PJM Generator Interconnection
Queue #S62
LaSalle – Braidwood 345kV
(500MW Energy and 100MW Capacity)
System Impact Study Report
DOCS#: 545674v5
December 2010
Revised November 16, 2012
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
Preface
The intent of this System Impact Study is to determine a plan, with cost and construction
time estimates, to connect the subject generation to the PJM network at a location
specified by the Interconnection Customer. The Interconnection Customer may request
the interconnection of generation as a capacity resource or as an energy-only resource.
As a requirement for interconnection, the Interconnection Customer may be responsible
for the cost of constructing: (1) Direct Connections, which are new facilities and/or
facilities upgrades needed to connect the generator to the PJM network, and (2) Network
Upgrades, which are facility additions, or upgrades to existing facilities, that are needed
to maintain the reliability of the PJM system.
The PJM Reliability Planning Process utilizes PJM planning criteria, NERC Planning
Standards, NERC Regional Council planning criteria, and the individual Transmission
Owner FERC filed planning criteria. In all cases, PJM applies the most conservative of
all applicable planning criteria when identifying reliability problems and determining the
need for system upgrades on the PJM system. The application of the NERC Planning
Standards is adapted to the specific needs of the PJM system.
In some instances an interconnection customer may not be responsible for 100% of the
identified network upgrade cost because other transmission network uses, e.g. another
generation interconnection or merchant transmission upgrade, may also contribute to the
need for the same network reinforcement. All facilities required for interconnection of a
generation interconnection project must be designed in compliance with the technical
specifications (on PJM web site) for the appropriate Transmission Owner.
After the System Impact Study Agreement is executed and prior to execution of the
Interconnection Service Agreement, an Interconnection Customer may modify its project
to reduce the electrical output (MW) (in the case of a Generation Interconnection
Request) of the proposed project by up to the larger of 20 percent of the capability
considered in the System Impact Study or 50 MW.
The System Impact Study estimates do not include the feasibility, cost, or time required
to obtain property rights and permits for construction of the required facilities. The
project developer is responsible for the right of way, real estate, and construction permit
issues. For properties currently owned by Transmission Owners, the costs may be
included in the study.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
2
General
Invenergy Wind Development LLC has proposed a 500 MW Energy (100 MW Capacity)
wind farm facility to be interconnected to the ComEd transmission system on the 345kV
line 0104 between the LaSalle County to Braidwood nuclear stations. The developer has
indicated windfarm will consist of 334 GE 1.5MW wind turbine-generators, to be divided
on three 34kV collector busses, with a 34.5kV – 345kV transformer for each. The
proposed in-service date for this project was the fourth quarter of 2012, and needs to be
revised.
Attachment Facilities
The proposed interconnection of S62 into the existing 345kV line between LaSalle (STA
1) and Braidwood (STA 20) Substations via a new 345kV three-breaker substation is
depicted in Figure #1. This proposed interconnection would consist of looping the
existing 345kV line 0104 through the new 345kV Interconnection Substation, identified
as Brookfield Township Wind Farm TSS 966, which is to be sited adjacent to Line
0104’s Right-of-Way. The existing Line 0104 will be renumbered as Line 96604 to
Braidwood as indicated in Figure #1.
As shown on Figure #1, the Interconnection Customer is proposing to construct and own
a separate plant switchyard (Collector Substation) immediately adjacent to the
interconnection substation, which will serve as the collection point for the wind farm
generators and step-up the voltage from 34.5kV to 345kV. The 345 kV output will then
be transmitted to the Interconnection Substation.
The Interconnection Customer is responsible for constructing all of the facilities on the
Interconnection Customer side of the point of interconnection. It will be the
Interconnection Customer’s responsibility to obtain any required right-of-way between
the Interconnection Substation and existing ComEd right-of-way.
Direct Connection Cost Estimate
The scope of direct connection work includes installation of a new 345kV Substation
TSS 966 Brookfield Township with three (3) 345kv circuit breakers and tie in the new
Substation into the existing 345kV transmission line 0104 as shown in Figure 1. The total
preliminary estimate for Direct Connection work performed by ComEd is given for two
options in the following tables:
a) For ComEd to Build the new Substation
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
3
Description
Total Cost
Three 345kV breaker Interconnection Substation Brookfield Township
TSS 966 (assuming ComEd engineers, procures & builds the substation)
(PJM Network Upgrade Number #N2109)
$15,000,000
345kV transmission line tie-in (By ComEd) (PJM Network Upgrade
Number #N2110)
$ 2,000,000
Total
$17,000,000
b) For Customer Exercising Option to Build (Customer to build new substation)
Description
Total Cost
ComEd to review and approve substation engineering and to monitor
construction (Customer to engineer, procures & builds the new 345kV
substation) (PJM Network Upgrade Number #N2109)
$ 2,000,000
345kV transmission line tie-in (by ComEd) (PJM Network Upgrade
Number #N2110)
$2,000,000
Total
$4,000,000
Cost Estimate Notes:
1) These Estimates are Order-of-Magnitude estimates of the costs that ComEd would
bill to the customer for this interconnection. These estimates are based on a one-line
electrical diagram of the project and the information provided to PJM and ComEd by
the Interconnection Customer.
2) These cost estimates do not include cost of acquiring right-of-way for the
transmission line and purchasing any additional land, if needed, for the line
terminations. The need and cost of acquiring property and associated legal costs will
be investigated during Facilities Study for this project.
3) There were no site visits performed for these estimates. There may be costs related
to specific site related issues that are not identified in these estimates. The site
reviews will be performed during the Facilities Study or during detailed engineering.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
4
4) These estimates are not a guarantee of the maximum amount payable by the
Interconnection Customer and the actual costs of ComEd's work may differ
significantly from these estimates. Per the PJM Tariff, Interconnection Customer will
be responsible for paying all actual costs of ComEd's work.
5) The Interconnection Customer is responsible for all engineering, procurement,
testing and construction of all equipment on the Interconnection Customer’s side of
the Point of Interconnection (POI).
Project Schedule Notes:
The total timeframe to complete engineering, procurement and construction for the
ComEd portion of this project is approximately 18 – 24 months after the Interconnection
Service Agreement (ISA) and Construction Service Agreement (CSA) are executed.
Scope of Non-Direct Connection Work
There is relay and control work required at the remote ends of the lines due to the
interconnection of the S62 wind facility and communication equipment to ensure system
reliability.
Non-Direct Connection Cost Estimate
The total preliminary cost estimate for Non-Direct Connection work performed by
ComEd is $1,000,000 (split between PJM Network Upgrade #N2111 for LaSalle and
#N2112 for Braidwood) for remote end relay upgrades and communications.
Cost Estimate Notes:
1) These Estimates are Order-of-Magnitude estimates of the costs that ComEd would
bill to the customer for this interconnection. These estimates are based on a one-line
electrical diagram of the project and the information provided to PJM and ComEd by
the Interconnection Customer.
2) There were no site visits performed for these estimates. There may be costs related
to specific site related issues that are not identified in these estimates. The site
reviews will be performed during the Facilities Study or during detailed engineering.
3) These estimates are not a guarantee of the maximum amount payable by the
Interconnection Customer and the actual costs of ComEd's work may differ
significantly from these estimates. Per the PJM Tariff, Interconnection Customer will
be responsible for paying all actual costs of ComEd's work.
Project Schedule Notes:
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
5
The total timeframe to complete engineering, procurement, and construction for the
ComEd portion of this project is approximately 18 – 24 months after the Interconnection
Services Agreement (ISA) and Construction Services Agreement (CSA) are executed.
Revenue Metering and SCADA Requirements
For PJM: The Interconnection Customer will install equipment necessary to provide
Revenue Metering (KWH, KVARH) and real time data (KW, KVAR) for IC’s generating
Resource. See PJM Manuals M-01 and M-14D, and PJM Tariff Section 24.1 to 24.2.
For ComEd: The Interconnection Customer will install equipment necessary to provide
bi-directional Revenue Metering (KWH, KVARH) and real time data (KW, KVAR,
circuit breaker status, and 345 kV voltage) for IC’s generating Resource. See ComEd
Applicable Standards available on the PJM website (“TO Standards”) – “Exelon Energy
Delivery Interconnection Guidelines (Generators Greater than 20 MW)”.
Figure 1. Interconnection Single Line Diagram
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
6
Network Impacts
The S62 project was studied as a 500 MW (100 MW Capacity) injection into the LaSalle
County to Braidwood Blue 345 kV line 0104 in the ComEd area. Project S62 was
evaluated for compliance with reliability criteria for summer peak conditions in 2012.
Potential network impacts were as follows:
Generator Deliverability
(Single or N-1 contingencies for the Capacity portion only of the interconnection)
No problems were identified.
Multiple Facility Contingency
(Double Circuit Tower Line contingencies were studied for the full energy output. The
contingencies of Line with Failed Breaker and Bus Fault will be performed for the
Impact Study.)
Item
Contribution
MVA
1a
31.02
Overload %
Rating
Overloaded
Contingency
Element
Element
From
To
Type MVA
LASCOPMP
tower outage
to
of '345MAZON;B
98.93% 108.90% ALDR 264.5 L0101__B138 kV line
S_+_345(36956 to
L0102__R-S'
36968)
Short Circuit
(Summary of impacted circuit breakers)
No problems were identified
Contribution to Previously Identified Overloads
(S62 contributes to the following contingency overloads, i.e. "Network Impacts",
identified for earlier generation or transmission interconnection projects in the PJM
Queue)
No problems were identified.
Steady-State Voltage Requirements
(Summary of VAR requirements based upon the results of the steady-state voltage
studies.)
None.
Stability and Reactive Power Requirement for Low Voltage Ride Through
(Summary of VAR requirements based upon the results of the dynamic studies.)
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
7
The stability analysis of this project will be performed as part of the Facilities Study.
The Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) study will also be performed during the Queue
S62 Facilities Study.
New System Reinforcements
(Upgrades required to mitigate reliability criteria violations, i.e. Network Impacts,
initially caused by the addition of this project generation)
1. Referring to item #1a, the overload of LaSalle to Mazon 138kV line 0108 is
caused initially by the common tower outage of LaSalle to Plano 345kV blue line
0101 and LaSalle to Plano 345kV red line 0102. This overload can be relieved by
increasing the thermal rating along approximately 10.25 miles of 138 kV line
0108. The estimated cost for this upgrade is $8,000,000. The estimated time to
complete this upgrade is 18-24 months.
Potential Issues
Impacts to an Affected System (MISO) have not been determined at this time.
Light Load Reliability Analysis
(Summary of any reinforcements required to mitigate system reliability issues during
light load periods. This light load study was evaluated for compliance with reliability
criteria for Light Load conditions in 2014.)
Generator Deliverability for Light Load
None
Multiple Facility Contingency for Light Load
(Double Circuit Tower Line, Line with Failed Breaker and Bus Fault
contingencies for the full energy output)
1. (205/218) The 05TWIN B - 18ARGNTA 345kV line (from bus 243234 to
bus 256000 ckt 1) is overloaded to 106.93% of its rating 1409MVA for the
Tower contingency 427 scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 25.85MW to the thermal violation.
Contribution to Previously Identified Overloads for Light Load
(This project contributes to the following contingency overloads, i.e. "Network
Impacts", identified for earlier generation or transmission interconnection
projects in the PJM Queue)
2. (205/205) The 05OLIVE - 05DUMONT 345kV line (from bus 243229 to
bus 243219 ckt 2) is overloaded to 152.83% of its rating 1272MVA for the
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
8
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 51.21MW to the thermal violation.
3. (217/217) The 17BABCOK - 17STLWEL 345kV line (from bus 255100
to bus 255113 ckt 1) is overloaded to 145.08% of its rating 1906MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 89.88MW to the thermal violation.
4. (217/217) The 17BUROAK - 17LESBRG 345kV line (from bus 255101
to bus 255106 ckt 1) is overloaded to 114.96% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 38.16MW to the thermal violation.
5. (217/217) The 17GARYAV - 17DUNACR 345kV line (from bus 255251
to bus 255103 ckt 1) is overloaded to 102.41% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 43.28MW to the thermal violation.
6. (217/222) The 17GRNACR - G ACR; T 345kV line (from bus 255104 to
bus 270771 ckt 1) is overloaded to 144.73% of its rating 1091MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 51.04MW to the thermal violation.
7. (217/217) The 17MUNSTR - 17LKGORG 345kV line (from bus 255109
to bus 255107 ckt 1) is overloaded to 143.7% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 56.94MW to the thermal violation.
8. (217/217) The 17SCHAHF - 17BUROAK 345kV line (from bus 255110
to bus 255101 ckt 1) is overloaded to 135.76% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 45.3MW to the thermal violation.
9. (217/217) The 17SHEFLD - 17GARYAV 345kV line (from bus 255111
to bus 255251 ckt 1) is overloaded to 118.6% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 46.65MW to the thermal violation.
10. (217/222) The 17STJOHN - S JOH; T 345kV line (from bus 255112 to
bus 270886 ckt 1) is overloaded to 152.83% of its rating 1091MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 58.58MW to the thermal violation.
11. (217/205) The 17STLWEL - 05DUMONT 345kV line (from bus 255113
to bus 243219 ckt 1) is overloaded to 172.24% of its rating 1598MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 91.91MW to the thermal violation.
12. (222/217) The BURNH; B - 17SHEFLD 345kV line (from bus 270674 to
bus 255111 ckt 1) is overloaded to 174.87% of its rating 1069MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 52.16MW to the thermal violation.
13. (222/217) The BURNH;0R - 17MUNSTR 345kV line (from bus 270677
to bus 255109 ckt 1) is overloaded to 169.39% of its rating 1195MVA for
the Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 64.3MW to the thermal violation.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
9
14. (222/222) The COLLI; - COLLI;2M 765/345kV transformer is overloaded
to 147.36% of its rating 1379MVA for the Single contingency 765L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes approximately
32.33MW to the thermal violation.
15. (222/222) The COLLI; - WILTO; 765kV line (from bus 270607 to bus
270644 ckt 1) is overloaded to 125.95% of its rating 4142MVA for the
Single contingency Base Case scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 120.14MW to the thermal violation.
16. (222/222) The COLLI; - WILTO; 765kV line (from bus 270607 to bus
270644 ckt 1) is overloaded to 122.05% of its rating 4460MVA for the
Single contingency 345-L2001__B-S scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 131.28MW to the thermal violation.
17. (222/222) The COLLI;2M - COLLI; R 345kV line (from bus 275168 to
bus 270697 ckt 1) is overloaded to 147.35% of its rating 1379MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 32.33MW to the thermal violation.
18. (222/217) The CRETE;BP - 17STJOHN 345kV line (from bus 274750 to
bus 255112 ckt 1) is overloaded to 167.2% of its rating 1334MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 76.6MW to the thermal violation.
19. (222/222) The E FRA; B - CRETE;BP 345kV line (from bus 270728 to
bus 274750 ckt 1) is overloaded to 167.54% of its rating 1334MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 76.6MW to the thermal violation.
20. (222/222) The E FRA; R - UPNOR;RP 345kV line (from bus 270729 to
bus 274804 ckt 1) is overloaded to 165.57% of its rating 1091MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 60.83MW to the thermal violation.
21. (222/205) The G ACR; T - 05OLIVE 345kV line (from bus 270771 to bus
243229 ckt 1) is overloaded to 144.34% of its rating 1091MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 51.04MW to the thermal violation.
22. (222/205) The WILTO; - 05DUMONT 765kV line (from bus 270644 to
bus 243206 ckt 1) is overloaded to 138.74% of its rating 4444MVA for the
Single contingency NIPS9 scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 170.19MW to the thermal violation.
23. (222/205) The WILTO; - 05DUMONT 765kV line (from bus 270644 to
bus 243206 ckt 1) is overloaded to 141.81% of its rating 4047MVA for the
Single contingency Base Case scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 153.09MW to the thermal violation.
24. (205/205) The R60_S72_TAP - T130 POI 345kV line (from bus 99202 to
bus 90986 ckt 1) is overloaded to 173.04% of its rating 878MVA for the
Single contingency 361_B2 scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 32.21MW to the thermal violation.
25. (222/217) The S JOH; T - 17GRNACR 345kV line (from bus 270886 to
bus 255104 ckt 1) is overloaded to 152.78% of its rating 1091MVA for the
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
10
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 58.58MW to the thermal violation.
26. (205/205) The T130 POI - 05E LIMA 345kV line (from bus 90986 to bus
242935 ckt 1) is overloaded to 194.16% of its rating 878MVA for the
Single contingency 361_B2 scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 32.21MW to the thermal violation.
27. (222/205) The UPNOR;RP - 05OLIVE 345kV line (from bus 274804 to
bus 243229 ckt 1) is overloaded to 164.68% of its rating 1091MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11215__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 60.83MW to the thermal violation.
28. (222/222) The WILTO; B - WILTO;4M 345kV line (from bus 270926 to
bus 275233 ckt 1) is overloaded to 169.05% of its rating 1601MVA for the
Line_FB contingency 112-65-BT2-3__ scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 78.72MW to the thermal violation.
29. (222/222) The WILTO; B - WILTO;4M 345kV line (from bus 270926 to
bus 275233 ckt 1) is overloaded to 123.61% of its rating 1379MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 49.52MW to the thermal violation.
30. (222/222) The WILTO; R - WILTO;3M 345kV line (from bus 270927 to
bus 275232 ckt 1) is overloaded to 168.47% of its rating 1601MVA for the
Line_FB contingency 112-65-BT5-6__ scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 78.76MW to the thermal violation.
31. (222/222) The WILTO; R - WILTO;3M 345kV line (from bus 270927 to
bus 275232 ckt 1) is overloaded to 123.49% of its rating 1379MVA for the
Single contingency 765-L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 49.62MW to the thermal violation.
32. (222/222) The WILTO;3M - WILTO; 345/765kV transformer is
overloaded to 169.03% of its rating 1601MVA for the Line_FB
contingency 112-65-BT5-6__ scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 78.76MW to the thermal violation.
33. (222/222) The WILTO;3M - WILTO; 345/765kV transformer is
overloaded to 123.48% of its rating 1379MVA for the Single contingency
765-L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes approximately
49.62MW to the thermal violation.
34. (222/222) The WILTO;3M - WILTO; R 345kV line (from bus 275232 to
bus 270927 ckt 1) is overloaded to 106.06% of its rating 1601MVA for the
Line_FB contingency 112-65-BT4-5__ scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 30.1MW to the thermal violation.
35. (222/222) The WILTO;4M - WILTO; 345/765kV transformer is
overloaded to 169.05% of its rating 1601MVA for the Line_FB
contingency 112-65-BT2-3__ scenario. The S62 project contributes
approximately 78.72MW to the thermal violation.
36. (222/222) The WILTO;4M - WILTO; 345/765kV transformer is
overloaded to 123.6% of its rating 1379MVA for the Single contingency
765-L11216__-S scenario. The S62 project contributes approximately
49.52MW to the thermal violation.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
11
37. (222/222) The WILTO;4M - WILTO; B 345kV line (from bus 275233 to
bus 270926 ckt 1) is overloaded to 105.65% of its rating 1601MVA for the
Line_FB contingency 112-65-BT3-4__ scenario. The S62 project
contributes approximately 30.11MW to the thermal violation.
Steady-State Voltage Requirements
(Results of the steady-state voltage studies should be inserted here)
The S62 project contributes to multiple voltage problems in ComEd, AEP, and
NIPSCO areas.
New System Reinforcements
(Upgrades required to mitigate reliability criteria violations, i.e. Network Impacts,
initially caused by the addition of this project generation)
None
Contribution to Previously Identified System Reinforcements
(Overloads initially caused by prior Queue positions with additional contribution
to overloading by this project. This project may have a % allocation cost
responsibility which will be calculated and reported for the Impact Study)
(Summary form of Cost allocation for transmission lines and transformers will be
inserted here if any)
1. Sorenson – East Lima 345kV. Cost $115M.
Queue Project
S57/58
S62
Impact, MW
63.6
32.21
Impact, %
66.38%
33.62%
Cost, $M
76.3386
38.6614
2. Voltage/Thermal Upgrades. Cost $352M:
Upgrades:
n3436
n3437
n3448
Cost,
$M
Description
Collins - Meadow Lake 765kV line
Meadow Lake Station work for Collins-Meadow Lake line
250 MVAR Cap at Dumont 765kV sub
Queue Project
S57/58
S62
Impact, MW
1728.685
153.09
Impact, %
89.18%
7.90%
330
10
12
Cost ,$M
313.9060
27.7991
The following MISO MVP projects are also required for this project, but at this
time no cost allocation is given to S62:
ISO MVP project included in the study:
 Greentown – Meadow Lake 765kv line
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
12
TO
CE
AEP
AEP


Meadow Lake 765/345kV transformer
Reynolds - Hiple 345 kV
MISO has approved a 765kV line from Reynolds – Green Town, therefore,
the final path of the Meadow Lake Green Town 765kV line MISO MVP
project will be reviewed during the Facilities Study. Should the MISO MVP
projects be withdrawn from MISO’s baseline, these projects would still have
to be built by S57/S58 and subsequently queued projects.
Potential Issues to Adjacent RTO’s
Additional impacts may be defined in the Facilities Study.
Delivery of Energy Portion of Interconnection Request
PJM also studied the delivery of the energy portion of this interconnection request. Any
problems identified below are likely to result in operational restrictions to the project
under study. The developer can proceed with network upgrades to eliminate the
operational restriction at their discretion by submitting a Merchant Transmission
Interconnection request.
Table 1 below provides a summary of the congestion caused or contributed to by the S62
project on the ComEd transmission system:
Item
2a
2a
Overload %
Contribution Overloaded
MVA
Element
From
To
PLANO;R
to
ELECT;4R
59.71
97.02% 100.43%
345 kV line
(36373 to
36311)
PLANO;R
to
ELECT;4R
47.36
98.53% 101.53%
345 kV line
(36373 to
36311)
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
13
Rating
Type
MVA
Contingency
Element
ER
1739
operation
outage of
'345L16704_B-S'
NR
1339
Base case