Page 1

Power Frequency Operating Standards

HEC response to Consultation Paper
6 October 1999
1 Overview
The HEC supports the structure of the standards proposed for Tasmania, as it
is consistent with the five-frequency band structure used in the National
Electricity Market.
HEC believes it is important to apply the defined principles used in NEM to
determine the value of the frequency bands for Tasmania. The application of
NEM principles in Tasmania results in frequency bands similar to those
currently being used.
HEC proposes the following values based on NEM principles.
Frequency band Frequency Band (Hz)
Normal band 49.9 50.1
Load changes 49.0 51.0
Single generator contingency 47.0 51.0
Other credible contingency 47.0 53.0
Multiple contingency band 44.8 55.0
2 Methodology
It is noted that the proposed Tasmanian frequency bands have been
benchmarked against three other standards as follows:
i. National Electricity Market, which is a much larger and interconnected
system.
ii. Queensland, which is predominantly thermal, larger than the
Tasmanian system and is also an isolated system with different
dynamic response.
iii. New Zealand, which is a larger system containing of two islands
connected by bi-polar HVDC link, and therefore offering different
dynamic characteristics.
It is also noted that the proposed Tasmanian frequency bands closely reflect
the existing frequency control limits used by the HEC in the past and HEC
supports the comment that any changes from existing frequency limits may
result in additional costs.
Page 2
3 Response to Specific Issues
Issue 1: Customers Frequency Requirements
HEC agrees with the statements in the Issues Paper.
Present experience indicates that the existing customers do not specifically
complain on the frequency variations and they are much more sensitive to
voltage changes. This may be influenced by the technology used at present
in Tasmania and the electromagnetic compatibility of current equipment.
However, there are mixed signals as far as future expectations are concern.
In the future, customers may have much higher expectations of quality of
power supply. As an example Malaysia established dedicated load centres
(information super highway centres and technology parks) offering customers
very high reliability and quality of power supply. These developments are
market driven with specific customers paying higher prices for higher quality.
This will be manifested by higher demand for frequency control ancillary
services.
Issues 2 - 8: Customers Frequency Requirements
HEC endorses the issues paper comments.
Issue 9 - Generic Factors
HEC agrees that the 5 frequency bands documented in the National Electricity
Code (NEC) and their corresponding description as shown below should be
adopted in Tasmania. These should be regarded as the recognised standard
and the actual numerical frequency bands should be seen as a consequence
of the application of the standard.
Frequency band Definition of Band
Normal band Defines the range of frequency control for load
fluctuations resulting from the continuous
process of switching.
Load changes Defines the maximum size of the load that is
subject to a regular switching. The size
depends on the capacity of generation in
service, and is time of day dependent.
Single generator
contingency
Defines frequency excursions upon loss of
largest generating unit.
Other credible contingency Defines largest load connected on a single
circuit.
Multiple contingency band Defines the largest frequency excursion where
system equipment should remain in service.
Page 3
The following additional factors, if not already considered, need to be taken
into account by the Panel for each of the bands.
Frequency band Influencing factors
Normal band Capability for secondary frequency regulation,
available fast response reserve and AGC.
Load changes Capability of primary frequency regulation.
System inertia
Largest units in service
Spinning reserve
Load frequency dependence
Single generator
contingency
Size of the largest generating unit
Capability of primary frequency regulation
Interaction between primary and secondary
frequency control
Load frequency dependence
Other credible contingency Transmission plant maintenance
Largest size of load or generation centre
connected on a single transmission element
Capability of primary frequency regulation
Load frequency dependence
Multiple contingency band Extreme weather conditions increasing
probability of multiple contingencies
Capability of primary frequency regulation
Load frequency dependence
Issue 10- Specific Factors
Factors to be considered in setting particular frequency bands should include:
i. Practicality of achieving specified bands
ii. Cost of achieving specified band
iii. Public benefit to be gained
iv. Who pays for improved frequency performance, impact on existing
business
To keep the frequency within the National Electricity Market bands would
significantly increase requirements for ancillary services and the associated
cost of providing these services.
Issue 11- Evidence for Different Bands
Differences between existing and proposed frequency bands are noted.
However the HEC considers that they are totally acceptable, as they are the
result of applying the frequency definitions as specified in Table A of the
Consultation Paper to the Tasmanian environment. The differences are
caused by the different:
size of our system,
sizes and composition of generating units affecting control ability, and
load/frequency characteristics.
Page 4
Normal band:
i. The existing band of 49.9 to 50.1Hz is equivalent to that of the National
Electricity Market.
ii. Proposed normal band is wider than the band currently adhered to by
HEC.
iii. New Zealand applies wider normal band and their system is larger than
Tasmania. This seams to indicate that NZ target is soft or Tasmania is
adopting unnecessarily onerous target.
We do not see the need to depart from the current frequency band of 49.9 to
50.1Hz as there is no constraint imposed on the size of standard deviation
applied to this particular frequency band. While this makes it difficult to
assess the system performance, it makes the need for a wider normal band
unnecessary.
We agree that the present band does not impose any known adverse impacts
on Code Participants.
Retention of this band may also better facilitate Tasmanias submission for
entry to the National Electricity Market as it aligns with the NEM standard.
HEC proposes: 49.9 50.1Hz
Load change contingency band:
At present the band is 0.5Hz and allows for switching of a 35MW block of
load (depending on system generation in service). This band is violated on
occasions by the actions of one or two customers.
The consultation paper is proposing to increase the band to 1.0Hz in order to
satisfy the requirements of these customers. We believe that this frequency
band is acceptable for Tasmania as it is the result of applying the defined
criteria (Table A of the Consultation Document).
The application of a narrower band may result in increased cost of ancillary
services, which should be born by the Customer as the causer
HEC proposes: 49.0 51.0 Hz
Single generator contingency band
The consultation paper does not recommend a band but puts forward a
choice of three proposed options for the single generator contingency band.
As a Generator we recommend that option 3 be adopted in Tasmania as we
believe that this is the frequency band which corresponds to the defined
criteria, ie. frequency excursions upon loss of largest generating unit(Table A
of the Consultation Document). The size of largest generating unit can not be
modified. Running these units partially loaded is not an economic solution.
Page 5
However this frequency band, 47-51Hz, is wider than that proposed in the
issues paper for the (other) credible contingency band, 47.5-53Hz.
The size of these two bands will to be coordinated as the other credible
contingency band is intended to capture frequency changes under possibly
transmission maintenance condition. If not coordinated, under frequency load
shedding may result.
We note that the report by Sinclair Knight Merz indicates that special design
considerations for new thermal and gas turbine generation may be required
for operation at frequencies below 47Hz and this would result in additional
capital cost. These additional costs to enable other generation technologies to
operate in the Tasmanian environment should not be considered as a barrier
to entry and should only be regarded as part of the normal investment
required to enter the Tasmanian environment.
HEC proposes: 47.0 51.0 Hz
Other credible contingency band
The concern is about frequency in cases where customer loads are
connected to a power station at an HV terminal and the system connection is
lost. This may include locations such as Gordon, Catagunya, Rowallan and
others (Butlers Gorge, West Coast). Loss of transmission element(s) may
cause a significant frequency rise beyond the limit postulated in the standard.
There will be additional cost to install over frequency protection to disconnect
generating units or customers to protect against equipment damage.
Similar issues apply to embedded generation, which may need to be
disconnected from the system. The system needs to have controlled
islanding protection to avoid very low frequencies or generator stalling. One
example where this can happen is at Trevallyn with a loss of transmission
causing local load to exceed the capacity of local generation.
HEC proposes: 47.0 53.0 Hz
Multiple contingency band
We agree with the proposal to adopt the current frequency band of 44.8 to
55.0Hz.
The limits of this band are constrained by present setting of UFLS. All the
HECs generating units are robust enough to operate below 47Hz and the
present band does not impose any known adverse impacts on Code
Participants.
HEC proposes: 44.8 55.0 Hz
Issue 12 Barrier to entry
The HEC considers that the application of tighter frequency bands may result
in a barrier to entry to new HEC schemes due to the costs of improving their
normally slow governing response which is associated with long water column
Page 6
and large plant inertia. The formation of barriers to entry of new renewables
is also contrary to the Federal Governments Mandated Renewables program.
With respect to barrier to entry see our comments on the Single Generator
Contingency Band under Issue 11 above.
Issue 13 Generation to protect customer owned plant
Current experience indicates that there is no adverse impact of occasional
operation of hydro machines at low frequencies down to 44Hz. However, at
frequencies below 47Hz it is most likely that thermal generation plant would
become disconnected from the system.
Issue 16 Level of ancillary services
Tighter frequency regulation will require more ancillary services to be made
available. Frequency control ancillary service is provided by:
i. Generators (spinning, rapidly unloading and tripping)
ii. Loads (natural load frequency characteristic not considered as
FCAS)
iii. Loads (on/off control)
Tighter frequency regulation has the following impact on generators:
i. For fast primary control resulting in wear and tear of governing
equipment and possible operation at non optimal output level requiring
compensation for loss of efficiency.
ii. For secondary control (response to AGC pulses) increased wear and
tear of governing equipment with increased cost of maintenance, loss
of efficiency and possibly reduced asset life cycle.
Issue 19 - Single generator contingency band
HEC Generation does not believe that there is a need to shed the load on
occurrence of a single generator outage. We are not aware of any customer
complaints on frequency excursion. Tightening the frequency standard and
load shedding will incur additional cost of production losses or inconvenience
which will need to be covered by a customer requiring higher quality of
frequency.
Issue 22 Customer sensitivity
The design of Gordon connection is such that in case of loss of transmission
to Chapel Street it is virtually impossible to keep frequency within the required
53Hz. The best solution for a small load at Gordon may be a direct trip on
over-frequency to avoid possible damage on over voltages.
Page 7
4 Additional Comments
The timing of this paper coincides with the process of the selection of Basslink
developer. As the of maximum size of acceptable power frequency
excursions influences the cost of developing the Basslink project, it is very
important that the panel approve frequency standards, which represent a
compromise between:
i. Cost of developing Basslink project
ii. Amount of ancillary services to be contracted by Basslink
iii. Acceptable quality of power supplies to existing and future customers.
Once Basslink design is adopted it may be extremely expensive to tighten up
the standard without impacting the economic viability of the project. An early
decision on frequency standards will have a positive impact on the Basslink
project.