Reactive Power Management and

Voltage Control

First experts group session

Brussels, 25/02/2016
Koen Vandermot
Agenda

1. Context and Related network codes

2. Requirements for Generators

3. Demand Connection Code

4. Agenda next Experts Group meeting

* Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control (RPM & VC)

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Context and Related network codes
Facing new challenges in RPM & VC

 Switch centralized production → decentralized production

 moments with VERY LOW loading of TSO lines/cables AND almost NO centralized
production (summer/interseason)

 Reactive absorption needs ↑, while absorption capabilities ↓

 Higher interconnectivity with other TSO grids

 Moments with VERY HIGH loading of lines/cables AND almost NO centralized

production (winter/interseason)

 Reactive injection needs ↑, while injection capabilities ↓

Reactive power management becomes 2 times more complex

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Network Codes related to RPM & VC

Future Future Future use of

available reactive reactive capabilities
DCC
reactive needs and for reactive needs
capabilities reactive HVDC
capabilities
RfG

Network
codes
E&R

OS

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
RPM & VC is a shared responsibility

1. Comparison between FTR-C10/11 and NC RfG + first

interpretation + detection of possible quick wins
(Today’s discussion)

2. See what additional possibilities this gives @ TSO-DSO

level on short term and on long term RfG
(Synergrid study/Expert View)

3. Discussion of first results and on extra requirements for

DCC
1. PGM owners (with FB on quick-wins)
2. Demand facilities
3. Distribution System Operators (DSOs + CDSOs)
4. Transmission System Operators
(Next Experts Groups)

4. How to use the available reactive capabilities to ensure

secure operation OS E&R
(Next Experts Groups)
Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Requirements for Generators

1. Hypotheses
2. “As Is” (FTR/RTF and C10/11)
3. “To Be” (NC RfG)
4. Interpretation & Implementation Goal
Approach

• Hypothesis: A/B/C/D classification start

point as discussed in previous Experts
Groups
• FTR/RTF vs NC RfG Alignment
with existing
Latitudes & Belgian
limitations in texts
• Interpretation/Goal Network
Codes

• Action points
Clear game
changers

2025 – expected/constrained
Iterative
progress process
Type D - PPM (expected
14%
end 2016) Draft thresholds for BE-
Type A implementation of Network Codes
17%
Type D -
SPGM Type B DSO Topics for BE-implementation
21% connected of Network Codes (Frequency,
Type C 28% Voltage, Information
14% Type B TSO Exchanges, …)
connected
6%

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Type A
NC RfG Interpretation/Goal
Hypothesis
FTR/RTF C10/11
Pinstalled SPGM PPM SPGM PPM
Must be capable
to permanently
Defined by ΔV-frequency general Synergrid
operate at
Voltage stability profile (-7.5% to +7.5% Nothing specified requirements
U+/- 10% (at
@ generator terminal) (reference: standards)
connection
point)
general Synergrid
Nothing specified
Reactive power requirements, based on
800W - 250kW  to be discussed with Cos φ >0,95 Nothing specified
capabilities realistic capabilities
SO
(reference: standards)
 At least 2 set points
(agreement between
general Synergrid
Voltage/reactive owner and SO) Nothing
Nothing specified requirements
power control  Specific requirements specified
(reference: standards)
on Qref control (fast-
slow)

Action points:
Shall be included in next
Synergrid C10/11
Goal: enlarge RPM & VC
possibilities in DS

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Type B
Hypothesis NC RfG Interpretation/Goal
FTR/RTF C10/11
Pinstalled SPGM PPM SPGM PPM
Must be capable
 TSO grid user: specified by TSO
to permanently
Voltage  DSO grid user: general Synergrid
As in type A operate at U+/- Nothing specified
stability requirements
10% (at
(reference: standards)
connection point)

> 1MVA:
 TSO grid user: specified by TSO
Reactive  to be Q-capability
 DSO grid user: general Synergrid
power discussed with range To be specified by the relevant SO
requirements
capabilities SO -0,1 Pnom …
(reference: standards)
0,33 Pnom
250kW – 25MW

> 1MVA: multiple

 At least 2 set
setpoints (Q or TSO grid user: Constant V
points Constant V
cos phi) possible (alternator terminal) @ a selectable
(agreement (alternator
Voltage/ set point over the entire operation
between terminal) @ a
reactive > 2,5 MVA: range
owner and SO) selectable set Nothing specified
power Real time tele-
 Specific point over the
control operation DSO grid user: Dynamic Q- or
requirements entire operation
possible, for cosphi setpoint (remote control
on Qref control range
more dynamic above given kVA threshold)
(fast-slow)
voltage control

Shall be included in next

Action points: Synergrid C10/11
Goal: enlarge RPM & VC
possibilities in DS
Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Type C
Hypothesis NC RfG Interpretation/Goal
FTR/RTF
Pinstalled SPGM PPM SPGM PPM
Voltage  Auto disconnection for V-levels (SO specified)  Auto disconnection for V-levels (SO specified)
As in type B
stability  Terms and settings (SO/TSO specified)  Terms and settings (SO/TSO specified)
 SO specifies
compensation for HV
 SO specifies lines or cables
compensation for HV  @ max. capacity:
lines or cables  SO/TSO specifies
 @ max. capacity: U-Q/Pmax-profile
 Compensation of the no-
 SO/TSO specifies (SO/TSO specified)  Compensation of the no-
load-losses
U-Q/Pmax-profile  Within specific load-losses
 Make the U-Q/Pmax-
(SO/TSO specified) boundaries  Make the U-Q/Pmax-
profile more symmetric:
-10% and +45% of  Within specific (Q/Pmax=0.75) profile more symmetric:
25MW – 75MW Reactive  To solve future
Pnom (for each boundaries  @ connection point  To solve future
power problems for RPM &
voltage between (Q/Pmax=0.95)  Capable of moving problems for RPM &
capabilities VC
0.9 and 1.05 Vexpl.)  @ connection point to any point in VC
 To align more with
 Capable of moving U-Q/Pmax  To align more with
the available
to any point in  Below max. capacity: the available
technology (e.g.
U-Q/Pmax  SO/TSO specifies P- technology
rotated frame)
 Below max. capacity: Q/Pmax profile
capable of operating @  Within specific
every point in PQ- boundaries
diagram of the alternator  Capable of moving
to any point in
P-Q/Pmax

Goal: symmetrize reactive power

capabilities by win-win
Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Type C
Hypothesis NC RfG Interpretation/Goal
FTR/RTF
Pinstalled SPGM PPM SPGM PPM
 Capability to adapt Q
on demand of SO Keep control possibilities
(AVR - voltage @
automatic voltage
connection point with Specific requirements on
regulation within U-
Voltage/ selectable constant reactive power control
Q/Pmax profile (i.e AVR +
reactive droop) modes:
As in type B OEL, UEL, PSS) No position yet
power  Equipped with OEL,  V-control
 voltage @ connection
control UEL and PSS  Q-control
point with selectable
25MW – 75MW  Auto Qnet adaptation so  cos phi control
constant droop
that relative sensitivity
coefficient is within 18
and 25
Priority
between
Specified by the relevant Specified by the relevant
active or Nothing specified Nothing specified Nothing specified
TSO TSO
reactive
power

Action points?
To be discussed

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Type D
Hypothesis NC RfG
NC RfG Interpretation/Goal
Interpretation/Goal
FTR/TFR
FTR/RTF
Pinstalled SPGM
SPGM PPM
PPM SPGM
SPGM PPM
PPM
 Capability to adapt
Voltage stability As in Qtype C As in type C As in type C As in type C As in type C
on
Reactive power demand of SO
As@in type C
(AVR - voltage As in type C As in type C As in type C As in type C
capabilities automatic voltage automatic voltage
connection point with Specific requirements on
Voltage/ selectable constant
 As in type reactive
C power control
regulation within U- regulation within U-

reactive droop)  Parameters modes:

Q/Pmax profile (i.e AVR + Q/Pmax profile (i.e AVR +
As in type B OEL, UEL, PSS) OEL, UEL, PSS)
power  Equipped with OEL,  V-control
and settings of
 voltage @ connection  voltage @ connection
control UEL and PSS V-control  Q-control
point with selectable
automatic voltage point with selectable
25MW – 75MW  Auto Qnet adaptation so  cos phi control
system (AVR) constant droop constant droop
that relative sensitivity regulation within U-
agreed
coefficient is within 18 Q/Pmax profile (i.e
and 25
between SO
AVR + OEL, UEL,
Voltage/reactive
Priority and owner in
≥ 75MW As in type C As in type C PSS) No position yet
power control
between coordination
Specified by the relevant  voltage @ Specified by the relevant
active or Nothing specified Nothing specified
by TSO, Nothing specified
TSO connection point TSO
reactive containing BW
power with selectable
limitation,
constant droop
UEL, OEL,
PSS and
stator current
limiter
Priority between
active or reactive - As in type C As in type C As in type C As in type C
power

To be discussed
Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Belgian completion

• NC RfG: art. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25

• NC RfG specifies only the requirements, doesn’t indicate how this requirements should
be used operationally and doesn’t specify how ancillary services should be rewarded

• FTR/RTF & C10/11 requirements are a minimum on top of the minimal requirements set
by the NC RfG.

• Goal:

• Symmetrize the reactive power capabilities if technical possibilities allow to and

without expensive additional cost

• Enlarge reactive power control possibilities if technical possibilities allow to

especially on distribution system connected PGMs

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Demand Connection Code

1. Hypotheses
2. “As Is” (FTR/RTF)
3. “To Be” (NC DCC)
4. Interpretation & Implementation Goal
 NC DCC
Interpretation
Hypothesis FTR/RTF NC DCC
/Goal

• No specific requirements
• Reactive power range specified by TSO is not
Transmission • The demand facility owner has
larger than 48% of the larger of the maximum
grid the right to have a reactive load
import/export capacity  cos φ 0.9
connected (cap. or ind.) of 32.90% Pload No position yet
exception: techno-economical optimization to
demand for each time interval (min.
be proven by demand facility owner
facilities 3.29% Ponderschreven)
• @ connection point
 cos φ 0.95
• Reactive power range specified by TSO is not
larger than 48% of the larger of the maximum
• No specific requirements import/export capacity  cos φ 0.9
• The demand facility owner has exception: techno-economical optimization to Joint analysis to be
Transmission Possibilities on
the right to have a reactive load be proven by joint analysis started with relevant
grid generators as
(cap. or ind.) of 32.90% Pload • @ connection point Distribution System
connected determined by
for each time interval (min. • TSO may require the capability to not export Operators (DSOs,
distribution RfG
3.29% Ponderschreven) Q when P ≤ 25%  should been justified by a CDSOs)
systems
 cos φ 0.95 joint analysis
• TSO may require to actively control Q.
Control method shall been agreed between
TSO and DSO.

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
NC DCC – art 15.1

Specified
Q Actual FTR
by TSO

cos φ = 0.95
cos φ = 0.9

3.29% Pond. 100%

max. import/export
capacity
P

(*) Exceptions are possible but should be

proven by demand facility owner or by a
joint-analysis for transmission system
connected distribution systems

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Belgian completion

• NC DCC: art. 15

• NC DCC specifies only the requirements, doesn’t indicate how this requirements should
be used operationally and doesn’t specify how tariffs should be set.

• FTR/RTF requirements as a start point

• Joint analysis in Synergrid to determine requirements with DSOs

• Joint analysis with relevant CDS Operators to determine requirements for CDS

• Goal: reduce reactive power requirements by demand facilities and to enlarge reactive
power control capabilities of distribution systems and demand facilities

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
 Agenda Experts Group April 2016

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and

Agenda Experts Group April 2016

• NC RfG

• Follow-up action points

• First proposal of NC RfG Belgian completion

• NC DCC

• Follow-up action points

• First results on high-level joint-analyses

• NC OS

• Overview of NC OS articles related to RPM & VC

Experts Group - Network codes on Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control - Brussels - 25/02/2016
Thank you for your attention!

ELIA SYSTEM OPERATOR

Boulevard de l'Empereur 20
1000 Brussels

+32 2 546 70 11
info@ elia.be

www.elia.be
An Elia Group company