Engineering Study Report for AUC Application - Template

Connection Engineering Study Report for filing – Connection Assessment Recommendations Project Title

Role Name Date Signature

Prepared: AESO Engineer, P. Eng.

Reviewed: AESO Engineer, P. Eng.

Manager, Projects and System Access Approved: Studies, P. Eng.

Version: Click and type version number

Engineering Stamp APEGA Permit to Practice P-08200 Note: The conclusion and recommendations stated in this Report are based on results listed in the Connection Assessment Results report prepared by a third party as part of the AESO’s connection process (Attachment A of this report). The AESO has reviewed the Connection Assessment Results Report, and finds it acceptable for the purpose of assessing potential impacts of the proposed connection on the transmission system.

In the event that the report contains distribution facility owner analysis or decisions regarding their electric distribution systems, the AESO only reviews and accepts transmission components. The AESO should revise the text above to include the following:

Optional statement - While the DFO’s plans are considered during the transmission planning process, the AESO, in exercising its duties to plan the transmission system, does not oversee distribution planning or the development of specific DFO planning criteria.

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 3 R2-2012-03-21 Executive Summary

What to include in Executive Summary:  The Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the report. Be brief. Make sure the information in the Executive Summary and the information in the Summary and Conclusion are consistent.  Instructional statements are italicized with 10 font size.  Acronyms should be defined first before being used in the Executive Summary. Acronyms should be defined again in the main body of the Engineering Study Report in the first instance they are used.  If referring to a transmission line, please use the following format: 138 kV transmission line 123L (from 345S substation to 678S substation).  If referring to a substation, please use the following format: the ABC 345S substation.

Project Overview [Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator for [Demand Transmis sion Service and/or Supply Transmission Service] of XXXMW for at [Project location, e.g., south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project). The requested In-Service Date for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date as per the SASR request].

Existing System The Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie (Area 20)], as part of [The AESO Region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region]. Only if Applicable The existing constraints in [The AESO Region, e.g., the NW Region] are managed in accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO rules, Real Time Transmission Constraint Management. This section will then describe the ‘overview of existing system’. Please describe the Key substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighboring areas. Below is an example of the write up: [The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation, connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie planning area (Area 20); the other is transmission line 7L80, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S substation, which further connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview planning area (Area 23) via transmission line 7L40.]

Study Summary Study Area for the Project

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 4 R2-2012-03-21 The Study Area for the Project consisted of [The AESO Planning areas, e.g., the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas], including the tie lines connecting [Specify how many planning areas will be included in the Study Area, e.g., the two] planning areas to the rest of the AIES. All transmission facilities within [Specify how many planning areas will be included in the Study Are a, e.g., the two] planning areas were studied and monitored for violations of the Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability Criteria). The [Insert the number and volt age rating of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of the AIES, e.g., five (5) 144 kV] transmission lines connecting the [The AESO Planning area names, e.g., the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas] to the rest of the AIES (namely transmission lines [Ins ert the designation of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of the AIES, e.g. 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40] were also studied and monitored to identify any violations of the Reliability Criteria. Studies Performed for the Project This section will provide a high level description of the studies performed to assess the impact of connecting the Project to the AIES. Below is an example of the write up: [Load flow analysis was performed for the 2016 summer peak (SP) and winter peak (WP) pre- Project and post-Project scenarios, with the 2016 AIES topology in the NW Region, to determine the impact of the connection of the Project on the AIES. Voltage stability analysis was performed for the 2016 WP post-Project scenario to identify violations, if any, of the voltage stability criteria. Short-circuit analysis was performed for the 2016 WP pre-Project scenario and for the 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios to determine the short-circuit levels in the vicinity of the Project.] Results of the pre-Project Studies 1 Please follow the structure of the pre-Project study results as follows. Below is an example of the write up: The following is a summary of the results of the pre-Project studies. 201X SP Category A (N-G-0 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-0 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category A scenario. Below is an example of the write up: [Under Category A conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the pre- Project scenarios] Category B (N-G-1 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-1 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category B scenario. Below is an example of the write up: [Under Category B conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the pre- Project scenarios]

Connection alternatives examined for the Project

1These results are detailed in the Connection Assessment Results Report prepared by a third party as part of the AESOs connection process (Attachment A of this Report).

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 5 R2-2012-03-21 Each Alternative should include details on what neighbouring substations/lines will be involved and what associated equipment will be added for each alternative. Please use the same wording from the Project’s Connection Study Scope to describe each alternative. Below is a new DTS example of the write up: In the Project’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR) dated [YYYY-MM-DD], the [Distribution Facility Owner] in [The Project area, e.g., south of Grande Prairie], examined and ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the additional load [Only if Applicable]. This engineering study report will examine the following transmission alternatives to serve [Requeste d Demand Transmisson Service]. Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via an in/out connection configuration. Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a T-tap connection configuration. Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a radial connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number]. Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number] substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number] substation. Connection alternatives selected for further examination Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project and state the rationale for ruling out the rest of the Alternatives.  Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR)  Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates)  Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that would result in ruling out a specific alternative. Below is an example of the write up: [Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study. Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development for no incremental benefit and were not selected for further study.]

Results of the post-Project studies 2 Please compare study results between selected Alternatives under each study scenario. The following is a summary of the results of the post-Project studies. 201X SP Category A (N-G-0 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-0 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Cat A scenario. Category B (N-G-1 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-1 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Category B scenario. Below are examples of the write up:

2 These results are detailed in Attachment A that has been prepared by a third party as part of the AESOs connection process (Connection Assessment Results Report).

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 6 R2-2012-03-21 [Marginal thermal violations on the 144 kV line 7L50 from Battle River 757S to Buffalo Creek 726S were observed following the 144 kV line 7L53 contingency from Bonnyville 700S to Irish Creek 706S. This line has clearance issues and continuous flow above the stated ratings cannot be sustained; however, since the line loading is less than 100.8% this will be managed by real time operational practices. or

Voltage criteria violations were observed following the loss of the transmission line designated as 7L228. The violations were observed at the Kakwa Ridge 857S, HR Milner 740S, Dome Cutbank 810S and Thornton 2091S substations. To mitigate these violations, it would require a remedial action scheme (RAS) to trip the new Thornton 2091S substation. Following the 7L228 contingency, the load served by the Thornton 2091S substation would be left unserved. Following the loss of 7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette 733S) a minor post-transient deviation of 10.5% the Simonette 733S POD bus was noted; this is marginally higher than the 10% guideline. The TFO and DFO have confirmed that such marginal voltage deviation does not impose any operational restriction.]

Mitigation Strategy and Sensitivity Analysis [as required] 2 Please summarize how to mitigate the identified Reliability Criterial violations in these pre- and post- Project studies. This section is detailed in the Connection Assessment Results Report prepared by a third party as part of the AESOs connection process (Attachment A of this Report).

Recommendation This section will provide the recommendation of this project including selected Alternative, new equipment and mitigation measure (if required). Below is an example of the write up: [The recommended alternative to connect the Facilities is Alternative 2, building the new 144/6.9 kV POD substation Vincent 2019S. The Project will include:  Tapping the 144 kV line 7L65 and building 0.15 km of 144 kV line to connect the new Vincent 2019S POD substation.  Installing one 20/26.6/33.3 MVA, 144 kV to 6.9 kV LTC transformer, one 144 kV transformer breaker, and associated equipment. The 25 MVAr 144 kV capacitor at Irish Creek 706S, as identified in the 2015 Long-term Transmission Plan (LTP), is required prior to the Project ISD, since the inclusion of this capacitor bank mitigates all criteria violations noted in the pre- and post-connection results.]

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 7 R2-2012-03-21 Contents

Executive Summary...... 3 1. Connection Alternatives...... 9 1.1. Overview...... 9 1.2. Connection Alternatives Identified...... 9 1.2.1. Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies...... 9 1.2.2. Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies...... 10 2. Project Interdependencies...... 11 3. Conclusion and Recommendation...... 12

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 8 R2-2012-03-21 Attachments

Attachment A Connection Assessment Results Report

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 9 R2-2012-03-21 1. Connection Alternatives

1.1. Overview

Section 1 is to list all the conceptual connection alternatives considered. Please refer to the alternative section in the signed study scope. If any additional alternatives were added during the studies, please include the additional alternatives and explain why the alternatives were proposed. Below is an example of the write up: [The DFO examined and ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the load additions3. This engineering study report examined four transmission alternatives to serve the Project, as detailed in Section 1.2.]

1.2. Connection Alternatives Identified

Describe each connection alternative separately with associated single-line diagrams. For each alternative, provide single-line diagrams (SLDs) for the proposed facilities. Below is an example of the write up: [Four alternatives were examined in this report. A description of the developments associated with each alternative is provided below. Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via an in/out connection configuration. Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via a T- tap connection configuration. Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via a radial connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number]. Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number] substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number] substation. The line length of each alternative will be subject to change after line routing by TFO. ]

1.2.1. Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies

Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project. [Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study.]

3 The DFO’s report detailing this analysis is included in section [YY] of the [DFO Legal Name] Distribution Deficiency Report, [DDR Report Title], which is filed under a separate cover.

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 10 R2-2012-03-21 1.2.2. Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies

Please state the rationale for ruling out the Alternatives. If available,  Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR)  Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates)  Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that would result in ruling out a specific alternative. Below is an example of the write up: [Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development and were not selected for further studies. Alternative 3: In addition to adding a new POD and converting the existing T-tap connection configuration of Dome Cutbank 810S to an in/out connection configuration, ATCO has advised that Alternative 3 involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. ATCO has also advised that the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation is constrained on all sides. Therefore, Alternative 3 involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 involves upgrading the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation, including either (i) adding two 144 kV breakers and replacing the two existing 144/25 kV 10/13 MVA transformers and one voltage regulator with two 144/25 kV transformers of a higher capacity, or (ii) adding one 144 kV breaker and a 144/25 kV 30/40/50 MVA LTC transformer. ATCO has advised that Alternative 4 also involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. As with Alternative 3, this transmission alternative involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments.]

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 11 R2-2012-03-21 2. Project Interdependencies

Discuss if there are any interdependencies between this project and other system projects and customer connection projects. Indicate the impact of such interdependencies between the projects. Below are some examples of the write up: Example for no project independency [The Projects are not dependent on the future developments of the AESO Long Term Plan for the region.]

Examples for project dependency [Transmission voltage criteria violations identified both pre- and post- Projects indicate the need for the Irish Creek 706S capacitor addition, as identified in the 2015 LTP, prior to the 2017 WP.] Another example [The Project is dependent on line 7L44 relay tele-communication upgrade to mitigate instability of Lowe Lake (NPP1) generator on a fault on line 7L44. The existing relay upgrade at Flyingshot 749S and Big Mountain 847S substation is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2016 (ATCO capital maintenance project). This upgrade will incorporate tele-communication functionality, i.e., communications assisted tripping, and will allow for reduced fault clearing times of 8 cycles for a remote fault on line 7L44. Upon the completion of this capital maintenance project, the NPP1 request to increase its STS contract from 93 MW to 105 MW can be realized.]

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 12 R2-2012-03-21 3. Conclusion and Recommendation

Copy and paste the executive summary here in its entirety.

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 13 R2-2012-03-21 Attachment A

Connection Assessment Results Report

R[x] Public Transmission Project Delivery 14 R2-2012-03-21