IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO.
6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1997
Estimation of Reactive Power Export and Import
Capability for Non-Utility Generators
Gregory J. Nolan, Senior Member, IEEE, Ezzat B. Khalafalla, Senior Member, IEEE, Edmund H. Arnold,
Donald E. Winge, Member, IEEE, and Brandon S. Swartley, Member, IEEE
Abstract— Non-utility generators (NUG’s) are typically re-
quired by their electric power sales agreement to have the
capability to supply power to the purchasing utility near unity
power factor. With the advent of large combustion turbine
generators, many NUG’s are simple or combined cycle facilities
with generating capacities in excess of 100 MW. Utilities are
recognizing that these large NUG facilities can be significant
contributors to the reactive power [megavars (MVAR’s)] flow
needed to support system requirements and transmission level
grid voltages. NUG’s are now being dispatched for MVAR export
and import activities to meet utility requirements. The ability
of a NUG to export or import MVAR’s is highly dependent
on the actual transmission intertie voltage level. Unless plant-
specific studies are performed, this capacity can be difficult to
ascertain for the NUG operating and engineering personnel. This
paper presents a method, based on system load-flow studies, for
estimating the capacity of a NUG to export or import MVAR’s at
a given transmission intertie voltage level. It also explores other
key variables which determine the ability of a NUG to export or
import VAR’s. This methodology can be used to aid operating
personnel at existing facilities or as a guide during the design of
a new facility.
Index Terms—Generator excitation, load-flow analysis, MVAR
dispatch, non-utility generators (NUG’s), power dispatch, power
factor rating, reactive power capability, transformer impedance.
I. SUMMARY
W HEN a non-utility generator (NUG) facility is required
to export or import reactive power, several issues must
be given consideration. First, the capacity of the facility must
be determined at its normal megawatt output levels. If the
plant is still in the design phase, it may be desirable to structure
generator and step-up transformer specifications to achieve the
desired megavar (MVAR) capacity. If it is an existing plant,
the step-up transformer tap settings may be investigated to
shift MVAR peak production capacity to the transmission grid
operating voltage levels where the capacity will be utilized.
The second issue is to provide engineering and operat-
ing personnel with guidance in determining facility MVAR
production capability. Since MVAR export and import capac-
Paper ICPSD 95–26, presented at the 1995 IEEE/IAS Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX, May
7–11, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY
APPLICATIONS by the Energy Systems Committee of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society. Manuscript released for publication November 20, 1996.
G. J. Nolan, E. B. Khalafalla, E. H. Arnold, and B. S. Swartley are with
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 USA.
D. E. Winge is with Atlantic Generation, Inc., Mays Landing, NJ 08330
USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(97)07837-7.
0093–9994/97$10.00  1997 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1423
ity varies greatly with the actual transmission grid voltage
level and system stiffness, MVAR production capacity at
any specific grid voltage can be difficult to determine. How-
ever, load-flow analysis at maximum and minimum generator
excitation settings can be performed to determine MVAR
export or import capacity at specific facility MW production
and transmission grid voltage levels. This information can
be presented graphically to enable operating personnel to
accurately estimate MVAR export and import capacity at a
specific grid voltage level.
II. INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of this paper, cogenerators and NUG’s
which supply electrical power to the utility grid will be
grouped into the single term NUG’s. Electricity generated
by utilities or NUG’s and transmitted onto the grid has two
components. Real power (megawatts) is the component which
represents energy delivered by a prime mover and generator.
Reactive power (MVAR’s) represents magnetizing current
provided or consumed solely by the generator. Typically,
generators export (provide) MVAR’s to the system to support
system and load magnetizing current requirements. Labeling
reactive power as a form of power or energy is a misnomer,
because minimal input fuel or energy is required to produce
MVAR’s. Since reactive power is a commonly used industry
term, it is also applied in this paper. On rare occasions,
generators may be called upon to consume or import MVAR’s
to support system needs. However, during the great majority
of the time, generators are either operating at lagging power
factor by exporting MVAR’s into the grid or are operating
at unity power factor. During light load conditions, NUG’s
may be required to import (absorb) reactive power from
the network to reduce grid system voltage to acceptable
levels. Megawatts and MVAR’s are combined vectorially
to produce a resultant, megavoltamperes. Megavoltampere
flow determines actual electrical equipment sizing and system
capacity requirements.
NUG’s are frequently operated near unity power factor at
their grid intertie for maximum plant efficiency. Only enough
MVAR’s are generated by the NUG’s to support in-plant
or parasitic (auxiliary) loads. Because of the large size of
some NUG’s and because NUG’s are constituting a larger
portion of grid’s total capacity, they are now being dispatched
by utilities to export or import MVAR’s. Large NUG’s are
almost always intertied to the grid at transmission level
voltages. The actual voltage level at the transmission intertie
1424 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1997
and system stiffness dictates the ability of a NUG to export
or import MVAR’s at any point in time. Also, various key
equipment parameters play an important role in determining
the capacity of a NUG to export or import MVAR’s. This
paper explores the major variables in this area, and it presents
a methodology for estimating the capacity of a NUG to export
or import MVAR’s at a given transmission intertie voltage
level.
III. MVAR PRODUCTION AND DISPATCH
The dispatching of MVAR’s is an important tool for utili-
ties to maintain proper transmission system performance and
stable voltage levels. On distribution systems, the exporting
of MVAR’s by generating stations compensates for customer
and system demand and tends to increase transmission level
voltages. Reactive power (MVAR’s) is dispatched by utilities
similar to real power (megawatts). Economics are also a
consideration in the dispatching of MVAR’s, primarily because
exporting MVAR’s may limit a generator’s ability to produce
megawatts, because generators, step-up transformers, and other
system components are capacity rated on a megavoltampere
basis.
Traditionally, electrical output capacity sizing for a NUG
is determined by a number of important parameters, including
the following:
• available equipment ratings and prime mover size and
type;
• cogeneration host steam or heat load to be supplied;
• desired electrical megawatt power output;
• fuel type, availability, and delivery limitations.
The above parameters are beyond the scope of this paper;
however, this paper will investigate a nontraditional parameter,
reactive power output capability. If a NUG will be required
to dispatch MVAR’s, various design and operational variables
play key roles in determining the ability of a NUG to export
or import MVAR’s. These variables include the following:
• generator megavoltampere capacity and power factor rat-
ing;
• generator excitation;
• transmissions intertie voltage level;
• step-up transformer megavoltampere rating;
• step-up transformer impedance rating;
• step-up transformer voltage ratio and tap selections.
All of these variables are important in determining the
ability of a NUG to dispatch MVAR’s from or to the grid.
IV. GENERATOR AND STEP-UP TRANSFORMER SIZING
During the design phase of a new NUG, generator and step-
up transformer selection will determine the facility’s future
ability to dispatch MVAR’s. If the power sales agreement with
the utility requires reactive power dispatching, generator and
step-up transformer sizing should be given careful considera-
tion during the design phase of a new facility. In an existing
facility, this equipment will dictate the ability of the NUG to
export or import MVAR’s.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The cost per kilovoltampere of a new generator is much
higher than that of a step-up transformer, and the sizing
of a step-up transformer is a function of the generator and
prime mover capacity. Therefore, in typical NUG facilities, the
megavoltampere capacity sizing of the step-up transformers
should not limit generator output under normal modes of
operation. Four transformer design parameters determine the
capability of the step-up transformer over its intended range
of operating conditions: megavoltampere rating, impedance,
secondary voltage, and primary voltage. The generator’s abil-
ity to produce megawatts is dictated by the prime mover and
its ability to produce MVAR’s is determined by its reactive
capability as depicted on its reactive capability curves. The
reactive capability curve gives the limits of loading at various
power factor and hydrogen pressures or machine cooling con-
ditions. Operation with lagging power factor (overexcitation)
beyond the limits of the curve will result in overheating the
field winding (rotor), due to excessively high field current.
Operating with reduced field current at leading power factor
beyond the limits specified may result in overheating the ends
of the armature core (stator) and the end structure of the
machine. This is due to eddy currents, set up by armature
reaction leakage flux, which rotates at synchronous speed.
A typical reactive capability curve is depicted in Fig. 1.
Typically, the step-up transformer megavoltampere rating is
established by the generator reactive capability curve less
the facility’s auxiliary loads. The resulting facility net output
to the grid would be the input to the step-up transformer
less its losses. Fig. 1 shows this relationship vectorially.
IEEE Standard C57.116 [1] provides detailed guidelines for
properly sizing the key parameters of a generator step-up
transformer.
IEEE Standard C50.13 [2] requires that a cylindrical-rotor
synchronous generator will operate successfully at rated MVA,
frequency and power factor at any voltage not more than five
percent above or below its rated voltage, but not necessarily
in accordance with standards of performance established for
operation at rated voltage. This requirement is also contained
in IEEE Standards C50.14 and 15 [3], [4] which cover
the ratings of other types of cylindrical rotor synchronous
generators. Since the optimum performance is at full-load
operation, nearly all users will plan to operate a generator at
rated voltage under full-load conditions. Since typical practice
is to maintain essentially constant “rated” voltage at the
generator transformer secondary (high voltage) terminals, the
transformer turns ratio must be adjusted to compensate for
transformer regulation. Thus, the generator must operate at a
voltage below its rating at light load.
Where a station service transformer or host facility electrical
system are connected to the generator bus (common practice
for cogeneration), a portion of the generator output is thereby
diverted before it reaches the primary of the generator trans-
former. The remainder after deduction of unit station service
transformer load is net generator output. The net output of
the generator must be further reduced by the amount of the
generator transformer active power and reactive power losses
to determine generator transformer output megavoltamperes
and power factor at the system intertie connection.
NOLAN et al.: REACTIVE POWER EXPORT AND IMPORT CAPABILITY FOR NON-UTILITY GENERATORS
Fig. 1. Generator reactive capability curve (typical).
For extra-high-voltage transmission interties, the generator
step-up transformer design parameters must be chosen such
that the swings in operating voltage level will not force it to
operate beyond its capability, as outlined in IEEE C57.12 [5].
V. NUG OPERATING CONDITIONS
When the generator is operating in parallel with the high-
voltage system network, its power factor may be controlled by
controlling its field current. Any reactive power beyond that
required by the load will be circulated between the generator
and the other generators in the system. The power factor for the
generator may also be changed by adjusting the field current;
increasing the field current will deliver more reactive power
to the system, and decreasing the field current will deliver
less reactive power. When designing a new facility, several
operating conditions should be given consideration as follows.
1) The generator is operating at the limit of its reactive
capability, underexcited with the system voltage at max-
imum level. This mode of operation is likely to be
unstable. Under this condition, the generator and trans-
former combination is drawing VAR’s from the system,
a loading which will lower the system voltage even if the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1425
system available short-circuit megavoltamperes is large
(stiff system).
2) The generator is delivering its full reactive power capa-
bility, overexcited, to a system at its minimum voltage
level. Under this condition, the transformer secondary
current is high, and system voltage will rise. This mode
of operation is predictable, but may not occur often and
persist long enough to justify sizing the transformer for
this condition. The decision here should be made with
the assistance of the utility’s system planning group in
conjunction with economic considerations.
3) Immediately prior to facility shutdown, and with the
system voltage at minimum level, is another condition.
The following two alternatives are available to the
plant operator: a) if the operator wishes to bring the
generator varmeter to zero before tripping the high-
voltage breaker, he/she may have to reduce generator
voltage to a level possibly below the nameplate valve
(less than 95%) and b) if the operator does not wish
to decrease generator voltage below 95%, the operator
will deprive the system abruptly of VAR’s (delivered by
generator) when he trips the breaker and will, thereby,
produce a step reduction in system voltage (system
stability concern for weak systems).
1426 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1997
Fig. 2. Example cogeneration plant simplified one-line diagram.
VI. EXAMPLE COGENERATION PLANT SYSTEM MODEL
An existing cogeneration plant was used as a basis for
exploring MVAR dispatch design and operating variables.
Fig. 2 depicts a simplified one-line diagram for the facility.
The combustion-turbine generator (CTG) has an International
Standards Organization (ISO) rating of 92.16 MW at a 0.9
power factor. The combustion turbine’s exhaust develops
steam in a supplementally fired heat-recovery steam generator
(HRSG). The HRSG supplies steam to the extraction steam-
turbine generator (STG) that has an ISO rating of 45.0 MW
at a 0.85 power factor. Extraction steam is obtained from the
steam turbine for process requirements of the host facility and
injection into the CTG.
The equipment ratings shown in Fig. 2 are nameplate
values. Actual operating capacity heavily depends on outside
ambient conditions for the combustion turbine generator and
on cogeneration extraction steam load for the steam turbine
generator. The steam turbine generator’s output capacity is also
interdependent on the firing level of the combustion turbine.
Because of these restrictions and parasitic loads required to
operate the plant and host facility, net output typically runs
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
around 116 MW. A computer model was developed for the
example facility electrical system configuration in order to
analyze system performance under various modes of operation.
The information was modeled into a commercially available
personal-computer-based load-flow program.
Parasitic bus loads were modeled as constant kilovoltampere
loads based on fixed kilowatt and kilovar (KVAR) consump-
tion, as shown in Fig. 2. The combustion and steam-turbine
generators were modeled based on their respective reactive
capability curves, which provide KVAR limits, at a given kilo-
watt output, for both overexcited and underexcited generation
operation. A scheduled voltage level, or excitation setting, was
assigned to each generator before solution iterations began.
For this system model, the utility system was assigned as the
swing bus.
The load-flow computer program utilizes an iterative
methodology during solution convergence. Constant kilo-
voltampere bus loads, generator real-power (megawatt)
outputs, and transformer tap settings remain constant during
computer iterations. The swing-bus voltage magnitude also
remains constant at an angle of zero degrees. The real and
NOLAN et al.: REACTIVE POWER EXPORT AND IMPORT CAPABILITY FOR NON-UTILITY GENERATORS 1427

TABLE I
SAMPLE POWER FLOW DATA SETS
(GENERATOR CTG STG 230-kV INTERTIE)

TABLE II
SAMPLE TRANSFORMER LOSS POWER FLOW DATA SETS

reactive power supplied by the swing bus, also called the

source bus, is allowed to vary in order to satisfy the differences
between generation output and load consumption within the
system. As the computer program converges to a solution,
system reactive requirements may cause the generators to
approach their reactive limits while attempting to maintain
a fixed voltage magnitude. Since reactive power flow is
primarily based on differences in bus voltage magnitudes,
generators at reactive operating limits will regulate their
excitation levels to compensate for system reactive power
requirements. The result is an actual voltage level at the
generator terminals that differs from the original scheduled
voltage setting. Any generation not consumed by loads or
losses will be absorbed by the swing bus, which will act
as a load for all net excess. This net excess represents the
cogeneration facility’s real and reactive power capability for
a particular scenario solution.
The results from the computer program solution provide
information concerning voltage magnitudes and angles, power
flows, power factors, feeder losses, and transformer losses as
seen from each bus modeled in the system. Tables I and II
contain the data for various operating scenarios based on the
system model. The data presented in these tables demonstrates
the generator excitation voltage setting specified in the system
model (e.g., 0.95 or 1.05 pu).
Fig. 3. Final design total facility reactive capability MVAR versus utility
system voltage (shaded region depicts operating capacity).
VII. COGENERATION FACILITY MVAR CAPABILITY
The Fig. 2 one-line diagram represents the normal operating
configuration of the example cogeneration facility. The load-
flow program was used to estimate net MVAR output capacity
with the generator excitation at a 0.95-, 1.0-, and 1.05-per-unit
output voltage. Since the generators are connected to a stiff
230-kV system, the change in excitation settings results in very
little change in grid voltage, but it produces large differences
in MVAR flow into the grid.
Table I contains a sample listing of selected output data
obtained from the load-flow program. This data was obtained
with both generators set at either maximum (1.05 pu) or
minimum (0.95 pu) excitation levels. The information, along
with numerous additional load-flow output data points, are

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1428 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1997
Fig. 4. Final design reactive capability of CTG MVAR versus utility system
voltage (shaded region depicts operating capacity).
graphically presented in Figs. 3–5. Fig. 3 shows the total
MVAR capability of the cogeneration facility with both gen-
erators at either maximum or minimum excitation levels. This
figure depicts MVAR capability as a function of grid voltage at
a constant megawatt output facility operating point. Many util-
ities operate high-voltage transmission systems under normal
conditions within 5% of the nominal voltage level. However,
under emergency conditions, this window may expand out to
5% above or 10% below the nominal voltage level.
At any given transmission intertie voltage level, Fig. 3
provides an estimate of the ability of the cogeneration facility
to export or import reactive power. Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate
the respective MVAR contribution from the CTG and STG for
various transmission system voltage levels. All of these figures
establish the cogeneration facility’s performance capability
and provide guidelines to plant operators during various modes
of operation at a constant megawatt output. It should be noted
that all of this information was developed for the facility at its
normal full-power operating level of about 116 MW. Families
of these curves could also be developed for lower megawatt
operating levels.
As an example, if the cogeneration facility was at normal
full-power operation and it was requested to dispatch max-
imum MVAR’s with the utility grid voltage at 235.75 kV
(1.025 pu—a typical operating level), Fig. 3 indicates that
approximately 47 MVAR could be produced. At this 47 MVAR
export level, the CTG would produce 31 MVAR, and the STG
would produce 16 MVAR into the grid, while both CTG and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 5. Final design reactive capability of STG MVAR versus utility system
voltage (shaded region depicts operating capacity).
STG are operated at 105% of nominal excitation voltage. If
additional MVAR output was then requested, the operators
would recognize that this level of MVAR production would be
beyond the facility’s capability, and it would cause generator
overheating and an eventual trip.
It should be noted that reactive power consumed by the two
step-up transformers is considerable, as can be observed from
Table II. The step-up transformers consume an average of 19
MVAR’s. The key variable here is the transformer impedance
rating. Another variable which affects facility MVAR import
and export capability is the transformer tap setting selection.
These variables are investigated next.
VIII. TRANSFORMER TAP SETTING EFFECTS
Typical no-load tap settings furnished with generator step-up
transformers are a total of five: one at rated primary (high-
side) voltage, two at 2-1/2% above and below rated primary
voltage, and two at 5% above and below rated primary voltage.
The voltage ratings of the step-up transformer were discussed
previously; however, changing the no-load tap settings allows
the transformer turns ratio to be adjusted to meet specific
plant needs. When a facility is designed such that a step-up
transformer is used to backfeed plant loads when the generator
is shut down, these tap settings also play an important role in
maintaining proper voltage levels at the plant loads during a
shut down.
NOLAN et al.: REACTIVE POWER EXPORT AND IMPORT CAPABILITY FOR NON-UTILITY GENERATORS
Fig. 6. Variations of transformer tap settings MVAR versus utility system
voltage.
Using the example facility model, Fig. 6 depicts the effects
that changing step-up transformer tap settings has on generator
MVAR import or export capability. As can be seen in Fig.
6, the effect of changing taps is considerable. It should
be noted that no-load taps can usually only be changed
when the transformer is deenergized and isolated. Therefore,
the selection of the tap setting is always a compromise
between various operating needs. If the tap setting is selected
too high (higher than nominal turns ratio), the secondary
voltage will be too low to backfeed plant loads when the
generator is shut down. However, a higher tap setting allows
the generator to export more MVAR’s at elevated primary
grid voltage levels. Conversely, low transformer tap settings
(reduced turns ratio) may create overvoltages at plant loads
during light-load backfeed operations and may unduly restrict
MVAR export capability at normal transmission line operating
voltages.
Fig. 6 depicts how changes in step-up transformer tap
settings do not increase or decrease the magnitude of MVAR
export/import capability. For MVAR import/export operations,
a change in tap setting will shift the facility’s capability at a
specific transmission line voltage level. For the cogeneration
facility represented in Fig. 6, a 5% increase in transformer
turns ratio (tap setting) resulted in a 0.05-pu utility system
voltage shift of peak MVAR output capacity. Therefore, when
selecting a tap setting, the transmission line operating voltage
levels must be projected to achieve the required MVAR
export/import capability. All of the factors discussed above
must be considered when selecting the best tap setting for all
plant operating modes.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1429
Fig. 7. Variations of CTG step-up transformer T1 impedance MVAR versus
utility system voltage.
IX. TRANSFORMER IMPEDANCE EFFECTS
Figs. 7 and 8 provide an indication of the effects of step-
up transformer impedance selection. These figures represent
the cogeneration plant CTG and STG step-up transformer
impedance selection as a function of MVAR export/import
capacity at a constant facility total output of about 116 MW.
For the CTG step-up transformer depicted in Fig. 7, a 25%
reduction in transformer impedance results in about a 7%
increase in MVAR export capability for the overall facility.
For the STG step-up transformer depicted in Fig. 8, a 27.5%
reduction in transformer impedance results in about a 2%
increase in MVAR export capacity for the facility. From the
data presented in Figs. 7 and 8, it can be concluded that
adjustments in transformer impedance do not significantly
affect facility MVAR capacity.
If step-up transformer impedance selection is too low,
excessive fault current contribution from the utility system
will result on its secondary side. This is especially important
in cases similar to this cogeneration STG where switchgear in-
terconnects the generator, plant loads, and step-up transformer.
If the transformer impedance is selected too high, it will reduce
the facility’s ability to export MVAR’s by consuming reactive
power. Another consideration is that nonstandard transformer
impedance ratings result in higher transformer costs. All of
these parameters should be given consideration when specify-
ing step-up transformer impedance for a new facility.
X. GENERATOR DESIGN VARIABLES
One of the most important design variables for the generator
is the amount of reactive power required to be produced by
1430 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1997
Fig. 8. Variations of STG step-up transformer T2 impedance MVAR versus
utility system voltage.
the NUG under various operating conditions. The rating of
the generator is limited by the two extremes of leading and
lagging power factor and the 5% rated voltage range.
For operation between the rated power factor and zero
power factor lagging (overexcited) the MVA output is limited
by the temperature rise allowed for the armature windings.
Conversely, operation between the rated power factor and
zero power factor leading (underexcited), the megavoltampere
output is limited by the end-iron temperatures on the armature
core.
As shown in Fig. 1, the locus of the maximum generator
extremes at leading and lagging power factors dictate the
generator megawatt output.
It is important during the initial design phase that require-
ments for the required reactive power output be established,
i.e., both the amount and expected duration for the MVAR
output. Normally, the utility requires peak MVAR’s during
peak loading on their transmission system during system peaks
(summer or winter) or to provide additional power upon the
unplanned loss of generation.
Since the NUG is normally reimbursed for output to the
system, the following options should be evaluated to properly
size the generator.
1) Oversize the generator—The generator operates most
efficiently at its rated power factor. If the utility re-
quires additional MVAR’s the megawatt output must be
reduced, resulting in loss of revenue to the NUG. If the
generator is oversized, the NUG can provide additional
MVAR’s and the corresponding megawatts as required
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
by the system. However, this requires additional capital
cost by the NUG and could affect the economics of the
facility. As part of the evaluation process, the expected
duration of the maximum required MVAR output should
be included.
2) Optimize the generator rating—This is based upon the
normal maximum output required to support the utili-
ties system and allow for short duration reductions in
megawatt output to support the utility system.
3) Negotiate with the utility—This involves the rate paid
to the NUG by limiting the operation beyond its normal
design limits. The NUG could accept lower revenue per
megawatt, and the utility can evaluate the capital cost
to install capacitor banks on their system to provide the
required MVAR’s to the system.
All of the above should be part of the preliminary design of
the facility to best meet the needs of the NUG and the utility.
XI. CONCLUSIONS
The number of NUG’s in use is continuously increasing
so that one can already foresee that reactive power limits
under various modes of operation need to be addressed in
depth. Detailed knowledge of the reactive power response
is important in view of overvoltages which can occur when
the system voltage is already high. It is highly desirable to
permit the optimum degree of freedom of operation insofar
as (MVAR) reactive power control is concerned. Obtaining
the maximum degree of freedom is generally not economical,
since the NUG facility must be oversized to accommodate the
potentially wide range of the MVAR export/import capacity
that may be imposed on the NUG by the utility.
The optimum design of a new NUG facility depends on so
many factors that selection and dimensioning of reactive power
capability is only possible in close coordination between the
designers and the utility. An adequate reactive power limit
should be established in the early stages of a new project for
the various anticipated modes of operation.
This paper provides detailed guidance for determining a
NUG’s reactive power capability. Plotted reactive power per-
formance characteristics of NUG’s are an important aid for
the plant operator (existing NUG) or system planning en-
gineers (new NUG) in clarifying the available options and
performance to be expected.
It should also be noted that system stiffness is also a concern
in MVAR export/import capability of a NUG facility. System
stiffness is primarily a factor of the number of generating
units synchronized with the grid, the system load, and the
grid’s transmission line configuration. The example provided
in this paper was based on the utility’s nominal system
configuration. Because of variation in system stiffness, MVAR
export/import capability can only be estimated at a specific
transmission intertie voltage. The sensitivity of the example
facility to changes in system stiffness were explored, and a
change in system stiffness resulted in very little change in
MVAR capacity. Ideally, an on-line interactive program could
be developed to provide operators accurate advice on precise
NOLAN et al.: REACTIVE POWER EXPORT AND IMPORT CAPABILITY FOR NON-UTILITY GENERATORS
MVAR export/import capability based on intertie transmission
voltage levels and real-time system stiffness data.
REFERENCES
[1] Guide for Transformers Directly Connected to Generators, IEEE Stan-
dard C57.116, 1989.
[2] Cylindrical-Rotor Synchronous Generators, IEEE Standard C50.13,
1989.
[3] Requirements for Combustion Gas Turbine Driven Cylindrical Rotor
Synchronous Generators, IEEE Standard C50.14, 1977.
[4] Hydrogen-Cooled, Combustion-Gas-Turbine-Driven, Cylindrical-Rotor
Synchronous Generators—Requirements, IEEE Standard C50.15, 1989.
[5] Standard General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed Distribution,
Power, and Regulating Transformers, IEEE Standard C57.12, 1993.
[6] B. Avramonic and L. H. Fink, “Real-time reactive security monitoring,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 432–437, Feb. 1992.
[7] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability.
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1994.
[8] R. Mukenji, N. Neugebauer, R. Ludorf, and A. Catelli, “Evaluation
of wheeling and Non-Utility Generation (NUG) options using optional
power flows,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 201–207, Feb. 1992.
[9] G. J. Arvay, B. L. Eisenrich, and R. Smith, “Electrical system design,
interface, and commissioning requirements for a large cogeneration
project,” in Proc. 1990 IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeeting, vol. 2, pp. 1793–1803.
Gregory J. Nolan (M’79–SM’89) was born
in Philadelphia, PA, in 1952. He received the
B.S.E.E.T. degree in 1974 from The Pennsylvania
State University, Capitol Campus, and the M.B.A.
degree in 1983 from Temple University, Philadel-
phia, PA.
Since 1979, he has been with Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation (SWEC), where he has
been responsible for numerous cogeneration,
electric utility generating station, electric substation,
and industrial projects. His present assignments
include Division Supervisor of the Electrical and Control Systems personnel
in Cherry Hill, NJ. Prior to 1979, he was a Senior Electrical Engineer
at Catalytic, Incorporated. He is the author of several technical papers
concerning electrical power generation.
Mr. Nolan is currently the Chairman of the IEEE Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems Energy Systems Committee. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland,
Delaware, and Virginia. He is also a senior member of the Instrument Society
of America.
Ezzat B. Khalafalla (S’76–M’78–SM’82) received
the B.Sc. degree from Cairo University, Cairo,
Egypt, in 1970 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in electrical power systems from the University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, in 1974 and 1978,
respectively.
He is currently with Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ, where he works on
static frequency converter projects, high voltage
transmission lines, and substations.
Dr. Khalafalla is a member of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society Substations Subcommittee and a Registered Professional
Engineer in the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Catholique de Louvain/UCL. Downloaded on May 03,2023 at 08:34:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1431
Edmund H. Arnold was born in Carbondale, PA, in
1950. He received the B.S.E.E. degree from Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, in 1974.
Since 1979, he has been with Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ, where
he has worked on numerous electrical utility, co-
generation, substation, and electric traction power
projects, performing load-flow, voltage-drop, short-
circuit, lighting-protection, and ground-grid design
studies. He has also written specifications for the
purchase and installation of various types of electri-
cal equipment. Prior to 1979, he was an Electrical Engineer in the Substation
Design Department at Illinois Power Company.
Mr. Arnold is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New Jersey.
Donald E. Winge (S’66–M’68) was born in San
Francisco, CA, in 1941. He received the B.S.E.E.
degree, magna cum laude, from the University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, in 1968.
Since 1994, he has been a Director of Operations
with Atlantic Generation, Inc., Mays Landing, NJ,
where he is responsible for the business operations
of the company’s cogeneration projects, as well
as assisting with project development, engineering,
construction, and startup. Prior to 1994, he was
with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for
fourteen years, serving in various responsible positions, including Project
Manager, Project Engineer, and Assistant Division Manager. Prior to 1980,
Mr. Winge was a U.S. Navy officer assigned to various positions with the
Naval Nuclear Propulsions Program, including Chief Engineer of a nuclear
submarine.
Mr. Winge is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New Jersey.
Brandon S. Swartley (M’89) was born in Philadel-
phia, PA, in 1970. He received the B.S.E.E. degree,
magna cum laude, in 1994 from Drexel University,
Philadelphia, PA, where he is currently working
toward the M.S. degree in electrical power systems.
Since 1994, he has been with Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ, where he
has worked on various electrical utility and trac-
tion system projects, performing load-flow, voltage-
drop, relay-coordination, and short-circuit studies.
Prior to 1994, he was an Engineer Co-op in the
System Planning Department at Atlantic Electric and in the System Protection
Department at Delmarva Power & Light Company.
Mr. Swartley is a member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society.