in Reference 7. The typical target value commonly used in industry for LOLE, considering generation only, is 1 day in 10 years or 0.1 day/year. Because of the normal and catastrophic contingencies that the Nelson River HVdc transmission facilities present, they have a significant influence on the LOLE. The analysis in Reference 7 was not intended to give an absolute number for LOLE since it represented worst case conditions. Rather it was intended to be used to compare development scenarios in a relative sense. From reference 7, the general influence of converter station, bipole, pole and valve group outages on the Nelson River HVdc system are shown in the Figure 2.

30

Dependence on last valve group

LOLE
Days/yr

Dependence on last pole Dependence on bipole/station

1 0

LOAD

LOLE
Days/yr 1 0
Added ac or dc transmission

LOAD

LOLE
Days/yr 1 0
Improved reliability of existing transmission (paralleling, hardening)

LOAD

Figure 2: LOLE vs. Load for MH HVdc System The first increase in LOLE that occurs as load increases is the dependence on a converter station outage or a bipole outage. The present Manitoba Hydro system LOLE would be on this first plateau since there is a dependence on a Dorsey outage, which would cause the outage of two bipoles. The level of LOLE is the result of the magnitude of the Dorsey outage (two bipoles) and the potential duration of an HVdc station outage which is in the order of many months. To reach the 1 day/year level indicated here the station outage probability is 1 in 200 years with an outage duration of 6 months, along with the sustained worst case loading assumption. Non-catastrophic outages have a secondary effect on the level of this first plateau. If Bipole III is added it would lower the LOLE at present load, but add another higher plateau in the future since more high power stations would mean more chances of any station being out of

31

service. Expected Unserved Energy or EUE is another reliability indicator that goes with LOLE. The EUE gives an indication of how much load isnt served during outages. As more high power stations are added the EUE would go down with added stations since it would be possible to serve a larger proportion of the load with any station out. If the next transmission addition is ac then there would still be a first plateau, but it is not expected to be as high as for HVdc development (see Figure 3), since the ac development would likely be lower in power level and have parallel transmission paths into other stations as part of an integrated network. The steep rise after the first plateau is a result of a dependence of the load on the last pole of the HVdc system. Since the disturbance of a pole outage would result in inadequate generation from Manitoba resources, the LOLE is higher due to the high probability of a pole outage. This is the basis for the spare pole to Manitoba load criteria in the existing System Planning Criteria.

LOLE

Added ac or dc transmission

dc ac

LOAD
Figure 3: LOLE vs. Load for Added ac or dc Transmission The last steep rise after the second plateau is the result of a dependence of the load on the last valve group of the HVdc system. Since the probability of a valve group being out is very high considering the number of valve groups, the LOLE rises steeply. This is the basis of the recently proposed spare valve group to generation criteria. The development of future generation in Manitoba to cover for drought conditions has kept the system away from dependence on the last pole (second plateau). However, the system has been dependent on a bipole outage at some times of the year as it is in todays system (first plateau). As a final note, it is important to understand the regulatory trends under which the Manitoba Hydro system operates. In June 2007, NERC confirmed that a bipole loss must presently be treated as a category C event. Considering the reserves carried within Reserve Sharing Pool and how specific outages within the Manitoba Hydro system could be interpreted, certain unwelcome restrictions on normal bipole loading or interconnection ability during a paralleling situation may result. A few utilities are also starting to react to actual probabilities for category placement rather than a

32

conventional definition of a category D event. Such a direction would not be beneficial for the Manitoba Hydro system given the extensive commonality between Bipoles I and II. The end result is a growing trend to regulation and accountability. The trend is driven by the increasing awareness of the importance of a secure supply of electricity.

5.3 Effectiveness of Options in Addressing Reliability The various options presented earlier are combinations of the two approaches for addressing reliability: in Option 1 only the existing system is changed; Option 2 and 4 dont change the existing HVdc but allow for future generation; and Options 3, 5, and 6 change the existing HVdc system and allow for new generation. The effectiveness of these options in addressing system reliability is discussed below: Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - This option can make a significant contribution by reducing approximately to one half the amount of HVdc power input that is lost for a catastrophic Dorsey outage. Also, this option is expected to have the earliest in-service date since it does not require new north-south transmission to be implemented. Considering only the impact of a catastrophic Dorsey outage, relocating the Bipole II inverter provides benefits equivalent to a full Bipole III inverter development as shown in Figure 4. However, relocating Bipole II does not provide additional transmission capacity for new generation. This option would make the LOLE worse with the assumption that Riel is built to the same standards as Dorsey, because there would be two stations of very high ratings that can cause a significant power outage. Instead of being dependent on one very big converter station, Manitoba would be dependent on two big converter stations. This analysis indicates that 2000 MW converter stations are too large, but since they already exist, increased spare transmission is required. The EUE would be lower for this option because the power loss would be approximately one half of the level with Bipole I&II both at Dorsey Station. Option 2: The Existing System plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - This option provides coverage for a catastrophic outage of Dorsey that is about the same as Option 1, but also provides transmission capacity for new generation. The new transmission capacity provides the opportunity to increase the amount of spare HVdc transmission which means that the amount of power normally transmitted on each bipole is lower. This would increase the reliability of the system by decreasing the normal power input loss for a bipole outage, and would provide increased coverage for outages on the transmission system. The above benefits would depend on how much generation is

33

added to the collector system with Bipole III. If only Conawapa is added with Bipole III then the spare HVdc transmission would be 900 to 1000 MW which is approximately a spare HVdc pole (one half a bipole). A spare pole of transmission
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 MW 0 - 500 Riel Sectionalization -1000 -1500 -2000 Assuming: Favourable water conditions, 900 MW import and Brandon Unit 5 in-service until 2019 Figure 4: Making up the Shortfall of Power during a Catastrophic Dorsey Outage in winter Existing System Deficit BP III - 2000 MW BP II Re-Located & BP III - 2000 MW

BP II Re-Located BP III - 1000 MW 2010 201

Surplus

2020

capacity is what Manitoba Hydro has carried to Manitoba firm load as part of the present Planning Criteria. With a spare pole of transmission, the three bipole HVdc system can cover for the largest typical contingency that occurs on HVdc systems given that bipole outages are much less frequent. Considering that there would still be a large contingency with the loss of Dorsey with this option, it is reasonable to carry spare transmission capacity that increases over time as the domestic load dependence on Dorsey increases. Given that a catastrophic loss of Dorsey will be a significant loss to Manitoba Hydro into the foreseeable future, it must be managed over time. This option would improve the LOLE for many years, but other steps would need to be taken in the future as system load becomes overly dependent on Dorsey Station. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, and Bipole II at a New Location - This

34

option does not have to be implemented all at once, rather it can be considered after Option 2 is implemented by relocating Bipole II or possibly even Bipole I at a later date if deemed necessary. As can be seen in Figure 4, this option would be a significant improvement to the system in terms of addressing catastrophic outages. However, there are issues for auxiliary control complexity as discussed in the previous section. Also, because the three inverters will be tightly linked electrically and thus subject to single ac disturbances, the day-to-day operational benefit of having three separate terminals would be debatable. The present system has been implemented to support two bipoles at Dorsey and if one is relocated, it would be a significant change to the system that would need to be considered carefully. This option would improve the LOLE for many years, but depending on the standards that Bipole II&III are built to, the LOLE could be slightly worse than Option 2. This is because there would be three stations that could cause significant power outages instead of two. However, the expected unserved energy would be much lower because the Dorsey power loss would be approximately one half of the level with Bipole I&II both at Dorsey Station. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter Location - This option is Option 2 with a possible Bipole IV at a third inverter location. This option would improve catastrophic outage reliability by providing a fourth bipole on presumably a third separate transmission corridor from the north. However, Dorsey would remain a high risk for the system in terms of catastrophic outages unless spare HVdc transmission was further increased to somewhat cover the risk as discussed in Option 2. The viability of a fourth bipole is very uncertain as discussed in other sections in this document. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - This option would provide better coverage for catastrophic outages by reducing risk presented by Dorsey Station. However, having four inverter stations in what would likely be close proximity presents problems of its own for which there may not be acceptable solutions. A single ac disturbance would likely cause all four inverters to suffer commutation failures and thus provide less energy to the system and larger voltage dips during a disturbance than a system with more ac transmission. The difficulty in managing auxiliary controls presents risks of its own as discussed in the section on auxiliary controls. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - This option would reduce the risk presented by Dorsey Station and limit the complexity and risks of a multi-infeed HVdc system. The reliability of the system would be improved by the added inertia that ac transmission system development brings. There would be stability issues related to long distance ac transmission, but it is expected that these can be managed.

35

If conventional ac transmission is used without complex FACTS devices then the restoration time to some stage of significant power input after a catastrophic outage at a station, and even full power restoration, is expected to be significantly less for ac transmission over HVdc transmission, except possibly for the replacement of transformers which have a long delivery time for both HVdc and ac applications. However, transformers are one of the more resilient components for many catastrophic disturbances with their main vulnerability being the bushings. HVdc converter stations typically have very specialized one-of-a-kind equipment including: thyristor valves, controls, converter transformers, cooling equipment, smoothing reactors, filters, and compensation equipment. This equipment requires significant engineering and usually requires long lead times to specify, manufacture, construct, and commission. AC station equipment is often more standardized and sometimes utilities are able to borrow equipment after a disaster to get back some level of power as soon as possible. This is a distinct advantage for ac transmission. In terms of the LOLE analysis, the effect of possible ac transmission development on the first plateau is discussed earlier and is expected to be slightly better compared to HVdc development.

5.4 Splitting the Bipole I and II Inverters As can be expected after these many years, Bipoles I&II are starting to be renewed. Bipole I, being first installed with older mercury arc technology, has had its valves upgraded to thyristors, with additional replacing of some controls. Bipole II is starting to exhibit valve problems, mainly in the cooling, and it is starting to become apparent that renewal will become necessary. It would be tempting then, knowing the present over-concentration of facilities at Dorsey station and the deteriorating state of Bipole II, to give weighting to options which would re-establish the Bipole II inverter at a different location. Options 1, 3, 5, and 6 all include this possibility. Re-establishing the Bipole II inverter at a physically different location is a worthwhile long term goal and it should be anticipated in any development that does take place. It can be considered worthwhile because system development should not only consider conditions necessary to meet load, but also the financial impact of certain events to the Corporation. Even though domestic load could be met for some time by Bipole III with a devastated Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, the financial hit on the Corporation from bottled generation and reconstruction costs would be enormous, perhaps financially equivalent to a multi-year severe drought.

36

Further, if Dorsey station were to be devastated by a catastrophic event, there would be pressure to fix the problem, which is not to rebuild both inverters at the same location. In the chaotic environment that would exist in such a scenario, it would be easy for delays and errors to occur. Planning preparation for an ultimate split would seem prudent as it is not likely that the high power levels through Dorsey would be acceptable for reliability in the foreseeable future. On balance, relocation of the Bipole II inverter should not be given priority over Bipole III at this time. Current load growth and committed sales would dictate that the Corporation must grapple with new transmission necessary for one and possibly two new northern generating stations. To plan, design, finance, and construct a converter relocation concurrently, or nearly so, would lead to a major change in the functionality of the system. The process would be both high risk technically and expensive. Consequently, even though the relocation of the Bipole II inverter is attractive, reliability gains must be first met with new transmission. Indeed, new transmission could free up sufficient spare capacity to make an eventual move of the Bipole II inverter more manageable rather than with the existing system where there is little spare capacity.

6.0 Development of VSC Technology in HVDC Alternative dc technologies are being researched and developed with some installations occurring in the world. The technology most promising is the Voltage Source Converter (VSC) due to the advantages such as no reactive power requirements, immunity to commutation failures and black start capability, to name a few. When integrating the DC into weak AC systems, VSC transmission is considered as an attractive option as the minimum ESCR required in the LCC scheme can be relaxed significantly. Voltage Source Converters (VSC) has rapidly advanced since the late1990s evolving from an initial experimental 3MW Hellsjn project in 1997 to the 400MW TransBay cable project in 2007. VSC transmission has also expanded its application to overhead lines in the 300MW Caprivi Link (970km, Namibia) which was placed in-service in 2010. The present power rating of VSC transmission is still relatively low compared to the conventional LCC technology primarily limited by the current handling capability of its semi-conductor device (up to1800 amperes). The higher station loss of a VSC scheme has been constantly improved and the recent Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC) was deemed to be compatible to the conventional LCC scheme in terms of losses. One significant concern about the VSC technology is its vulnerability to the DC line fault in an overhead line application, which calls upon a new technique or device to allow for fast restart. Continued

37

development and research are underway to improve the dc line fault clearing time of VSC transmission. An exploratory study was commissioned to evaluate the feasibility of VSC technology in Manitoba system [8]. The preliminary results indicated that VSC technology will improve the system performance in terms of transient overvoltages and common mode fault recovery for AC remote faults, and may reduce the need of synchronous condensers thereby potentially mitigating the high AC breaker rating issue to some extent. The benefits are maximized if all three-bipoles run as the VSC. Its worth to note that common mode fault recovery with the potential of system instability caused by a solid AC fault at either rectifiers or inverter buses could not be improved over the conventional LCC schemes even with the application of the VSC to all three bipoles. This is mainly due to the low system inertia plus the electrical closeness of converters into which the existing system has evolved, suggesting the system configuration to be the bottle neck for VSC application as well. The consideration for inertia provided by the synchronous condensers may define the continuing need for them. The viability of an effective load shedding scheme with the low system inertia remains as a major issue, and has to be mitigated first through the significant AC development. Thus the VSC technology while being able to address certain limitations of todays Manitoba Hydro system, is not fully able to alleviate the effects of its unique configuration. Therefore, the full benefits of VSC can only be achieved after significant AC development. 7.0 Conclusions on the Viability of the Options under Consideration Having analyzed the technical considerations that may influence the choice of HVdc for future generation and transmission, the specific developmental options can now be more fully understood in terms of viability. Status Quo: Bipoles I and II Inverters both Located at Dorsey - Considering the identified risk to load serving of Manitoba customers from catastrophic HVdc events and considering the need for new transmission based on load growth, it is apparent that further decisions directing the system away from the status quo are required. Option 1: Bipole II Inverter Relocated at Riel - Relocation of the Bipole II inverter can be considered a worthy goal in the system. With the pressing need for new transmission as driven by new generation and load growth, cost and technical complexity issues would indicate that this option not take precedence at this time. If, however, acquisition of any north-south right-of-way appears not doable then this option should come to the fore. Implementation of this option would not be trivial, especially with Bipole I&II being heavily utilized with little spare transmission capability.

38

Option 2: The Existing System plus Bipole III with a Riel Inverter - It must be recognized that the complexity of the system is being greatly increased with an additional bipole. A third bipole is a major reliability benefit plus provides additional transmission capacity. Overall, this option can be considered acceptable and is the most likely to occur considering the pressing need for reliability mitigation and the need for new load serving transmission. Option 3: Bipole I at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole II at a New Location - While attractive from a reliability perspective, considerable technical change and complexity would be introduced over a relatively short period of time. Combined with the high cost of doing so, this option cannot be favored as a next step. It can be considered a desirable ultimate outcome and should be technically protected to the extent possible. Option 4: Bipoles I and II at Dorsey, Bipole III at Riel, Bipole IV at a Third Inverter Location - The technical issues associated with this option are complex. It is not expected that the system could be reliably planned or operated as the next sequence of development. This option should not be pursued as a sequence of development. Bipole IV in the future cannot be ruled out as a possibility in a specialized capacity, but should not be pursued before significant north-south ac development, a fact remaining true even considering the development of VSC technology. Option 5: Option 4 but with all Four Inverters at Separate Locations - Apparent reliability gains are the greatest here with the separation of all four inverters but the technical difficulties are even greater than with option 4. This option should not be pursued. Option 6: Relocating the Bipole II Inverter at Riel but with all Further Northern Development on the AC System - An Interlake corridor loss would continue to be an issue. Integrating Conawapa into the ac system rather than the HVdc system could be feasible but would be very awkward. There would likely be a cost premium with this development, especially if the ac development is to give the same degree of reliability gain as a new 2000 MW bipole. The attractiveness of this option is related to the minimization of HVdc multi-infeed issues. Considering the present state of the system and the challenges the system needs to meet in the coming years, Bipole III development is preferred. In summary, to improve the reliability of the Manitoba Hydro system: 1. A third bipole with converters at Conawapa and Riel should be built as the next major north-south transmission. 2. A high capacity high voltage ac transmission line should be built as the next major

39

north-south transmission addition beyond Bipole III. 3. Splitting of the Dorsey Bipole I and II inverters into two separate converter station locations should be considered as a long term goal to reduce the exposure to the large power losses due to catastrophic events, but should not be pursued at this time unless there is no other option.

8.0 A Comparison with Other World Situations The question arises as to whether the conclusions drawn in the previous section are consistent with the experiences and interpretations being made in other parts of the world. Are the circumstances appreciably different in situations such as Denmark and south China, wherein a high concentration of HVdc systems exist, and apparently work acceptably? There are important differences between the Manitoba Hydro system and any other system in the world, differences that ultimately drive the conclusions being made in this report. Still, planners for those systems must be aware of developing technical considerations within their system to avoid the pitfalls of the present Manitoba Hydro system. The main differences are: 1) System strength - In other situations, except for a few small islands with HVdc, sufficient short circuit strength is available from generation within the ac system to avoid the use of synchronous compensators. That is, even though there may be numerous HVdc links in a particular area, their percentage of the delivered energy is not so significant that it cannot be supported without the addition of synchronous compensators. This cannot be said for the Manitoba Hydro system and, given the planning, design and operational problems arising from synchronous compensators, makes such a development questionable. The viability of an effective load shedding scheme with very low inertia is also major issue that must be considered. 2) Control Complexity - The Manitoba Hydro system has complex and unique controls related to the HVdc system. As a result significant ongoing internal expertise is required to plan, design, operate, and maintain these controls. 3) Geography - There are few major electrical systems in the world that are on the periphery of a major grid with concentrated remote generation that must be transmitted down long restricted corridors as the primary source of power. Hydro Quebec is one of the closest examples, but the Quebec system still has significant diversity of generation locations and transmission corridors which results in the largest corridor being less than 10% of the system. Also, Quebec does not expect the wind events that Manitoba is exposed to, nor is the climate as severe. Given the geographic situation in Manitoba, diversity of corridor development is required, and as much diversity and reinforcement of the north and south stations as possible is required. The long distance of transmission has favoured comparatively low loss HVdc development which in turn

40

has resulted in very high power ratings in each transmission link. Recognizing the above situation, the future development of the Manitoba system needs to manage the significant reliability risks of the present development.

41

9.0 References 1. Load Flow Studies for Establishing the Limestone Generator Rating, J.R. McNichol to C.V. Thio, Major Transmission Planning TM 84-35, November 21, 1984. 2. Minimum Transmission Requirements for HVDC Bulk System Reliability, J.B. Davies and K.L. Kent, SPD 01/7, July 4th, 2001. 3. Manitoba HVDC Reliability Alternatives Phase I, J.B. Davies and K.L. Kent, SPD 06/05, April 13th, 2006. 4. Manitoba HVdc Reliability Alternatives Phase II, J.B. Davies and K.L. Kent, SPD 06/11, October 4, 2006. 5. Systems with Multiple DC Infeed, Cigre Working Group B4.41, December 2008. 6. Technical Analysis of a Western Routing for the Bipole III Transmission Line, J.B. Davies and K.L. Kent, January 13th, 2005. 7. System Loss of Load Expectation for HVdc Schemes, P.F. Mayer, TP&D System Planning Department TM-2006/03, October 16, 2006. 8. Feasibility of VSC HVdc Technology in Manitoba, Final Report (draft), TransGrid Solutions, Report R1163.01.00, July 5, 2010.

nsdev/JBD/KLK/PW/RWM

42