1. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Economic assessment of PQ solutions Helge SELJESETH – Norway – RT 2b – Economic assessment of PQ solutions

2. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Customer(s) complaint(s) Evaluation/ verification of complaint(s) (measurements) NO No action required In compliance with nat.reg.(or int. std.) May PQ mitigation/solutions be economic? YES Selecting the best eco./tech. compromise YES Statistical PQ measurement

3. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Examples of PQ solutions  Network reinforcements Thicker lines/cables Larger transformer Increased system voltage etc  Voltage booster  STATCOM  Synchronized switches  Petersen coils/Arc suppression coils  Local production (may be both at problem and a solution)  Grounding  Surge arrestors  Protection circuits and adjusting/tuning protection circuits  Passive filters/Active filters  Maintenance level  Uninterruptible power supplies – UPS  Soft starters and frequency converters  Emergency generators  ETC…

4. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Considerations selecting PQ solution:  Technical reasons  Economic reasons  (Environmental / Esthetic reasons)

5. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Relative consequences of voltage disturbances for different customer categories in Norway (1993 – 2010) Households Commercial services (without ”Infrastructure”) Governmental services (without ”Infrastructure”) Industry (without ”Large customers”) Large customers Infrastructure Frequency of the supply voltageLowMediumLowHigh Medium Supply voltage variationsMediumMedium/high Voltage dipMedium Medium/high Voltage swellsMedium/high Rapid voltage changeLow/medium Low FlickerMedium Low/medium Transient over-voltagesHigh UnbalanceLow/mediumMedium Medium/high Low/medium Harmonic voltageMedium Medium/high Medium Interharmonic voltageLow Low/medium Low REPORT for: Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) Study on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances

6. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Results from customer surveys give a better foundation for optimisation of power quality  Planning of power systems (expansions...) Basis for concession applications, justifications of investmens etc  Operation and maintenance Cost-benefit of PQ improving measures, priorities for load shedding, contingency planning, preventive maintenance etc  Policies, standards and criteria for PQ Guaranteed PQ levels, contracts, softened N-1 criterion etc.  Monitoring PQ Actual levels vs standards, expectations etc  PQ regulation (taking explicitly account of PQ costs) Incentive based regulation, penalty schemes etc.

7. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Economic assessment of PQ solutions

8. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Total costs VS customer costs (net costs)

9. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Real life experiences  Some times quite easy decision Easy to see what is the economic solution  Some times very difficult to make a decision purely on economic evaluation Difficult to specify the costs for low PQ (flicker, RVC)

10. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 10 Location 1Location 2 Year(1)(2)(3)(1)(2)(3) 1990 9140594354 1991 145398100601 1992 1068484 4101275 1993 490161223 1994 750561152 1995 1100459203 1996 2030710024 5 1 1997 1130812401 1998 1561011000 1999 114053312 1 Temporary earth faults – self extinguishing faults. 2 Temporary earth faults causing short interruption – auto reclosure. 3 Sustained earth faults. 4 Peterson coil in operation in location 1 from medio August 1992. 5 Peterson coil in operation in location 2 from ultimo August 1996. Petersen coil (Arc suppression coil)

11. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011  Increase the voltage at the far end of distribution lines  An alternative to distribution network reinforcements http://www.magtech.no/ Voltage booster

12. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011

14. GAS treatment and export plant  2-side supply (ring)  Interruptions do not often occur  The plant trips several times per year due to network related events - mainly voltage dips.  The events causing trip are mainly supplied through only one of the supplying lines -> single sided supply would have reduced the number of plant trip to less than half  The reason for the events are to a significant extent the network configuration  The most economic solution would be to supply the plant from one side only if only the available power was high enough

15. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 2 cases of flicker from harmonic voltages  What is the cost of flicker?  How bad must the conditions be before mitigation must be performed?  In both these cases the limit value value for Plt of EN50160 and both Pst and Plt of the Norwegian PO regulations were not exceeded.

16. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!