IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO.
2, MAY 2002
Discussions and Closures______________________________________________________
Discussion of “Reactive Power as an Ancillary Service”
Carson W. Taylor
I congratulate the authors for a valuable paper1 on a timely subject.
I will try to add perspective to the paper, particularly regarding voltage
security.
The authors discuss deregulation with independent system operators
(ISOs). Independent transmission companies (ITCs) are an alternative
and probably a better long term approach [1]. ITCs have advantages
in the planning, rapid installation, and operation of network reactive
power compensation devices. The network devices (primarily low cost
shunt capacitor banks) help achieve flat voltage profile, minimizing re-
active power transfers, active/reactive power losses, and ancillary ser-
vice payments. Complexity in markets and in maintaining security is
reduced.
The authors state that capacitor banks are slow devices. Actually,
they can be fast devices with EHV circuit breaker opening and closing
times typically two and five cycles, respectively. BPA uses fast
switching of shunt and series compensation for voltage emergencies.
Usually, however, capacitor banks provide base reactive power
needs, allowing substantial reactive power reserves at generators. The
reactive power reserves are essential in avoiding voltage instability
[2], [3].
The authors correctly indicate that reactive power as an ancillary
service is not well established. Reactive power requirements may be
implicit in “Reliability Must Run” contracts.
Reference [4] from a CIGRÉ task force is useful; in the U.K., pay-
ments are now only for reactive “energy.”
We should note the typical mandatory requirement that generators
operate in automatic voltage regulator mode without supplementary
power factor or reactive power control [5], [6]. Also, most grid codes
specify mandatory reactive power capability in terms of power factor,
or as a percent of active power.
The authors suggest methods for reactive power dispatch. At BPA
and other companies, reactive power is not dispatched. Rather, high
side (network side) voltage schedules are sent to the power plants. The
plants use various manual and automatic methods to regulate the high
side voltage within generator capability [7]. Voltage schedules are also
provided for substations, with desired voltage maintained by reactive
power compensation switching and autotransformer tap changing.
The authors do not emphasize voltage security. In Step-I of their pro-
cedure, maintenance of adequate reactive power reserves could be an
objective. Interface with online voltage security assessment is possible.
The authors’ notion of generator base reactive power requirements
for station service and step-up transformer losses is very good. Reactive
power and excitation control is required for generator operation as well
as for network operation.
Manuscript received July 31, 2001.
C. W. Taylor is with the Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA
98666 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8950(02)01076-3.
1K. Bhattacharya and J. Zhong, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp.
294–300, May 2001.
0885-8950/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
523
In a well-designed power system, it is seldom necessary to reduce
generator active power to increase reactive power capability. In emer-
gencies, however, active power reduction could be valuable [8]. Re-
lated is the reduction of reactive power capability when turbine power
is uprated without generator uprate. For gas turbines, reactive power
capability is also reduced for high gas turbine output during low am-
bient temperature. Grid codes or generation integration requirements
that specify reactive power capabilities must be enforced.
The authors’ response will be valuable.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Awerbuch, L. S. Hyman, and A. Vesey. (1999) Unlocking the benefits
of restructuring: A blueprint for transmission. Public Utility Reports,
Inc. [Online]. Available: www.pur.com.
[2] P. Nedwick, A. F. Mistr, Jr., and E. B. Croasdale, “Reactive management:
A key to survival in the 1990s,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp.
1036–1043, May 1995.
[3] C. W. Taylor, Power System Voltage Stability. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1994.
[4] R. Hirvonen, R. Beune, L. Mogridge, R. Martinez, K. Roudén, and O.
Vatshelle, “Is there market for reactive power services—Possibilities
and problems,” in Proc. CIGRÉ, 2000, paper 39-213, CIGRÉ JWG
39/112 000.
[5] NERC Planning Standards [Online]. Available: www.nerc.com.
[6] J. D. Hurley, L. N. Bize, and C. R. Mummert, “The adverse effects of
excitation system var and power factor controllers,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Conversion, vol. 14, pp. 1636–1645, Dec. 1999.
[7] “Panel session on power plant secondary (high side) voltage control,”
in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meet., pp. 271–310.
[8] S. G. Johansson, “Mitigation of voltage collapse caused by armature
current protection,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 591–599, May
1999.
Closure to Discussion of “Reactive Power
as an Ancillary Service”
Kankar Bhattacharya and Jin Zhong
We greatly appreciate Mr. Taylor’s interest in our paper1 [1] and his
valuable comments on the subject of reactive power management. In
this closure, we shall attempt to discuss the issues raised by him.
1) The first point raised is that independent transmission compa-
nies (ITC) could be better alternatives than independent system
operators (ISO) to coordinate the procurement of reactive power
services in the longer term.
It should be noted that reactive power services needs to be
procured in order to meet the contracted real-power transactions
in a secure manner, taking into account the perceived demand
Manuscript received September 11, 2000.
K. Bhattacharya and J. Zhong are with the Department of Electric Power En-
gineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8950(02)01075-1.
1K. Bhattacharya and J. Zhong, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp.
294–300, May 2001.
524
conditions, mix of the load and availability of reactive power re-
sources. While we agree that ITC can be a feasible alternative,
it may not be in a position to work out such an analysis for the
entire system due to lack of information. Nevertheless, bilateral
contracts with the local network companies could possibly be in-
troduced for reactive power and then such centralized manage-
ment and contracting for reactive power by the ISO might give
way to a more deregulated management.
To a certain extent, reactive power management in Nordic
countries is on these lines, as mentioned by Mr. Taylor, but
without any provision for financial compensation, yet. For
example, in Sweden the responsibility for managing reactive
power lies with individual network companies, with certain
rules from the ISO, stipulating that there should be no exchange
of reactive power over different network voltage levels and
transformers. To meet this requirement, local and regional
networks have to make a provision for their own reactive power.
Similarly, in the Netherlands, the network companies have
to take care of their reactive power requirement individually.
These companies, however, purchase reactive power locally
through bilateral contracts with generators or through exchange
with other network companies. Those generators that have
been contracted for the reactive power service are paid for their
reactive power capacity only. No payment is made for reactive
energy [2].
2) Regarding capacitor banks and switching of shunt and series
compensation devices, we agree that fast switching arrangements
can be possible. However, the reactive power contributed by such
devices are not considered ancillary services, as per the defini-
tions of NERC [3] and many other deregulated systems. As per
NERC’s Operating Policy-10, only reactive power provided by
synchronous generators are considered ancillary services and can
receive financial compensation.
3) NERC requires that all synchronous generators providing reac-
tive power ancillary service operate with their excitation system
in automatic voltage control mode so that their reactive power
output during emergency conditions do not fall short of the reac-
tive capability. This is particularly true when the generators are
operating at points higher than rated real power so that the ar-
mature current heating limits restrict the reactive power output.
In such a situation, if the generator terminal voltage falls (due
to certain contingencies), the reactive output from the generator
would be much reduced and hence endanger system stability.
4) We also agree with Mr. Taylor that many grid codes do specify a
mandatory and an ancillary component for reactive power from
generators. This is found in the Australian ISO’s (NEMMCO)
grid code [4] as well as in California grid code [5], and it can be
observed that these specifications are very similar to each other.
A detailed discussion on reactive power management in various
countries can be found in [6] and [7].
5) That there are variations in the way reactive power is managed in
different systems is well expected. As Mr. Taylor has pointed out,
there is no “so-called” reactive power dispatch at BPA but the
voltage schedules are send to power plants, which then regulate
the voltage. We see for the California system on the other hand,
that the ISO procures reactive power services on long-term con-
tracts from must-run units [5]. The actual short-term requirement
is determined on a day-ahead basis, after the real power market is
settled and the energy demand and schedules are known. There-
after, the ISO determines the location-wise amount of reactive
power required (usually based on a system level reactive dispatch
routine) and daily voltage schedules are issued to contracted gen-
erators and the transmission operators within the region.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, MAY 2002
6) Mr. Taylor observes that our paper [1] suggested methods for re-
active dispatch. We would like to point out that our paper dwells
more on designing optimal reactive power contracts applicable
to the ISO rather than on reactive power dispatch per se. This
is brought out through the societal advantage function. It can be
seen that the results in Table I depict the optimal reactive dis-
patch, however these are not the optimal contracts for the ISO
since they incur negative social welfare. On the other hand, the
results in Table II, obtained after step-II, in spite of resulting in
a higher value of loss, is the optimal reactive power contract for
the ISO.
7) Voltage security is an important issue and we agree with Mr.
Taylor that this could be included in Step I of our procedure
through modification of the objective function. In a recent work
[8], this has been incorporated within an optimal power flow
framework that minimizes both generation costs and maximizes
the distance to voltage collapse.
8) Finally, on the observation that seldom do the generators reduce
real power output to increase reactive power generation. Our
work in [1] proposed an opportunity cost bid from the generators
who were willing to reduce their real power output to increase
the reactive power. At this stage, we again emphasize that, our
work is aimed at designing optimal contracts for the ISO, and
not reactive power scheduling. Provision for reactive power (in-
cluding the opportunity component) must be contracted by the
ISO a priori and on a long-term basis; and hence we incorpo-
rated it within our reactive bidding format. We do agree with Mr.
Taylor that the ISO shall request for backing down of real power
to increase reactive support, only during emergency situations
and this will not be required during normal situations. Neverthe-
less, the ISO needs to procure and contract for such services.
Again, we thank Mr. Taylor for his thought-provoking comments that
open up some further avenues for research, particularly those related to
inclusion of voltage security issues within our proposed framework.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Bhattacharya and J. Zhong, “Reactive power as an ancillary service,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 294–300, May 2001.
[2] R. Hirvonen, R. Beune, L. Mogridge, R. Martinez, K. Roudén, and O.
Vatshelle, “Is there a market for reactive power services—Possibilities
and problems,” in Proc. CIGRÉ Session, Paris, France, CIGRÉ Paper
39-213 (CIGRÉ JWG 39/11).
[3] North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), “NERC operating
policy-10 on interconnected operation services,” NERC, Princeton, NJ,
Draft-3.1, Feb. 2000.
[4] National Electricity Market Management Company, “National elec-
tricity market ancillary services,” NEMMC, Sydney, Australia, Nov.
1999.
[5] California Independent System Operator Corporation, “Ancillary ser-
vices requirement protocol,” FERC Electricity Tariff, First Replacement
Volume, Oct. 2000.
[6] K. Bhattacharya, M. H. J. Bollen, and J. E. Daalder, Operation of Re-
structured Power Systems. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 2001.
[7] J. Zhong and K. Bhattacharya, “Reactive power management in dereg-
ulated electricity markets: A review,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
Winter Meet., New York, 2002.
[8] W. Rosehart, C. Canizares, and V. Quintana, “Costs of voltage security
in electricity markets,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meet.,
vol. 4, 2000, pp. 2115–2120.