IEEE Power & Energy Society

2006

TECHNICAL REPORT

PES-TR11
Formerly TP178

Transmission System
Application Requirements
for FACTS Controllers
PREPARED BY THE
IEEE Working Group 15.05.13

IEEE 2013 The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Transmission System Application Requirements for

FACTS Controllers

IEEE Working group 15.05.13

A SPECIAL PUBLICATION FOR SYSTEM PLANNERS

Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Transmission System Planning Environment
Traditional Environment
Deregulated Electric System Environment
Volatility in Network Flows
Lack of Expansion of the Transmission System
Need for Improved Voltage Control
II. TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND SYSTEM CONTROL
A. Controls in AC Transmission Systems
Controllability of Power Systems
Power Flow Control
Voltage Control and Reactive Power Supply
Special Protection Systems and Stability Controls
Oscillatory Stability Control
Other Controls
B. System Applications for FACTS Controllers
C. Justification for Investment in FACTS Controllers

4
5
5
6
6
7
7

III. OVERVIEW OF FACTS CONTROLLERS

A. Static Var Compensator (SVC)
B. Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)
C. Energy Storage Systems (BESS and SMES)
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage
Battery Energy Storage System (aESS)
D. Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC)
E. Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)
F. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
G. Interphase Power Controller (IPC)

8
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
12
15
16
17
18
21
21
22
23
25
26
27

IV. FACTS CONTROLLER MODELS FOR PLANNING, OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT DESIGN
ANALySES
29
A. Steady State Models
30
B. Transient and Dynamic System Simulation Models
31
C. Detailed Electro-Magnetic Transient Simulation Models
32
D. Hann.onics
32
V. OPERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FACTS CONTROLLERS
A. System Control Design Guidelines
Field Engineering Issues
B. Availability Requirements for FACTS Controllers
C. System Operator Basic Control features and Monitoring Requirements for FACTS Controllers
System Operator Graphical User Interface) Capability
Startup/Shutdown and Configuration/Control Mode Changes
Set-Point and Reference Setting

34
34
36
38
39
40
40
41

D. Basic Training for System Operators

41

VI. CONCLUSIONS

43

VII. APPENDIX - EXAMPLE OF REACTIVE POWER NEEDED TO SUPPORT TRANSMISSION

SySTEMS
A. System Model and Analysis Method
P-V and P-Q Curves
Reactive Power Required to maintain 1.0 pu Voltage at Load End of Line
Extension to More Complex Systems

44
44
45
47
48

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

50

IX. REFERENCES

51

I. INTRODUCTION
There have been power electronic applications in the high voltage power system for more than 30 years
with contributions from many individuals and companies. The earliest applications and still the largest
installations in transmission networks are AC-DC transmission converter stations. Industrial applications
include rectifiers, motor drives and static var compensators for voltage control and reduction in flicker
from erratic loads such as arc furnaces. Electric generators use both controlled and non-controlled
rectifiers for excitation systems. Both the size and number of these applications have increased as the
power electronic switching devices (transistors and thyristors) increased in size, decreased in price and
improved in reliability.
Over the past 20 years, worldwide developers, including the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), [1],
[2] championed the concept of increasing the utilization of AC transmission networks. This required
creating a new generation of controllers that would rapidly change flow patterns and voltage profiles in
response to changing system conditions. These new controllers would contain power electronic switches
to provide both fast response and a large number of operations without maintenance. The name Flexible
AC Transmission System (FACTS) was coined to describe networks that contain these controllers [3 - 6].
Defining applications for FACTS Controllers requires an understanding of the planning process for
transmission systems. These systems now must function and be economical in a market as well as meet
the traditional requirements for system security, reliability and sufficient capacity to meet the needs of
customers. With several possibly conflicting objectives to satisfy, it is becoming increasingly important to
make the system as flexible as possible. Flexibility of electric power transmission is the ability to
accommodate changes in the transmission system configuration or operating conditions while maintaining
sufficient steady state and stability margins. FACTS are systems incorporating power electronic-based and
other static controllers to enhance controllability and increase power transfer capability [3].
Projects have been implemented to develop and demonstrate the different types of FACTS Controllers and
create practical hardware that can be applied in a transmission system environment. Although there have
been a large number of technical papers discussing FACTS Controllers and both IEEE and CIGRE
working groups have prepared reports describing these Controllers, the task of integrating these new
technologies into the transmission system planning process has been done by individual utilities. To help
share the insight developed with respect to the planning activities, this working group was tasked with
preparing a special publication that described the planning process and suggested applications where
Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) Controllers would add sufficient value to the transmission
system to justify their cost and complexity.
In addition to describing the planning process, functions performed by each of the FACTS Controllers are
briefly described and their basic circuits shown. This document refrains from repeating other works which
focus more comprehensively on the technical details of the FACTS Controllers or on the process of
developing and preparing analytical models and relies heavily on a comprehensive reference list. This
publication assumes the availability of models and the associated planning software and focuses on how
the transmission system planning process can define and justify FACTS applications.

A. Transmission System Planning Environment

Traditional Environment

Transmission system planning has traditionally relied on estimates of load growth and load profiles in the
area served by the transmission network. Vertically integrated utilities operated with formalized
procedures that had the primary objective of assuring that there would be an adequate supply of electricity
to meet the customer needs within the utility's service area. High priority was given to assuring that
system reliability was not compromised. Service life for major equipment and substations was intended to
be 40 years or more. Plans for capital expenditures had to be presented to and approved by state regulators
who established a rate base to cover operating and capital costs and provide a reasonable return on
investment for utility shareholders. In this environment, transmission ties between utilities were used
primarily to share large capital generation projects, provide for interchange of economy power, and
provide support during emergencies.
A number of formalized processes were developed. These processes began with the Long Range Planning
activity (LRP). Within the LRP, procedures for Load Growth estimates specified the methodology for
making probabilistic estimates for one, five, or ten years in the future with greater precision for the near
term estimates. From these estimates, utilities prepared Integrated Resource Plans that specified the type
and location of new generating plants or additions to existing plants.
Formal processes were also used for operation. As with the planning procedures, the goal of operating
processes was to assure system reliability and operational economy. An Economic Dispatch procedure
was used to establish generation schedules that minimize generation costs within the constraints imposed
by operating restrictions of each of the generating plants, the need to maintain spinning reserve generation
to compensate for emergency plant trips and requirements to supply reactive power and regulate system
voltage.
In recent years additional concerns for controlling plant emissions and the need to restrict investment in

facilities to support short-term peak loads led to development of additional operating constraints. These
included Demand Side Management processes and Environmental Emissions rules and procedures. In
some areas, the Emission processes included restrictions on times that plants can operate and procedures
that allow emission credits to be traded to encourage the operation of the lowest emission plants.
When the planning activities show the need to expand the capacity of the transmission system, there are a
series of analyses performed to select the least cost alternative that met capacity and reliability constraints.
The options considered include building new circuits, adding reactive power compensation at substations,
installing FACTS Controllers and implementing Special Protection Systems that reconfigure the network
to accommodate specific contingencies. Analyses include load flow studies for all likely system
contingencies and projected loading levels. They also include time domain stability analyses when there is
a perceived system oscillation, synchronism, or voltage dip/sag concern. When FACTS Controllers, long
transmission lines or large amounts of capacitive reactive power compensation are considered, transient
analyses using the Electromagnetic Transient Analysis Program (EMTP) or a similar program to analyze
higher frequency Controller interactions fault clearing transients or line switching transients may be
necessary, but are usually part of the equipment design process rather than the planning process.

Deregulated Electric System Environment

In the deregulated electric system environment, transmission system planning is more difficult. Generation
plans are developed independently from load forecasts or transmission system upgrades. Power flow
patterns can be much different than was anticipated when the system was constructed and they can change
rapidly. There is still a need to address the traditional technical planning issues, including load forecasts,
assessments of adequacy and economy of supply resources, environmental emission restrictions and
capacity of the transmission network.
Difficulty in the planning process primarily stems from the fragmentation of the process with each market
participant deciding on both the size and timing of the facility that will be connected to the system. Many
of these plans are preliminary and factors such as changes in fuel prices, conflicts with other facilities or
limitations in the transmission network influences decisions to either complete or cancel them. At present
the regulatory environment including definition of merchant transmission facilities, methodologies to
charge for use of transmission networks, definition of contract flow paths versus actual flow paths and
other issues are evolving. These issues significantly influence plans to expand the transmission network.
Volatility in Network Flows

Deregulation of the electric power business adds a requirement to transmit electricity from merchant
generating plants to loads that may be inside the transmission utility's system or elsewhere in the network.
A recent additional consideration is the demand by generating companies to move electric power from
their plants to markets that may be beyond the traditional area of interest. In addition to load forecasting
sensitivities that were traditionally considered, a wide range of generating dispatches and resource options
must now be examined. Further complicating economic analysis is the possibility that the energy or
capacity price differential across a congested portion of the system could be highly variable due to bidding
behaviors, even for one given generation dispatch scenario.
There are technical challenges on how a transmission system should be designed to accommodate the
additional power flow for all considerations that influence generation patterns. These include:
Independent Generation Expansion and Retirements
Environmental Emission Credits and Fuel Availability
Market Dispatch and Congestion Management
Reliability Must Run (RMR) Requirements
A major challenge of planning under the deregulated environment is the lack of control over generation
expansion and reliance on markets to send the proper signals for expansion. A further complication is that
markets impact the points of network controllability. For example, only generators that clear an Installed
Capacity (ICAP) market may be committed. Also the generators that are committed on any given day are
based not only upon reliability, but also very much upon market considerations. Thus there is greater
variability in the commitment and dispatch of generators in the deregulated market than the traditional
bundled utility environment. Dependence on ancillary markets to provide services such as voltage control
and operating reserves increases the variability and challenge of operating and planning a secure system.
Changes in bidding strategy can radically change the flow patterns of the network. The generator dispatch
can be a function of traditional costs, such as fuels, as well as the degree of competition in a congested
portion of the network. Thus forced outages of generating units in congested areas may place additional
market stresses on the network that increase system usage beyond the traditional physical need to supply
power based on cost. In some cases the markets have placed additional pressures to retire and deactivate

generating units that may not be receiving sufficient revenues. These units may be in load pockets where
their commitment is critical to ensuring necessary voltage support.
The need for fuel diversity has become increasingly important and may influence usage of the transmission
system. The availability and pricing of fuels may be highly variable. Furthermore, the generator may
choose fuels based upon a variety of factors, including degree of competitiveness of the market, prices for
trading environmental emissions allowances, and regulatory restrictions.
In some cases this has
significantly increased dependencies upon single fuels, such as natural gas. This increased dependency
coupled with the volatility of the pricing of the dominant fuel has resulted in significant changes and
variability in expected network flows.
Environmental concerns have increased the importance of renewable portfolio standards. Integration of
many of these new technologies, such as wind energy, raise transmission issues, including variability of
system flows, need for voltage regulation, contingency response to faults, and others.
Lack ofExpansion ofthe Transmission System

As the regulatory climate began to rapidly change and the vertically integrated utilities began focusing
more on deregulation and unbundling, the financial risks of investment in the transmission system was
perceived as greater than the potential rewards. Furthermore, there has been significantly greater difficulty
in obtaining transmission rights of way and siting substation facilities. These and other factors have
resulted in an aging transmission system that is difficult to expand. Even when it is possible to build new
facilities there have been additional pressures to place transmission facilities underground which greatly
increases cost and requires additional substation equipment to compensate for cable capacitance, control
harmonics and provide voltage control.
The Transmission Tariff that pays for expansion of the network raises the issue of "winners and losers"
with controversial methods used to allocate costs between users currently connected and those that wish to
connect. This is further complicated by seams between transmission service territories that may include
differences in the Tariffs, criteria, and the administrative jurisdictional (States or Provinces) issues. These
issues coupled with the continuous changes in regulatory policy have made the financial decision to
expand the transmission network increasingly difficult.
Needfor Improved Voltage Control

A robust transmission system is necessary to have successful markets and to ensure the reliability of the
network.
This is particularly true where load may be highly dependent upon a limited number of
generating facilities and where there may be conditional dependencies in the network that influence
transmission operating limits.
To assure that an ac network can transmit power at least up to the thermal rating of the limiting elements,
the system planner must control system voltage at all critical points in the network. This control requires
availability of reactive power sources with sufficient rating to both absorb and generate the amount of
reactive power needed to control voltage. These sources are typically located both at generation sites and
near loads to achieve the needed voltage control.

II. TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND SYSTEM CONTROL

It is important for transmission system planners to recognize that inclusion of FACTS Controllers does not
change the planning procedures. The industry has always sought the application of equipment that will
maximize the use of available transmission . What "FACTS" implies is a new generation of power
electronic based equipment having basically the same function as other, more conventional equipment but
with a greatly enhanced controllability and response capability. Although there are many more choices
available to resolve increasingly complex network requirements, traditional planning methods remain the
basic means by which decisions are made [4]. Equipment selection will depend on function, availability,
cost, applicability and future uncertainties. In addition to the traditional planning decision of cost
effectiveness, the deregulation of the industry now requires additional robustness and redundancy for a
variety of possible system conditions. FACTS are a possible means of providing the flexibility now
required.
In all cases of transmission improvements it is necessary to weigh the potential benefits, costs, and risks of
any transmission plan. It is assumed that for the possibility of greater returns, greater financial risks would
be assumed. However, system reliability requirements must be met. The planners' job'is to identify:
Basis for justifying the application : Either transmission rate base or transmission service charge for
competitive market power transfer.
Procedures for assuring that applications meet company and regional transmission requirements.
Solutions for flow control and line utilization.
Reactive supply and voltage control requirements.
Dynamic and transient stability concerns.
Speed of response required for transmission controls.
Economics of alternative solutions.
Flexibility to enhance system performance under a wide variety of scenarios
Benefits of system improvements including:
o Incremental power transfer levels above that possible with conventional solutions
o Space requirements.
o Reliability.
o Simpler system operating procedures.
o Less complex and more reliable system protection
Expected reliability during normal system conditions and in response to contingencies.
Maintenance coordination of the system.
Security of System Operation

A. Controls in AC Transmission Systems

When discussing the creation, movement, and utilization of electrical power, the discussion can be
separated into three areas of generation, transmission and distribution, which traditionally determined the
way in which electric utility companies had been organized. These are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig . 1. Illustration of the creation, movement, and utilization of electrical power

Although power electronic based equipment is prevalent in each of these three areas, such as with static
excitation systems for generators and custom power equipment in distribution systems, the focus of this
publication is on transmission, that is, moving the power from where it is generated to where it is utilized.
As noted in the introduction, transmission systems are being pushed closer to their stability and thermal
limits while the focus on the quality of power delivered is greater than ever. The limitations of the
transmission system can take many fonns and may involve power transfer between areas (referred to here
as transmission bottlenecks or inter-arealinter-regional constraints) or within a single area or region
(referred to here as a regional constraint) and may include one or more of the following limits: [7]
Steady-State Power Transfer Limit
Voltage Stability Limit
Dynamic Voltage Limit
Transient Stability Limit
Power System Oscillation Damping Limit
Loop Flow Limit
Thermal Limit
Short-Circuit Current Limit
Controllability ofPower Systems

To illustrate that the power system only has certain variables that can be impacted by control, consider the
basic and well-known power-angle curve, shown in Fig. 2. Although this is a steady-state curve and the
implementation of FACTS Controllers is primarily for dynamic issues, this illustration demonstrates the
point that there are primarily three main variables that can be directly controlled in the power system to
impact its performance. These are Voltage, Angle, and Impedance. One could also make the point that
direct control of power is a fourth variable of controllability in power systems via load shedding or other
special protection schemes (SPS).

p = Es ER sino
X

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I

90

180

Fig. 2. Illustration of controllability of power systems

10

As mentioned earlier, the key to solving transmission system problems in the most cost-effective and
coordinated manner is by employing a thorough system analysis. This includes comparing the system
benefits available by conventional equipment and from FACTS Controllers. There is an important
distinction to make when considering the differences in these two solution approaches. Fig. 3 is an
illustration of a few cycles of voltage at power system frequency. This figure shows that the speed of
mechanical switches (primarily circuit breakers) for conventional equipment solutions can be as fast as 2 to
5 cycles of 60 (or 50) Hz. Even with the added time delays associated with the control algorithm (a few
cycles) this may be fast enough to remove many power system constraints. Although there is an
improvement in switching time from mechanical to power electronic based solutions, Fig. 3 illustrates that
the speed of power electronics switches is a fraction of a cycle (the time delay associated with the control
algorithm is an additional few cycles or less), the main benefit that thyristor based controllers provide is
the "cycling/repeatability" and "smooth control" that accompanies the power electronic based switching.
In other words, a mechanically switched based (conventional) solution is usually an "on or off' impact to
the power system in the time frame needed for power system stability, whereas the power electronic based
solution can provide a smooth, continuous, and/or repeatable option for power system control. Thus by
applying power electronic based solutions to alleviate power system constraints, it is not just "speed" but
"cycling" and "smooth control" that is gained.
2

I
I
I
I
I

Mechanical Breaker Action

----. :+-- Thyristor Switch Action

I

Fig. 3. Illustration of the speed of power system switching

Power Flow Control

Real power flow in AC transmission networks is governed by physical characteristics of the transmission
paths (line length, resistance and reactance characteristics, etc.), the locations of generating plants, the
demands of the loads and the voltage magnitudes and relative phase angles. Transmission planners must
anticipate flow patterns and network contingencies that result in unacceptable loading on critical lines or
unacceptable voltage profiles and select reinforcements that alleviate the concern. A major constraint on
this process is the cost of reinforcement and the requirement that there be a financial return on investments.
This limits reinforcements to those that have the greatest impact on system reliability and those that are
most cost effective.
This often has minimal speed requirements and can often be achieved using conventional series capacitors
(or reactors) and phase-shifting transformers (PST) unless the immediate post-contingency condition risks
voltage collapse. An alternative means of power flow control is the dispatch of generation. This requires a
trade-off of alternative control equipment cost against non-economic dispatch or contracted bilateral and
other market driven dispatch. System configurations that result in short term overloads on critical lines or
conditions that exhibit need for additional dynamic damping to control oscillations are most likely
candidates for fast transmission system controls.

11

Voltage Control and Reactive Power Supply

Controlling system voltage is critical to both system security and quality of service. Traditionally, primary
control has been done using voltage regulators at generating stations with supplementary tap changers to
adjust voltages in the sub-transmission and distribution systems. Power factor improvement includes the
use of strategically placed reactors and capacitors that are switched as loading increases or decreases.
As the structure of the system changes to having more independent generation and transmission operation,
transmission planners must accommodate systems where the voltage regulation patterns from generating
plants is less predictable. Inherently, the flow of real power in the network results in reactive power
demands. Therefore, the control of real power flow is only possible with proper reactive power support to
the network. Transmission planners must be very familiar with the reactive power requirements of AC
transmission lines under all loading conditions because lack of sufficient reactive power often limits real
power transfer under heavy load conditions. Conversely, under light load conditions, transmission line
charging sometimes results in high system voltage. An example in the Appendix illustrates these issues.
In the past, this coordination of active and reactive power was achieved by the integrated utility. With
open access and deregulation, there are now additional challenges. System planners' must anticipate the
most demanding flow patterns and detennine if a mix of conventional solutions including capacitors,
synchronous compensators, synchronous generator control, etc. provide sufficient reactive power and
voltage control. Strategically placed continuously acting controllers can provide incremental and/or highspeed voltage regulation capability. They may also provide reserve reactive power to either avoid potential
voltage collapse resulting from loss of heavily loaded high voltage transmission lines or excessive over
voltages when line switching separates loads from capacitive compensation.
Special Protection Systems and Stability Controls

Plans to assure transient stability during major system disturbances may include special protection systems
to respond to the most critical contingencies. These systems may switch critical lines or reject generating
units in response to a criteria contingency, such as loss of a critical transmission line or generating unit.
Formal procedures must be developed to define system conditions where coordinated operation of the
transmission equipment is needed. These procedures are often published and increasingly are available to
other system planners as well to the general public. An example is the guideline developed by the
Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) for Special Protection Systems (SPS) [8]. This procedure
defines three SPS types. They are:
Type I An SPS which recognizes or anticipates abnormal system conditions resulting from design
and operating criteria contingencies, and whose misoperation or failure to operate could have a
significant adverse impact outside of the local area. The corrective action taken by the SPS along
with the actions taken by other protection systems are intended to return power system parameters
to a stable and recoverable state.
Type II An SPS which recognizes or anticipates abnormal system conditions resulting from
extreme contingencies or other extreme causes, and whose misoperation or failure to operate would
have a significant adverse impact outside of the local area. In the application of these systems,
their security is the prime concern.
Type III An SPS whose misoperation or failure to operate results in no significant adverse impact
outside the local area.

12

Automatic controls provide rapid response during system disturbances or provide critical post contingency
support when other facilities may have tripped. The NPCC clarification of these controls is similar to the
classification of SPS. When a utility, transmission coordinating council, or regional transmission
organization (RTO) evaluates the addition of these controls, the design considerations usually involve a
number of system requirements to assure the reliability and security of the installation. Although these
formal guidelines are necessary to assure the security of the network, they place significant demands for
information about component reliability and system reliability for special controls. They also place
demands for careful study of interactions in the transmission system and definition of system contingencies
that most stress the application. Much of the required information is not well known during the
development phase of a special control system and engineering judgment and cooperation between
equipment designers and system engineers is essential in early applications.
Oscillatory Stability Control
Additional supplementary control functions can damp system oscillations. Conventional equipment can
increase stability limits, such as a Power System Stabilizer (PSS) supplementing a fast excitation system
control. Additional controls in the transmission system may enhance oscillation damping. These controls
can be switched equipment or continuous acting controllers. One important aspect of this application is the
question of whether the equipment is merely providing dynamic control or ifit is providing reactive power
and/or flow control. The amount of leverage of the supplementary control function will depend upon the
particular system application and the control signals used. Other factors such as the location, observability
and controllability must also be considered.
Other Controls
Strengthening a transmission network increases the current that circuit breakers must interrupt to clear
system faults. When breaker ratings are exceeded, a traditional measure is to fractionalize the network by
operating with selected circuit breakers open to limit the fault current. This operation may reduce the
security of the network. Fast controls may allow fault current to be limited by changing the circuit
configuration before a circuit breaker opens. Potential applications would use current limiting reactors that
are normally bypassed by thyristor switches. When a fault occurs, the thyristors are turned off and the
reactor limits current before the breaker clears the fault. FACTS Controllers that contain series connected
inverters can theoretically limit the current in the transmission line in series with the inverter during system
faults. These special circuits must be carefully designed to provide sufficient current and voltage
capability in the electronic circuits. In the case where FACTS Controllers would be intended for
preventing bus splitting, a very high level of reliability must be achieved in every respect since a lack of
operation represents a risk of failure of existing equipments such as overstepped circuit breakers. Safety
concerns have to be carefully investigated for such an application.
The IPC technology has capability to limit fault currents using a PST together with tuned circuits. If this
application is to be part of an IPC installation, it must be designed into the equipment and the PST may
require phase shift readjustment as network conditions change.
B. System Applications for FACTS Controllers
The simplest way to identify the potential roles to be played by FACTS Controllers is to examine their
functions as they relate to conventional equipment. The definition of FACTS systems incorporates both
power electronic-based and other static controllers to enhance controllability and increase power transfer
capability [3]. One of the system planners' tasks is to determine which combinations of Controllers provide

13

the capacity to supply the reactive power, dynamic reserve and continuous regulation needed for the
application.
A characteristic of FACTS Controllers is their ability to have control algorithms structured to achieve
multiple objectives. Since FACTS Controllers have control systems with embedded digital processors, it is
possible to switch between control algorithms and to include different types of nonlinear limiting
functions. This flexibility is illustrated in a recent book that lists control attributes for most of the FACTS
Controllers [5]. These attributes are voltage control, Var compensation, current control, active power
control, reactive power control, fault current limiting, damping oscillations, transient stability and dynamic
stability. Both shunt connected and series connected controllers can be programmed to assist in one or
more of these functions. They will have varying effectiveness depending on the power rating of the
individual controller, its location in the network and the desired function. Generally series controllers are
more effective in controlling active power flow on a transmission line while shunt-connected controllers
are more effective at regulating voltage. Either can be programmed to minimize reactive power flow on a
transmission line. In addition to the primary control function, these controllers can also provide damping
to system oscillations. The effectiveness of this damping control is highly dependent of the location of the
controller in the network.
When planning transmission system additions, it is important to be certain that the proposed combination
of equipment has the capacity to achieve the control objective. In typical FACTS applications, the
economic choice is often to combine both FACTS Controllers with traditional equipment used to supply
compensation that is either fixed or switched no more than twice per day. Synchronous electric machines
provide continuously variable reactive compensation within their capability and are often the choice for
control functions that can be effectively performed at generation locations and at load centers. In
transmission substation applications FACTS Controllers are increasingly more competitive alternatives.
Although FACTS Controllers may have multiple control capabilities, there is usually a primary control
attribute for each type of controller that pairs with one or more traditional solutions to provide the
economical alternative. The load characteristics can also be changed, possibly through the application of
distribution system Custom Power Controllers, in order to increase the voltage transfer limits [9]. These
applications may also prove to be more economical than a transmission system application of a FACTS
Controller.
Table 1 identifies these primary control functions and lists FACTS Controllers and conventional
equipment that helps perform the function. The most economical solution will be dependent upon the
required system performance and the cost of the solution and to which entity as allocated in the
Transmission Tariff. This is further complicated by the unbundling of ancillary services and the desire to
reduce dependencies on individual market players. For example, application of a power system stabilizer
on an individual generator may prove beneficial to the system but may raise market and Tariff issues.

14

TABLE 1

SYSTEM CONTROL FUNCTIONS

Function

Non FACTS Control Methods

FACTS Controllers

Voltage
Control

Electric generators
Synchronous Condensers
Conventional Transformer tap-changer
Conventional Shunt Capacitor/Reactor
Conventional Series Capacitor/Reactor

Static Var Compensator (SVC)

Static Synchronous Compensator
(STATCOM)
Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
Superconducting Energy Storage (SMES)
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)
Convertible Static Compensator (CSC)

Active and
Reactive Power
Flow Control

Generator schedules
Transmission line switching
Phase Angle Regulator (PAR)
Series Capacitor (switched or fixed)
High Voltage Direct Current
Transmission (HVde)

Transient
Stability

Braking Resistor
Excitation Enhancement
Special Protection Systems
Independent Pole Tripping
Fast Relay Schemes
Fast Valving
Line Sectioning
HVdc
Power System Stabilizer
HVdc
Switched series reactors
Open circuit breaker arrangements

Interphase Power Controller (IPC)

Thyristor controlled Series Capacitor
(TCSC)
Thyristor Controlled Series Reactor
(TCSR)
Thyristor Controlled Phase Shifting
Transformer (TCPST)
UPFC
Static Synchronous Series Compensator
(SSSC)
Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC)
Thyristor Controlled Braking Resistor
(TCBR)
SVC, STATCOM, TCSC, TCPST, UPFC
BESS, SMES, SSSC, CSC, IPFC

Dynamic
Stability
Short Circuit
Current
Limiting

TCSC, SVC, STATCOM, UPFC, SSSC,

TCPST, BESS, SMES, SSSC,CSC, IPFC
Thyristor switched series reactor, TCSC,
IPC, SSSC, UPFC; These are secondary
functions of these controllers and their
effectiveness may be limited.

This table shows system control functions that are most often considered when system planners look for
value from dynamic controllers. It builds on a similar table prepared by an IEEE task force on FACTS
applications that was published in 1996 [6]. There is some overlap between the control functions since
equipment that will regulate voltage or control power flow continuously can position the system to be able
to withstand severe transients. Likewise equipment that provides damping to system oscillations may
provide a benefit to transient stability. The distinction between oscillatory and transient stability often is
that transient stability applications require large changes that occur infrequently while oscillation damping
applications can be done with equipment that has smaller rating, but continuously acts with proper phase
and amplitude [10 - 11].
The value of these applications lies in the ability of the transmission system to reliably transmit more
power or to transmit power under more severe contingency conditions with the control equipment in
operation. If the value of the added power transfer over time is compared to the purchase and operational
costs of the control equipment, relatively complex and expensive applications may be justified.
Realization of this value often requires a coordinated implementation of conventional transmission
equipment, possibly including transmission line additions, FACTS Controllers, coordinated control

15

algorithms and special operating procedures. This was the case for two of the most ambitious FACTS
projects sponsored by EPRI and participating utilities [12 - 13].
C. Justification for Investment in FACTS Controllers

The purpose of FACTS Controllers is to facilitate the supply of loads in flexible and rapid fashion, while
providing optimal management of electrical networks. Voltage problems can constrain transfers and can
result in more blackouts than first-swing instability, poor damping, and thermal overloads combined.
Today, heavily utilized transmission systems may require more Mvar of compensation for each MW of
new load to survive single contingencies without voltage collapse. Reactive power planning and
operations are very complex. Most system planners develop rules to define limits to system loading,
detennine constrained interface limits and demonstrate the steady state effect of system modifications. For
a variety of generation dispatches the limiting contingency could be different and the cause of the
transmission limitation could vary among voltage, dynamic stability, or thermal restrictions. Furthermore,
different pricing considerations would change the magnitude and economic value of bottled energy. Based
upon each scenario, the transmission planner could propose shunt capacitors, power system stabilizers,
transmission line upgrades (including phase angle regulators), FACTS Controllers, or combinations of
improvements. The likelihood of each case scenario would then need to be considered to formulate a final
plan.
An important issue in considering system improvements is the mitigation of market power, particularly in
load pockets. Market power may be apparent in cases of "must run" generation to respect local reliability
concerns in a small area of the system. However, in cases where combinations of special stability controls
could change transfer limits, market power may be apparent on a real time bid basis, but difficult to
determine on an apriori basis. In cases where stability limitations are significant, competition may be
enhanced when the transmission operator has the ability to exercise stability control with less dependency
on specific generators.

The cost of ancillary services can provide another economic incentive to improve the transmission
network. This is achieved either through avoided direct costs or through the recognition that higher
transmission limits could increase competition.
In the new business environment it is possible that there may be merchant transmission projects. These
could be funded through bilateral contracts for capacity or energy or on the speculation that revenues from
financial instruments related to Iocational spot energy prices could be sufficiently large. An example of
such an instrument is a Transmission Congestion Contract (TCC) that entitles the holder to a MW value
times the energy price difference between two busses, a point of injection and a point of withdrawal. It is
assumed that TCC(s) would be allocated for a transmission system improvement. While transmission
improvements may decrease the value of preexisting TCCs, this change may not be significantly large in
cases of severely constrained portions of the system.
The industry need goes beyond just reactive power planning. Utilities are discovering that double 'voltage'
contingencies, unlike double contingencies associated with thermal limits and angular stability, pose very
high risks. These double contingencies may include loss of a major facility simultaneously with loss of
control in equipment providing voltage support. Indeed, in many systems seemingly routine coincident
equipment outages can cause voltage collapse or greatly increase the risk of collapse. Under-voltage load
shedding during these extreme events has emerged as a possible way to maintain reliability to these less
frequent but still troublesome events. But this introduces its own set of issues including the need to
coordinate the under-voltage load shedding with under-frequency load shedding and generation protection.

16

III. OVERVIEW OF FACTS CONTROLLERS

FACTS Controllers are assemblies that contain arrays of power electronic switches and are controlled by a
digital processor. The names of these controllers are related to the primary function that the product is to
perform. A number of different controllers can have many of the same components and functions.
Alternatively controllers with the same name from different manufacturers may have quite different
component arrangements to accommodate different types of electronic switching devices and different
switching algorithms (pulse width modulation or phase controlled switching).
The power rating of a FACTS Controller can be tailored within practical limitations to the needs of the
specific application. Although many of the principles involved in making a FACTS Controller have been
known, power electronic switches with sufficient rating to be useful in transmission applications are
relatively recent inventions. The earliest device was the power thyristor that can be controlled to tum on at
any point in the ac voltage cycle where it is forward biased. It commutates to the off state when it becomes
reversed biased. When arrayed in a bridge circuit the controller can function as a controlled rectifier, a
power inverter or a controlled solid state switch depending on the circuit configuration and control
algorithm.
The newer power electronic switches, the gate tum-off thyristor (GTO), the more recent gate commutated
thyristor (GCT) and the insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) have the capability to both tum on and
tum off when they are forward voltage biased. This added capability allows switching arrays to be
designed that can synthesize a controlled voltage waveform and provide active and reactive power control.
The details of these circuits and advantages of both the devices and alternative circuits are described in a
recent book written by Narain Hingorani and Laszlo Gyugyi, who pioneered development of many of these
circuits [5].
Although initial FACTS Controllers are considered to be expensive compared to conventional alternatives,
there is hope that this cost will be reduced as the Controllers mature and as larger and more efficient
electronic switching devices are developed. At the time this document was written, individual thyristors
with ratings of 8000 volts and 6000 Amps, GTOs and GCTs with ratings of 6000 volts and 4000 amps, and
IGBTs with ratings of 2000 volts and 1200 amps are currently available although most operating FACTS
installations use smaller devices that have had more service experience. Costs of individual power
electronic devices have decreased by about half over the past ten years, but recently have reached a plateau
because larger devices do not have many commercial applications other than for transmission system
control. Future rating increases and cost decreases will be driven by the volume and requirements of
applications in the transmission systems.
The largest ratings that have been applied for FACTS Controllers are for Static Var Compensators where
there are several installations with ratings above 300 MVA capacitive and 200 MVA inductive. By
contrast, the largest installed rating for GTO based Controllers is a Unified Power Flow Controller with
two converters each rated at 160 MVA. These converters can generate either inductive or capacitive
reactive power, which gives them a dynamic rating of 320 MVA. The installation can also be reconfigured
to operate both with both inverters connected through shunt transformers as a +/-320 MVA STATCOM
with dynamic rating of 640 MVA.
The electronic switches for all FACTS Controllers operate at voltage levels below 100 kV. They are either
coupled to higher voltage networks through transformers or placed on insulated platforms at transmission
line potential. As can be seen from the illustration of the reactive power requirement in high voltage

17

transmission networks in the Appendix, there is a need for continued development of controllers with
larger ratings.
A. Static Var Compensator (SVC)
The Static Var Compensator used for transmission system applications is a regulated source of leading or
lagging reactive power. It is comprised of a combination of reactive branches connected in shunt to the
transmission network through a step up transformer [14].
Thyristor control gives the SVC characteristics of a continuous voltage controller or of a stepped reactive
power source depending on the control algorithms and the combinations of branches. There are three main
building blocks available to make-up the required SVC capability. They are the thyristor-switched
capacitor (TSC), the thyristor switched or thyristor controlled reactor (TSR or TCR), and the harmonic
filter (HF). Fig. 4 shows a configuration that has both inductive and capacitive capability.

Trans.

TSC

Filter

Fig. 4. Circuit diagram of a SVC containing a thyristor controlled reactor, a thyristor switched capacitor and a double tuned
filter

The SVC is configured with the number of branches required to meet a utility specification. This
specification includes required inductive compensation and required capacitive compensation. The sum of
inductive and capacitive compensation is the dynamic range of the SVC. One or more thyristor-controlled
reactors may continuously vary reactive absorption to regulate voltage at the high voltage bus. This
variation is accomplished by phase control of the thyristors, which results in the reactor current waveform
containing harmonic components that vary with control phase angle. A filter branch containing a power
capacitor and one or more tuning reactors or capacitors is included to absorb enough of the harmonic
currents to meet harmonic specifications and provide capacitive compensation. The thyristor switched
capacitor is switched on or off with precise timing to avoid transient inrush currents.
For applications where there is no requirement for precise voltage regulation, the SVC can be configured
with either switched inductive or switched capacitive branches to insert or remove blocks of reactive
compensation. These blocks can either be left in service for extended time periods for steady state

18

compensation or rapidly switched to improve transient or oscillatory stability. Switched compensation

applications do not have a need for harmonic filters.
The SVC can be part of an overall FACTS voltage control strategy including mechanically switched
capacitors or reactors to provide bulk compensation for steady state conditions. For this strategy, control
of switching the bulk compensation components can be done by the SVC control system or alternatively by
the transmission system control [15]. For high voltage transmission system applications, the SVC typically
has a dynamic range of several hundred MVAR to perform the required functions.
B. Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)

The STATCOM performs the same voltage regulation and dynamic control functions as the SVC.
However, its hardware configuration and principle of operation are different. It uses voltage source
converter technology based upon power electronic devices (presently gate turn-off thyristors (GTO), GCTs
or insulated gate bi-polar transistors (IGBT)) that have the capability to interrupt current flow in response
to a gating command. This allows the switching pattern of the power electronics to generate or absorb
controllable reactive power. The principle of generating reactive power with power electronic switching
converters has long been recognized, but the practical implementation of these concepts for transmission
line applications was not possible without suitable high-power electronic switches, having the inherent
capability. Under its Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) program, EPRI has sponsored the
development of high power valves using gate-turn-off thyristors (GTOs), new inverter circuit topologies,
and advanced control techniques to promote the implementation of these new electronic concepts in
transmission systems. The first commercial utility application is reported in [16].
The STATCOM is analogous to an ideal electro-magnetic generator: it can produce a set of three
alternating, almost sinusoidal voltages at the desired fundamental frequency with controllable magnitude.
Unless it is equipped with either additional energy storage or a separate power source for the de bus, the
voltage angle is constrained to be very nearly in-phase with the transmission network at the point of
connection of the coupling transformer. When this voltage is higher in magnitude than the system voltage,
reactive current with a phase angle 90 degrees ahead of the voltage phase angle flows through the coupling
transformer. This is analogous to the operation of a shunt capacitor. When the generated voltage is lower
than system voltage, the current phase angle is 90 degrees behind the voltage phase angle that is analogous
to the operation of a shunt reactor. The slight deviation in voltage phase angle absorbs power needed for
the losses in the circuit. For high power applications a number of six or twelve pulse converters are
operated in parallel to meet both the current rating requirement and the harmonic requirement of the
network. Two different switching patterns, phase displaced converters with electronic devices switched
once per cycle and pulse width modulation, have been used to form the sinusoidal waveform.
Fig. 5 is a simple circuit diagram of a STATCOM. The switching converter circuit is controlled to
generate current within the rating of the power devices. Since this current can be either capacitive or
inductive, the dynamic range of a STATCOM is twice the KVA rating of the power circuit. For many
applications it is not necessary to have the same magnitude of inductive and capacitive capability. These
applications can often be most economically met by including either fixed capacitors or reactors in parallel
with the STATCOM to shift the dynamic range. These capacitors can be configured as part of a filter
circuit to allow switching patterns with higher harmonic content or they can be connected through
mechanical breakers to extend the overall rating of the installation. Installations currently in service
contain varying combinations of circuit configurations with dynamic ratings from 80 to 320 MVA [15 26].

19

System bus

v
Coupling
Transfo rmer

Transformer leakage
inductance

DC-AC
Switching
Converte r

Vdc

Fig. 5. STATCOM circuit diagram

When comparisons between the capability of the SVC and STATCOM are made, they are often illustrated
using a diagram of reactive current vs. system voltage. These diagrams are shown in Fig. 6. The bold
lines trace the normal operating points for these Controllers. Whenever system voltage falls below the
control setting, the SVC or STATCOM operates at the limit for inserting capacitive current. Since this
limit is a control setting for the STATCOM the current could be controlled to constant values at lower
voltages. If transient overload capability is included, that characteristic must also be part of the limiting
function in the control. By contrast, the SVC is a capacitor in this region and the capacitive impedance
controls its current. Because of that, reactive power production of an SVC decreases rapidly with the
square of the system voltage while STATCOM reactive power production rather decreases linearly.
Hence, for the same size Controller, the latter offers a better voltage support under severe contingencies.
Alternately, for certain situations, a STATCOM with smaller rating than the SVC can provide similar
performance.
Along the top sloped line, both Controllers operate as voltage regulators. The slope of the line (droop) is
an operator setting and is usually set between 0 and 0.1 pu. It is used to allow some variation in system
.voltage before the STATCOM or SVC moves to its limit so that other reactive power sources can be
coordinated. The SVC or STATCOM control is faster than other reactive power controllers so without this
coordination they would regulate system voltage until they reached the limit of their capability, then
system voltage would change and other equipment would act.

20

STATCOM

SVC

Transient
Rating

Transient
Rating

I
I

- ----~

Transient

Ra~_g ~~~:~ ~~:::~~=f:?

__

t---

Ie

.-----~----_-- ~- --- I

_ -- --- - -;~6

- - -- - - - - :);- ;

_ . ---

- -

. - - .- ...- - - - .,

~~~j~:~~=:: :~~~~~
ICmax

ILmax

I,
ICmax

ILrnax

(b)

(a)

Fig. 6 Characteristic Rating Curves for STATCOMs and SVCs

The control functions for STATCOMs and SVCs are similar. These are programmable digital controls and
they can represent any function that is needed. The only inherent delays in the systems are those related to
timing until the next power electronic device can be switched and transducer delays in the measurement
circuits. The typical block diagram for a STATCOM control circuit is shown in Fig. 7. This is a standard
proportional - integral (P-I) controller with gains Ki and Kp set to provide stable operation over a wide
frequency range. The time constant Tc represents the delays in the power circuit and is on the order of
one/half cycle.

Voltage Regulator Model

Current Regulator Model

I Lmax

VMEAS

VREF

i-sr,

Fig. 7. Block diagram of STATCOM control

The basic STATCOM will inherently maintain the transmission voltage and depending on its location it
may act to suppress voltage swings that are present at the high voltage bus. If damping for power
oscillations is needed, control signals and damping functions can be programmed and added to the
STATCOM control as shown in the block labeled "Other Signals". This junction is also sometimes used
for supplementary signals such as "Var Reserve" capability that offset the operator set reference to
maintain a programmed amount of reactive power in reserve for system emergencies.

21

c.

Energy Storage Systems (BESS and SMES)

An extension of the STATCOM or converter based devices is the addition of energy storage at the de bus.
These systems are often installed at distribution voltages, but their description is included in this document
because they can also be a source of distributed real and reactive power that are controlled to support the
transmission network during transient events [27 - 28].
Utilities have historically shown an interest in large-scale energy storage systems for load leveling. In
these applications, the storage system takes advantage of low cost energy during off-peak periods for
charging and then discharges the energy into the utility grid during peak periods. At an intermediate scale,
energy storage systems could provide stability and spinning reserve to transmission systems. At the
smallest scale, energy storage systems can provide ride-through and uninterruptible power for sensitive
loads. Energy storage has additional appeal because of potential complementary applications for spinning
reserve, and frequency and voltage control [29]. A more thorough discussion of energy storage
applications for transmission systems is presented in [30].
The addition of real power transfer capability does not necessarily result in a large increase in the MVA
rating of the converter, since the real power is in quadrature with the reactive power from the converter.
The addition of real power capability in the FACTS Controller may significantly increase its leverage (or
impact) on the system such that the converter MVA ratings may even be reduced.
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage

A SMES unit is a device that stores energy in the magnetic field generated by the de current flowing
through a superconducting coil. The inductively stored energy (E in Joules) and the rated power (P in
Watts) are commonly given specifications for SMES devices. Since energy is stored as circulating current,
energy can be drawn from a SMES unit with almost instantaneous response with energy stored or delivered
over periods ranging from a fraction of a second to several hours. A SMES unit consists of a large
superconducting coil at the cryogenic temperature. This temperature is maintained by a cryostat or Dewar
that contains helium or nitrogen liquid vessels [30].
Since the SMES coil acts as a de current source, it needs to be interfaced to the dc bus of the FACTS
device (STATCOM, SSSC, or UPFC) through a de-de chopper. Fig. 8 shows a simplified one-line diagram
ofa STATCOM with a SMES on the de bus.

SMES
Coil

Fig. 8. Simplified SMES One-Line Diagram

22

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

Batteries are one of the most cost-effective energy storage technologies available, with energy stored
electrochemically. A battery system is made up of a set of low-voltage/power battery modules connected in
parallel and series to achieve a desired electrical characteristic. Batteries are "charged" when they undergo
an internal chemical reaction under a potential applied to the terminals. They deliver the absorbed energy,
or "discharge," when they reverse the chemical reaction. Key factors in battery for storage applications
include: high energy density, high energy capability, round trip efficiency, cycling capability, life span,
and initial cost [31 - 32].
Since a battery will act as a voltage source, the battery can be connected directly to the de bus with a de
bus capacitor added in parallel with the battery. A simple one-line diagram of a typical BESS system is
shown in Fig. 9.
Load
Transformer

Utility Bus

Battery

Filter

Fig. 9. Simplified BESS One-Line Diagram.

For most operating conditions the BESS is equivalent to a voltage source behind the transformer reactance
(XT). The phasor diagram, shown in Fig. 10, illustrates a key feature of BESS system (or any other
storage system) operation. Since the generated voltage is controllable within the current rating of the
converter equipment, the ac current can be supplied at any phase angle relative to the terminal voltage
(VT) . This permits the BESS to generate any combination of real (battery) and reactive (converter) power.
The BESS power generating capability is limited only by the thermal rating of the converters and the
available battery voltage [32].

~:~iT
VT

Fig. 10. BESS Phasor Diagram

23

D. Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (rCSC)

The TCSC is a capacitor in series with the transmission line, a thyristor pair and reactor (TCR) in parallel
with the capacitor and a metal oxide varistor (MOV) to protect against overvoltage as illustrated in Fig. 11
[33]. It can function as a series capacitor if the thyristors are blocked or as variable impedance when the
duty cycle of the thyristors is varied. Applications currently in service provide impedance variation to
damp inter-area system oscillations. The most economical installations often contain one segment of
thyristor-controlled capacitors in series with one or more segments of conventionally switched series
capacitors.
MOV

I line

c
L

Control System

Fig. 11. One-Line Diagram of TCSC

The TCSC steady state fundamental frequency impedance characteristic is shown in Fig. 12. The power
circuit has three modes of operation: thyristors blocked (no gating and zero thyristor current), capacitor
bypassed (continuous gating and full thyristor conduction), and operation with phase control of gate signal
and consequent partial thyristor conduction, which is defined as "vernier" mode operation [34]. In the
vernier mode the firing angle can vary between 90 0 and a max-ind (inductive range) and between a mincap and 180 0 (capacitive range). The angles a max-ind and a min-cap are established by design to prevent
a fundamental frequency parallel resonance between the capacitor and the TCR.

24

X TCSC (
3.0

pU)

I
I

Inductive

I
I

2.0

I
I

1.0
, I
Xll-----O!max-indl
-- --- -- ---- --- - --- - --r- --- -- - - - - 0.0

-1.0
-2.0

I
I

-3.0

-- -- -

~min-cap

Xc

I
I
I

Capacitive

I
100

120

140

180

160

FirinA AnAle O!
Fig. 12. TCSC Fundamental Frequency Impedance Characteristic

In fact, equipment ratings and characteristics dictate the limits of operation. Limits due to voltage and
current ratings as well as control stability impose restrictions on the allowable reactance output control
range. Fig. 13 shows a typical reactance capability curve as a function of line current. It is important to
note the reduction in the dynamic range as the line current increases [35]. At low line current, the
maximum reactance is limited to a fixed maximum value due to firing angle limitation (curve A). At higher
line current, the maximum capacitor voltage rating dominates and the maximum reactance limit is
inversely proportional to the line current (curve C). The minimum capacitive limit is obtained with the
thyristors blocked (curve B).

LINE CURRENT (pu)

1,11

_--------~--G

Fig. 13. Typical TCSC Impedance-Current Capability Chara cteristic.

At low line current, the maximum inductive reactance is restrained to a maximum (fixed) value due to
firing angle limitation (curve E). At higher line current, the harmonic current heating effect dominates and
the maximum reactance limit is inversely proportional to the line current (curve F). At very high line
current, thyristor current may become limiting (curve G). The minimum inductive reactance is obtained
with the thyristors in full conduction (curve D) [35].

25

Naturally, the structure of the controller is dependent on the objective of the TCSC application. Allowing
the fast control of the series reactance of the transmission line, the TCSC can be used basically for three
purposes: power flow control, power swing damping and mitigation of subsynchronous resonance (SSR).
The main difference among these three distinct applications is the control structure used and the rating of
the equipment. Fig. 14 shows a generic TCSC control system comprising the three possible applications
above mentioned [35 - 39].

lese
Reference
(power or current)

power or
current

"0

X order

--0

P.I. controller

~o

Firing System

Power Swing Damping 1---'"

SSR

Fig. 14. Generic TCSC Control System

E. Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)

A static synchronous series compensator is a voltage source converter operated without an external electric
energy source as a series compensator whose output voltage is in quadrature with, and controlled,
independent of the transmission line current. Its purpose is to increase or decrease the overall reactive
voltage drop across the line and thereby control the transmitted electric power. The SSSC may include
transiently rated energy storage or energy absorbing equipment to enhance the dynamic behavior of the
power system by additional temporary real power compensation, to increase or decrease momentarily, the
overall real (resistive) voltage drop across the line.
The SSSC whose circuit is shown in Fig. 15 is often equated with a series capacitor, but it has several
operational differences [40]. In contrast to a series capacitor the SSSC is an ac voltage source. Without
energy storage at the de bus it is constrained to produce fundamental frequency voltage that is phased
either 90 degrees ahead or 90 degrees behind the transmission current. This has the same effect in the
transmission line as adding either a series capacitor or a series reactor. As long as there is sufficient line
current to supply internal losses in the SSSC and maintain de bus voltage, the ac voltage inserted in series
with the line is independent of the line current. This differs from the characteristic of simple series
impedance and allows larger variation of the apparent line impedance. The greatest effect occurs at lower
magnitude line currents.

26

System bus
Coupling
Transformer

Transformer leakage
inductance

DC-AC
Switching
Converter

Vdc

Fig. 15. Circuit diagram for a Static Synchronous Series Compensator

When the SSSC operates with fixed control inputs the inserted voltage has the fundamental output
frequency. Thus the effective output impedance versus frequency characteristic of the SSSC is unable to
form the classical series resonant circuit with the inductive line impedance to initiate subsynchronous
frequency system oscillations. On the other hand, the SSSC has a very fast response and, with proper
control, it can be very effective in damping system oscillations at frequencies as high as those that cause
subsynchronous resonance concerns.
As with any series connected equipment, the rating of the SSSC must be carefully selected to assure that it
does not limit the overall capability of the transmission circuit. Electronic circuits have less inherent
transient overload capability than passive electric circuits so the current rating of the SSSC must match the
overload current rating of the transmission line to prevent bypassing the SSSC during system swings.
Protection of the SSSC is accomplished using a combination of an electronic bypass and a mechanical
breaker. The electronic bypass may"be a switching algorithm for the GTO or IGBT devices in the
converter or, for higher current circuits; it may be a separate thyristor switch with a high temporary current
rating. The bypass protection uses instantaneous line current as its control variable and can be
programmed to allow reinsertion attempts to return the SSSC to service as rapidly as possible.
The de bus for the SSSC can be enhanced by addition of temporary energy storage using additional de
capacitors, batteries or other energy storage equipment. This would allow it to transiently inject or absorb
real power from the transmission line to enhance its ability to damp system oscillations by injecting a
voltage phasor with 360 degrees of control. A more important need for having a modest amount of real
power storage occurs when the line is operating at low current, but there is a need for voltage injection to
damp oscillations. The stored energy can maintain the de bus voltage for the SSSC as line current swings
below the levels that are required to maintain this voltage. To date there have not been applications using
this capability and detailed studies that define both system conditions requiring the enhancement and
appropriate control algorithms are required to define this benefit.
F. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)

The Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) provides voltage, and power flow control by using two high
power voltage source converters (VSC) coupled via a de capacitor link. Fig. 16 shows the two
interconnected converters. VSC 1 is connected like a STATCOM and VSC 2 is connected as a SSSC in

27

series with the line. With the de bus link closed, the UPFC can simultaneously control both real and
reactive power flow in the transmission line by injecting voltage in any phase angle with respect to the bus
voltage with the series converter. The shunt-connected converter supplies real power required by the series
connected converter. With its remaining capacity the shunt converter can regulate bus voltage [41 - 43].
The UPFC's functional flexibility meets the specification of a "black box" that American Electric Power
(AEP) defined for the Inez substation in Inez, Kentucky [44 - 45]. Planning studies showed that together
with a high capacity 138 kV transmission circuit, the UPFC, with ratings of 160 MVA for the shunt
inverter and 160 MVA for the series inverter, could allow the delivery of as much as 900 MW of real
power to the Inez area during emergency conditions. A control algorithm that includes operation of six
mechanically switched capacitor banks and two series reactors maintains power flow and voltage
regulation for a wide range of system conditions with minimum transmission system loss. This installation
was developed and placed into operation in 1997 by AEP, EPRI and Westinghouse as part of EPRI's
FACTS development program.

Line

VSC 1

VSC 2

de bus

Control
Fig. 16. Circuit Diagram of a Unified Power Flow Controller

The UPFC circuit can be reconfigured by use of external switches and possibly additional transformers to
form STATCOM, SSSC, or coupled SSSC circuits. This latter circuit called the Interline Power Flow
Controller (IPFC) is included in the Convertible Static Compensator (CSC) project developed by EPRI, a
coalition of utilities headed by the New York Power Authority and Siemens [46]. Operation of
STATCOM and SSSC circuits are also part of both the AEP Inez project and the NYPA esc project.
G. Interphase Power Controller (IPC)

The Interphase Power Controller (IPC) is a technology that allows a number of innovative power flow
controllers having different characteristics and configurations. As shown in Fig. 17, the generic IPC is a
series-connected controller consisting of two impedances in each phase subjected to individually phaseshifted voltages. With phase shifts provided by PSTs, the circuit response time is of the order of few
minutes. However, it meets many of the characteristics of a FACTS Controller: independent control of
active and reactive powers, instantaneous voltage decoupling and current limitation under fault conditions
at either side. The four design parameters (two impedances and two internal phase-shifts) allow great

28

flexibility at the design stage so that many applications are possible [47 - 51]. Power electronics can be
integrated to IPCs when needed [52].

Fig. 17. Generic Circuit Diagram of an Interphase Power Controller

The following paragraphs briefly outline the three categories of IPC applications commercially available
today.
o The IPCs described in [47 - 48] are a subset of the technology where the impedances form a
parallel circuit tuned to the fundamental frequency. These high impedance Il'Cs have the unique
properties of limiting their own contribution to a fault and of decoupling the voltages at their
terminals in a passive manner. They are intended for interconnections otherwise not possible
because of high short-circuit levels, hence their name: Decoupling Interconnectors (DI).
o For transmission applications, the detuning of the two branches provides a passive solution for the
control of steady state and post-contingency power flows [49 - 50]. The Plattsburgh IPC belongs to
this category called Assisted Phase-Shifting Transformers (APST) [52]. An APST is made of a
high impedance in parallel with a PST. No modification to the PST is required and its
controllability is maintained. The impedance shares a portion of the flow with the PST so that the
net capabilities of the installation can be increased as compared to those of a stand alone PST
(higher throughput and mitigation of post-contingency PST loading conditions). Depending on the
operating mode of the PST, buck or boost, the parallel impedance is either inductive [49] or
capacitive [50]. APSTs with capacitors offer other benefits such as voltage support and losses
reduction.
o The adaptability of the IPC technology is also demonstrated by the various ways the internal phase
shifts can be implemented. The conventional PST is the first obvious choice but the IPC
characteristics can also be obtained using conventional transformers, adapted with auxiliary
windings, to create the internal phase shift (by injecting a voltage from another phase). Thus an
IPC linking two voltage levels is possible and can be designed with or without the decoupling
characteristics of the tuned IPC. A tuned application of this type called Fault Current Limiting
Transformer (FCLT) is presented in [51].

29

IV. FACTS CONTROLLER MODELS FOR PLANNING, OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT DESIGN
ANALYSES
For FACTS Controllers to be included in transmission system plans, there must be appropriate models for
all the analyses that are normally performed. These analyses include those normally associated with
system planning, system protection, system operation and equipment design. The types of studies required
include:
Power Flow studies by system planning engineers using forecast loads and generation as well as
contingency planning and economic analyses.
Power Flow studies by system operations using actual system configuration data, short-term load
forecasts and critical contingencies.
Power system dynamic performance analyses performed by system planning to assure that the
system can maintain synchronism and ensure adequate damping following maximum credible
disturbances for load and generation profiles that may exist during the planning period. Either
system planning or system operations engineers also perform these analyses to help develop
contingency plans to separate large networks and shed load or generation to maintain frequency in
the system islands formed for very rare but more severe events.
Controller interaction and subsynchronous oscillation (SSO) studies are not often performed by
utilities in the planning stagec rather these are typically left to the equipment suppliers to account
for in the actual design of the FACTS Controller to be installed.
Optimal Power Flow (OPF) studies performed by system planning to locate FACTS Controllers at
substations that maximize their value and by system operations to determine reference values. The
objective functions could include maximization of power transfer across a constrained interface,
minimization of transmission system losses or reduction in overall system energy losses.
Short Circuit studies performed by system planning or protection to help define equipment ratings
and assure that system expansion does not result in fault currents above the capability of existing
equipment. System protection engineers perform these studies to determine protection settings and
coordination of protective equipment. The model requirements for these studies may have some
differences. Furthermore, Short Circuit Analyses are performed to define circuit breaker ratings,
protective relay strategies and settings. These studies are similar to those performed for addition of
other equipment including transformers, capacitors, or transmission lines. For FACTS Controllers
connected in series with transmission lines, these studies assume that the controller either will be
bypassed for high current faults to protect the electronic switches and that they may control the line
current for low amplitude faults. Shunt connected FACTS Controllers will not add to short circuit
currents beyond their current ratings.
Harmonic Analysis studies and studies of potential harmonic interactions between FACTS
Controllers may be required. Often they are performed using electromagnetic transient analysis
(Electro-Mechanical Transient Program (EMTP) studies, ATP, or EMTDC) programs with the
circuits represented in three-phase detail. They may not be a routine part of the system planning
process, rather they would be performed in the design stage by the equipment suppliers, but
appropriate models must be available.
In order for the control center, the independent system operator (ISO) or the power pool to run energy
management system (EMS) functions, appropriate models for FACTS Controllers need to be implemented
in the control center software. EMS applications use the state estimator output as their input data and the
FACTS Controllers need to be appropriately represented in the state estimator software. Similarly load
flow and stability models are needed for security analysis. Since the simulation programs used in system

30

planning are different than those running on the EMS, additional work might be required for the
implementation of these models in the EMS applications.
Much of the modeling information for these Controllers is included in a document prepared by CIGRE TF
38-01-08 [53]. Additional information as well examples of FACTS applications is contained in a recent
book [54]. This document only summarizes the material from these sources and offers suggestions on
planning procedures.
A. Steady State Models

Load flow types of analyses including optimal power flow formulations, and most EMS routines represent
the transmission network using a positive sequence impedance representation for each network element.
For these analyses, there are a number of options to represent shunt connected FACTS Controllers that
have the objective of regulating voltage. The choice of which to use depends on both the user interface
with the program and the care and skill of the analyst. A number of programs currently have explicit data
input for SVC or STATCOM models. In these cases, the representation is a controlled reactive current
injected into the system bus. The current is varied within the capability of the controller to force the bus
voltage to match the reference value. Capability is defined according to the curves shown in Fig. 6.
When there are no explicit models included in the software, these Controllers can be represented using
either capacitors or reactors. Such a representation requires that the analyst modify the value of the
capacitance or inductance either manually or by using a user defined function outside the solution routine
of the software. Alternatively the SVC or STATCOM can be modeled using a synchronous machine
model operation at zero power factor. If either of these choices is used, the analyst must monitor the study
result to assure that the reactive power injected into the bus is within the capability of the controller.
FACTS Controllers that add voltage in series with a transmission line are more difficult to model in load
flow types of analyses. This is due to the fact that the matrix formulation for these analyses does not
permit a voltage to be directly added to a node voltage. The most direct way to circumvent this difficulty
is to convert the voltage source into a current source using a Norton equivalent. This approach is
explained in Chapter 8 of the CIGRE working group document on modeling of power electronic
controllers [53]. It requires the addition of a reactance in the load flow model between the substation bus
at the end of the line containing the FACTS Controller and a new bus connected to the line. This reactance
may be the reactance of a series insertion transformer, reactance of a series capacitor or other convenient
value that is of comparable size with other reactance in the system. A current source is connected to each
bus and a set of equations is developed to adjust the injected currents at each iteration step to match the
FACTS Controller characteristics and desired control objective for the line. These equations are written
assuming that the voltage at the substation bus and at the sending end of the line is known. The normal
load flow iteration process calculates bus voltages consistent with the injected currents and the series
reactance. Adjustment of the injected currents accounts for the operation of the series connected FACTS
Controller.
The most popular transmission system software programs do not currently have embedded models that
represent all the capabilities of complex FACTS Controllers including the UPFC, IPFC and SSSC.
Instead, they allow user defined routines that automate some of the logic that determines the limiting
functions, injected currents, and protective operation (including bypass of the series connected inverter).
Use of these routines can slow the convergence of the system load flow, particularly if the FACTS
Controller changes from a limiting condition to controlled operation for each iteration. There has been
work to develop techniques such as definition of Jacobian functions to guide the convergence process, but

31

much remains to be done. When the purpose of the planning study is to define the best location, type or
size for the FACTS Controller, the solution does not require limits on the capability of the Controller and
convergence is usually much more rapid. At times, adequate estimates of the benefit or the FACTS
Controller can be made using series reactance, capacitance, or PST to shift the power flow or add reactive
power to the network. If this technique is used the results must be carefully interpreted to assure that the
FACTS Controller has equal or greater capability than the device used.
When the analysis includes consideration of system losses, it is necessary to include an estimate of the
losses of the FACTS Controller. For planning purposes an estimate that the no load loss of the Controller
is 0.5% of the product rating and full load loss is 1.25% the rating is sufficiently accurate. The losses vary
approximately as the square of current between no load and full load.
B. Transient and Dynamic System Simulation Models

One of the prime applications of FACTS Controllers is to improve the dynamic performance of the system.
Transient stability time domain simulation programs are often used to show the capability of the FACTS
Controller and tune controls for robustness. These programs model the transmission network with positive
sequence algebraic equation models. Dynamic equipment including turbine generators, excitation system
controls, large induction motor loads, and de terminal controls are modeled using first order differential
equations. Interface between the differential equation models and the algebraic models is controlled by
performing the simulation on a step-by-step basis with the either a voltage source behind a reactance or a
current source used at each connection of a differential equation model to the network. The magnitude and
phase of these sources are adjusted by the differential equations and held constant while during the
iteration at each time step to solve for voltages and currents in the transmission network.
When FACTS Controllers are included in these simulation programs, their models must both represent the
dynamics of the equipment and match the methodology of the simulation program. Typical time steps
used to represent synchronous machines are on the order of one fourth to one half cycle of the system
fundamental frequency (0.004167 to 0.00833 seconds for a 60 Hz system). There is a general rule for stepby-step solution of differential equations that the time step should be less than or equal to one tenth of the
smallest time constant that is to be represented. FACTS Controllers have control systems that can react
much faster than can be accurately modeled using time steps normally associated with synchronous
machines. This leaves the analyst with the choice of including the power circuit for the FACTS Controller
in the algebraic portion of the simulation or greatly reducing the simulation time step with consequent
increase in simulation time. The latter choice may be reasonable for special study applications even
without all other system models also expanded to include fast dynamic changes.
Most FACTS Controller models for dynamic simulation programs represent the power circuit, limiting
process, and protective functions including bypass and re-insertion of series elements using algebraic
equations. At each time step, the voltage behind reactance or injected current is calculated based on the
conditions at the last time step and the transmission system voltages and currents at the point of common
connection. The equations solved and connections to the network are the same as for load flow
calculations. However, there is no need to iterate the control settings for the FACTS Controller because
they directly continue based on the operation at the previous step. This process places an artificial time
delay of one time step in the response of the FACTS Controller, but this partially compensates for internal
time constants that are ignored in the solution.
When additional control circuits are included to provide damping for system oscillations, they are modeled
using linear differential equations. This is very similar to the models used for excitation system controls

32

and other dynamic controllers in the system. Usually these models have longer time constants to both
adjust the frequency response to match system frequencies of interest and to limit the bandwidth of the
damping control. For complex FACTS Controllers like the UPFC, there is opportunity to have separate
damping control circuits for the series and shunt connected converters. If this capability is exploited, the
models must still respect the power transfer relationships between converters and the capability limits of
each converter.

c.

Detailed Electro-Magnetic Transient Simulation Models

Much of the effort expended in making models of FACTS Controllers has been to make as exact a
simulation of both the power circuit and control system as possible. These models are initially used by
researchers to develop switching algorithms and study issues such as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)
switching, multi-level inverters, tum off voltage transients and other details of the inverter circuits. They
are later used as development tools to determine transient interactions with power circuits including the
action of the inverter during close by system faults and effects of system unbalance on the de bus and
inverter output waveforms. While these uses are of extreme importance to equipment designers, their
principal value to system planners is for verification that the Controller works as intended.
When detailed transient models of FACTS Controllers include representation of the transmission network,
they are often made using a software program like the Electromagnetic Transients Program (EMTP) [55].
This type of program represents transmission lines, transformers, electric generators and other system
elements in three-phase detail. The simulation equations are instantaneous first order differential equations
that can be scaled to provide voltages and currents in volts and amperes. Systems are usually limited to
about 30 transmission lines with equivalent voltage sources that include short circuit impedance used to
terminate the network. This limited size both focuses the analysis on the transients that directly involve the
FACTS Controller and provide a practical size for simulation times and data requirements. Transients like
fault clearing require very small time steps for numerical integration to provide accurate results. Often
these steps are on the order of 1 to 10 microseconds depending of voltage rise times and bandwidth of the
desired response. Often, EMTP type studies are not required in the planning stage and are left to the
equipment suppliers in the detailed design stage.
D. Harmonics

Most specifications for FACTS Controllers require the installation to meet either harmonic voltage or
harmonic current requirements specified in industry standards. Often the referenced standard is IEEE
Standard 519 [56]. This standard is written using the philosophy that a utility will supply voltage at the
point of customer connection with harmonic content below the limits of the standard. It is the
responsibility of the customer to limit the harmonic current drawn from the network below the values
specified in the standard.
As written, the standard is not directly applicable to equipment that is embedded in the utility system. It is
generally interpreted to mean that the point of connection of the FACTS Controller to the network will
meet the harmonic voltage requirements for all foreseen system arrangements. When FACTS Controllers
contain filter circuits that may be affected by the harmonic impedance of the network, extensive studies
may be required to assure that the requirements are met. Some utilities prepare generic impedance plots
for different harmonic frequencies that show portions of the R-X plane where the harmonic impedance
may be. These plots are used for shunt-connected controllers. An analysis showing the harmonic voltage
at the point of common connection for any value of system impedance within the areas and for all
operating conditions of the FACTS Controller must be made to assure compliance with the standard. For

33

many FACTS Controllers that use harmonic neutralized voltage source converters or PWM converters, the
converter characteristics will assure compliance for the lower harmonic frequencies. For controllers
connected in series with transmission lines, harmonic analysis may be more complex. It is not easy to
define independent harmonic impedances viewed from each end of the transmission line to include in the
analysis. Therefore, for the systems that have been designed to date there is usually a study made using
either the EMTP or similar digital computer program or an active circuit transient analyzer to search for
resonant conditions or interactions between controllers. These studies are similar to those performed to
design the control systems for DC transmission lines and they require both detailed system data and a
number of engineering judgments to determine the significant issues.

34

v.

OPERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FACTS CONTROLLERS

The maximum benefit from a FACTS Controller is obtained when its use is coordinated with other
transmission equipment. This requires that the utility applying the controller consider the information
infrastructure and communications required for this coordination. It also requires decisions made with
system operators about defining reference values for the FACTS Controllers and switching procedures for
conventional transmission equipment (tap changing transformers, switched capacitors, etc.) An important
activity that must be part of the application is an estimate of the functional reliability of the overall system
and specific analysis that shows the security of the system considering possible malfunctions of portions of
the coordinated control.
An important part of the application to add FACTS Controllers to a transmission system is the functional
specification for the Controller. In addition to the ratings and standards requirements there are several
considerations that may be unique to FACTS Controllers. These include the communication interfaces
with the system, the level of automation in the substation and coordination of substation switching
equipment and relays. Some utilities also standardize the symbols used to depict equipment in graphical
displays and the acronyms and abbreviations used in all printed documents. This equipment includes
substation event recorders that are invaluable for both documenting the benefit of FACTS Controllers and
diagnosing control and protection issues. A careful determination of how much of this equipment is to be
supplied with the FACTS Controller and how much will be added by the utility greatly enhances both the
acceptance and usefulness of FACTS products.
Communication requirements for the remote operation of the FACTS Controller must be clearly defined by
the utility. Remote monitoring of the controller must be possible via a dial-up link. Data and status as well
as command signals, their type, speed and bandwidth requirements and the communication protocols to be
used needs to clearly defined by the utility.
In most applications both the installation of equipment and the strategy for operating the system will
evolve over time. It will be necessary for utilities to establish operating procedures and requirements for
these systems. Operational robustness for large-scale control requires:
Design and certification procedures based upon directly measured system dynamics
Assured resources for the prompt detection, analysis and correction of anomalous controller effects
Performance monitors that communicate information to system analysts
Tests for commissioning and periodic certification
Information exchange with major grid operators
A conservative approach for the initial application of FACTS Controllers in a system is to provide
protective equipment that removes the controller from service whenever it detects an adverse impact. This
practice limits the benefit of the controller, but it allows operating experience and collection of data for
transient events. Analysis of this data provides a sound basis for modifying the control strategy and
protection to increase the value of the application.

A. System Control Design Guidelines

Engineering of a major control system does not stop with its initial commissioning, A complete
demonstration of controller robustness, for example, is rarely possible. It will always be necessary to trade

35

controller performance against the inevitable risks associated with closing a high-power loop around
dynamics that are not fully understood.
To mitigate such risks controller development should include the following tasks:
Comprehensive model studies, searching out the extremes of predicted system behavior and
potential mechanisms for adverse controller effects.
Field tests and measurements, used to:
o Determine the extremes of actual system behavior
o Validate and refine large-scale computer models.
o Assess unmodeled elements of the controller environment.
o Develop accessory dynamic models for controller tuning.
o Evaluate controller tuning and performance.
o Detect adverse controller effects or changing power system dynamics.
Preparation of resources necessary to the prompt analysis and correction of adverse controller
effects. These resources include:
o An ample reserve of directly measured dynamic information at the controller site.
o A comprehensive monitor record of controller effects.
o A validated model and database that can be readily adjusted to represent specific power
system conditions.
o Comprehensive mathematical software and computer support for systems analysis and
controller design.
o Readily available staff, with appropriate skills.
All of these measures affect the functional reliability that is ultimately attained by a large-scale controller
and, for a large-scale damping controller; they may be critical in this respect. Some of them, such as
model validation or extension of mathematical software, can involve a great deal of lead time and should
be launched well in advance of specific need.
The "field engineering" of a control system are those aspects of controller development and operation that
rely upon measurement based analysis. These can be categorized as:
Evaluation of the controller operating environment
Commissioning of the control actuator
Commissioning of the damping controls
Evaluation and refinement of controller performance
The technical effort that these field engineering activities require is determined by the predictability of
controller effects, by the extent to which these effects extend beyond the controller site, and by the
importance of the controller mission. This effort can range from being fairly straightforward to very
demanding. Technical aspects of field engineering major damping controllers include fundamental issues,
conceptual frameworks, tools, utility experience, and suggestions for safe practice. An underlying theme is
that system infrastructure, not just raw technology, has the most influence for obtaining full value from
major control systems. This is particularly true of damping controls, where continuously operating
feedback loops may increase exposure to unexpected interactions.
The bulk of industry experience in the design and operation of damping controls is associated with power
system stabilizers (PSS units). While their cumulative effect is global-that is, it affects the entire power
system-individual PSS units can ordinarily be treated as local controllers, especially if they are installed on
modestly sized generators in a tightly meshed system. Control is more complicated at sites that are loosely
connected, that involve variable topology [57 - 58], or that involve highly variable operation (such as
pumped storage [59]). The design calls for a good knowledge of regional dynamics, and the field
engineering may require support from neighboring utilities.

36

Damping control of Static Var Compensator (SYC) units and other FACTS Controllers, such as the
Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC), is almost always achieved from locally observed quantities.
However, the impact of the damping control loop is often over a large scale region. The tools, experience,
and practices that have evolved for PSS based damping do not automatically extend to designing these
global controls. The actuator itself also has a much higher bandwidth than does the generator that a PSS
unit controls. The designer of a FACTS damping control must be mindful of potentially troublesome
interactions with other controllers or devices.
Dampers based upon HVde transmission facility experience epitomize the opportunities, and the
complexities, that are associated with wide area control [60 - 61]. Modulation of large HYdc facilities
connecting electrically distant systems usually has significant leverage over all dynamic processes in the
power system, even those at the lowest frequencies. Interactions and side effects can be widespread,
subtle, and difficult to observe at the controller site. Wide spread telecommunication inputs to controllers
can further complicate the system response and infrastructure inter-dependencies must also be considered.
Caution must be exercised when exploiting opportunities to dampen the system using wide area control.
The functional reliability of a new transmission line or power plant is almost synonymous with its
hardware reliability. A power system controller, however, is often less vulnerable to hardware failures
than to errors in its control law or in the models underlying it. These reflect the uncertainty of the
controller's operating environment, which can become a serious problem as the scale of the control
objectives is expanded. It must be accepted that a complete demonstration of controller robustness may
not be possible. It will always be necessary to trade controller benefits against the inevitable risks
associated with closing a high-power loop around dynamics that are not fully observed and not fully
understood. Functional reliability must be assessed more broadly, in ways that incorporate engineering
judgment and are fortified through sound practice. Uncertainty should be mitigated where possible by
reducing controller performance and impact on the system.
Field Engineering Issues

The majority of damping controllers are single-input single-output (SISO) devices based upon linear
feedback. Their conceptualization and design ordinarily starts with a very basic model, such as that in Fig.
18, where s denotes the customary Laplace transform variable and plant is a generic term for the dynamic
process under control. As the design proceeds the model may expand to include limiters, signal
conditioning, Kalman filters, and digital processing devices. The design engineer can specify most or all
of these in advance.

r(s)
(setpoint)

e(s)

G(s) - -...... --~ y(s)

plant

(output)

controller
Fig. 18. Elementary model for feedback control

Testing and initial operation of the controller calls for further model additions that must be quantified in
the field or on the basis of prior operating experience-that is, through measurement based analysis. Some
of these are indicated in Fig. 19. It is likely that the actuator will have its own dynamics. In addition to

37

linear tracking of control law commands, actuator dynamics may involve nonlinear response, output noise,
and subtle interactions with other power system devices [62 - 63]. All of these will be processed through
the power system in some manner and fed back into the control law, with results that cannot always be
anticipated fully. The situation can be further complicated by transducer processing artifacts, such as
frequency aliasing, that may expose the control loop to stimulation or interactions with extraneous
dynamics outside its intended bandwidth.
external inputs u

E(t)
unmeasured response Yum(t)

POWER

load noise u L (t)

input u(t)

measured response Ym(t)

SYSTEM

nonlinear
interactions

frequency-aliased signals

measurement noise um(t)

liDearresponae

nonlinear response

ACTUATOR
actuator noise

u(t)

command At.
CONTROL
LAW

controller input y

m (t)

Fig. 19. Operating Environment for a Power System Feedback Controller

These are secondary (or parasitic) processes that must be dealt with while evolving a nominal design into
one that is practical and reliable. Some may be intermittent, and not active during staged tests (one of
many reasons for controller monitoring). Most are local to the controller site, however, or at least
observable there when the troublesome process is active. Given a competent measurement system, and
perhaps some collaboration with other affected sites, the control engineer can reasonably expect to detect,
assess, and mitigate such problems in the early stages of controller operation. This is a natural (and
sometimes very important) part of exploring and adjusting to the controller's immediate operating
environment.
As the controller matures in this respect the source of performance uncertainties will progressively shift to
more remote portions of the power system. This may lead to a "robust redesign" of the control law [64],
based upon models such as that of Fig. 20. This abandons the linear architecture and notation of earlier
figures. More significantly, it provides an "uncertainty loop" to augment the nominal plant model. The
associated uncertainty model is used to characterize off-nominal processes such as system noise, external
disturbances, and changes or modeling error in system dynamics.
Development of a quantified uncertainty model, and of the broader insights that this involves, are major
reasons for measurement-based analysis of power system behavior. Such models are required by the new
generation of design tools that directly accommodate system uncertainty in the control law. Model studies
are at best a partial source of the information needed. The rest must come from operating experience,
reinforced by good information systems and by good engineering practice.

38

A
uncertainties
r(s)

----

-.......

y(s)

plant

K
controller
Fig. 20. Feedback control model with uncertainty loop

The problem of transient oscillations raises some special concerns for the transmission planner. Is special
modeling needed in those portions of the network that are critically stressed? What level of oscillations
can be tolerated, and for how long? Put another way, what expenses are warranted to assure that
oscillations do not exceed certain level and duration limits? How realistic, how immediate, and how
frequent is the threat of such oscillations? Should discrete remedial actions such as controlled separation
be prepared? If a transient damper is installed, how large should it be? How would it perform if partial
islanding produced forced oscillations? Can it help? Should it be used for ambient damping? How can its
information and autonomy requirements be met without compromising system reliability? Just what are
these requirements?
The control engineer shares some of these concerns, but may phrase them differently. How many dampers
are needed in a large power system that has multiple sources of transient oscillations? Should they access
generator signals, or be located at generators? Do the control laws require parameter scheduling? Selftuning? What design software exists? Where? How must it be extended to meet power system needs?
How and when will this be accomplished?
B. Availability Requirements for FACTS Controllers

Transmission system equipment typically has both very long service life and very high availability. As the
design and manufacturing techniques for FACTS Controllers evolves, strong emphasis must be given to
both these characteristics. In contrast to much of the other transmission equipment, the FACTS
Controllers contain conventional equipment including transformers, circuit breakers, reactors and
capacitors. They also contain cooling systems, high power electronic valves, computerized controls, optical
communications and protective relays and monitors.
When availability requirements are defined, they should recognize that the Controller is a system. Many
specifications only provide a single availability requirement (usually 98% or higher). When the Controller
is provided primarily to allow additional transmission during peak periods or react to emergency
conditions, more detailed requirements should be considered. These should encourage system design that
allows for outages and maintenance of much of the equipment with the remainder continuing in service.
The major penalties would be reserved for failures to provide the control or support functions when they
were required. There could be lesser penalties for outages or partial outages to maintain on improve the
system during times when the control functions are less important.

39

At the time this document was written the number of inverter based FACTS Controller installations is
growing, but too small for meaningful availability statistics. Note however, there is significant installation
experience with SVCs and this can be used to estimate availability of the similar equipment. Judgments
made on equipment design features and the use of highly reliable components provides the best assurance
that system availability goals can be met. Key design concepts, engineering and manufacturing procedures
help assure reliability for the mature product. They include the appropriate selection of electronic
components, use of modular designs, redundant components, extensive diagnostics, adequate monitoring,
appropriate factory type tests and comprehensive commissioning tests.
Furthermore, special attention must be given to the selection, performance, and the degree of redundancy
of the cooling systems. Their operation and past performance has been a major contributor to the
availability of the FACTS Controllers. Selection of redundant critical components such as heat
exchangers, pumps, fans, and sensors, will improve the cooling system performance and the availability of
the FACTS Controllers. Maintenance tasks can be scheduled to have minimum impact on the operation of
the FACTS Controller. For the control and power electronic equipment, the tasks are primarily visual
inspection and cleaning. Since the inverters are immediately accessible when switched off line, the tasks
can be performed during short outages or they could all be done during a single outage. Performing some
tasks with the equipment in service may also minimize maintenance outage time. For example, the cooling
system may be designed so that any elements requiring maintenance can be isolated from the rest of the
system and maintained or repaired without causing an interruption of service or reduction in capacity.
The FACTS Controller should include control and monitoring features to protect the power electronics, to
self protect the cooling system, and to indicate the status of components. Utilities should be familiar with
these features and consider them in preparing system requirements for reliability of a FACTS Controller.

C. System Operator Basic Controlfeatures and Monitoring Requirementsfor FACTS Controllers

For FACTS Controllers to achieve widespread usage in transmission networks, system operators must be
familiar with their response under both normal and emergency conditions. This familiarity takes time to
achieve, particularly with a Controller that is designed to operate in automatic mode under direct control of
its internal control computers and indirect control of the system operation control computers. However,
many transmission system operators still rely on control room personnel to make important decisions.
These include decisions regarding tap settings for network transformers, the decision of when to switch
capacitor banks into or out of service, and possibly decisions to open circuit breakers to remove
transmission lines under light load conditions. Part of this operation may also be choosing or changing the
voltage set point for FACTS Controllers that regulate voltage and either the power flow setting or effective
impedance for series connected FACTS Controllers. For these actions to be properly coordinated the
system operators must be familiar with the expected response of the FACTS Controller and they must be
able to remotely access the basic control features and monitor the FACTS Controller operation.
While these system operation requirements are not directly related to the planning process, the planning
engineers should be familiar with and influence and influence the operating philosophy and assure that
their system studies match the system operation. These studies should consider the operation of the
equipment under all system conditions. There can be significant value in using the capability and
flexibility of this equipment to reduce the number of switching actions that operators must make on a daily
basis. This value can be expressed as reduced maintenance of network switching equipment. It may also
be expressed in term of system reliability when the FACTS Controllers allow system configurations that
will be more tolerant to severe disturbances. Provided that FACTS Controllers remain in service under

40

such disturbances, these values could be an important part of the justification of equipment that at present
is more expensive than conventional alternatives.
System Operator Graphical User Interface) Capability

For FACTS Controller actions to be properly coordinated the development of an appropriate operator
interface such as a Graphical User Interface (GUI) is one of the most effective operating tools. It is
important to involve the system operators in the design and development stage of the GUI to ensure that
the display of current operating status and operator settings for the FACTS Controller uses symbols and
acronyms that are standard for the utility and that the sequence of displays logically follows the normal
system operation. The interface also should display diagnostic information about the internal condition of
the FACTS Controller. The equipment manufacturer must prepare GUI displays that show equipment
status, but involvement of the system operators is essential to assure that their action in response to alarms
minimizes downtime for the Controller and assures that it is available during critical operation periods in
the system. The system specification should allow the operator to select the level of the detail of the
alarms/status received and the sub-systems to be monitored via the GUI. Most important system alarms
should always override the operator's selection and be displayed. Graphical information and user
friendliness provided by a GUI will result in a fast and accurate means of performing Startup/Shutdown
commands, Configuration/Control Mode changes and reference setting.
Startup/Shutdown and Configuration/Control Mode Changes

FACTS Controllers should be provided with both manual and fully automatic operation. Multi-inverter
FACTS Controllers may be interconnected with alternate insertion transformers to perform a number of
functions. When this is done the configuration (STATCOM, SSSC, etc) is defined as the specific way the
inverters are connected together and to the power system. Normally a configuration change will require
operation of a number of switches. These switches may operate in a few cycles if they are circuit breakers
or in a few seconds if they are mechanical switches. In each configuration a number of control modes
(voltage control, power flow control, etc.) may be possible defining the specific control function performed
by the FACTS Controller.
Routine startup and shutdown should be performed on a fully automatic basis. The operator will select an
operating configuration and push the start icon on the graphical user interface (GUI) to initiate the
sequence. A screen in the GUI should clearly indicate the status change of all motor operated devices
(MODs) and other switches and breakers for visual verification. Once the Controller is ready for insertion
(in shunt or in series) into the system, then the operator will manually (locally or remotely via substation
control and data acquisition (SCADA)) close the main breaker putting the Controller in service. For a
normal shutdown from any configuration the operator will push the stop button and the Controller will
reduce its injected current or inserted voltage to zero and then open the main breaker.
A forced shutdown due to a fault will operate the main breaker in a matter of few cycles. For FACTS
Controllers with 2-inverter configurations a forced partial shutdown scenario may exist to allow a
transition from the 2-inverter operation to a single inverter operation. Since the control strategy and the
control mode may be different after the transition, extreme care must be taken in implementation of the
controls. The configuration/control mode change must be fully reported to the system operator via the
GUI.
System planners should be aware of all the operating modes of the FACTS Controller and of switching and
time limitations for start-up, shutdown or mode change. If the main justification for the FACTS Controller

41

is its ability to support the system during emergency conditions, the planner must assure that his system
studies correctly represent the capabilities and constraints of the equipment that is installed.

Set-Point and Reference Setting

The system operator based on the directions from the power pool or the ISO usually performs the reference
setting function. In general the operator can enter set points manually but care must be taken so that the
Controller does not go to its limit thus losing dynamic control range. Normally reserve functions can be
implemented to slowly move the Controller from its limit and widen the control range. These functions as
well as the preferred voltage profiles are defined by system planners for both normal and emergency
operating conditions.
An automatic set-point adjustment function would be desirable to free the operator from set point
adjustments. This can be done by implementing appropriate scheduling functions in the EMS and
communicating the setpoints at desired intervals to the Controller. This scheduling function can ensure full
coordination of all Controllers on a slow time-frame basis.

D. Basic Training for System Operators

It is important for the system operators to have a clear understanding of the FACTS Controller
functionality and intended use. This can be achieved by initiating a sequence of training sessions from the
start of a given project. The system material prepared by system planners must be presented in the
simplest form, in terms that are most familiar to the operators. This can be done by drawing similarities to
basic electrical components and the consequences of their variation to system performance.
It is also crucial for the system operators to have a clear understanding of the objectives of a FACTS
Controller - in all of its configurations and control modes - on the system and to become familiar with the
expected system response of the FACTS Controllers. This is necessary for successful utilization of the
FACTS Controller and for detection of unexpected behavior should it occur. The interpretation of event
records is fundamental for operators to evolve procedures that maximize the value of FACTS Controllers.
A typical record of a line-to-ground fault near a STATCOM illustrates the level of detail available. Fig. 21
shows the response of a STATCOM to a remote single phase to ground fault. The fault on phase A of the
system depressed bus voltage at the STATCOM terminal by less than 30% on the faulted phase. However,
this was sufficient for the STATCOM control to reach full reactive power output before the fault was
cleared in four cycles. More severe disturbances often require control measures to limit output current and
interpretation of these waveforms is necessary to optimize the operation of the equipment.

42

P as ' ~ v

ta e kll

o
o
o

Vv~

V
h s B 01 ag (

VI

-A n A

o
o
o

";"

~h
o
o

ef v ,It g. (k ~

\
V\

<, /

(M~

~ ~ fi

Reactiv e powe r (MVA)

Real power

~
~~

~~\

V
A

fi

\~

-135

20

210

95

325

Time (ms)

Fig. 21. System voltage and STATCOM power in response to a single phase-to-ground fault

The system operator must be provided with clear step-by-step guidelines on the actions that need to be
taken under different system conditions. For example, after contingencies or during maintenance periods
certain configurations or control modes may be dictated by the system conditions. Also, any requirements
for enabling disabled functions as a result of a contingency must be clearly specified. Restoration
procedures for faults that result in full or partial shut down of the FACTS Controller need to be provided.
System planners using the results of load flow and stability studies provide these guidelines. They are also
influenced by the status of the FACTS Controller. A cooperative effort between the system planners and
the equipment manufacturers is necessary to ensure that the operation manual contains appropriate
instructions.

43

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In the deregulated electric system environment, transmission system planning is more difficult. Generation
plans are developed independently from load forecasts or transmission system upgrades. Many of these
plans are preliminary. Factors, such as fuel prices, conflicts with other facilities and/or transmission
system constraints, influence decisions to complete or cancel generation projects. The regulatory
environment, including definition of merchant transmission facilities, methodologies to charge for use of
transmission networks, definition of contract flow paths versus actual flow paths and other issues, are also
evolving. These issues, rather than the inclusion of FACTS equipment, significantly influence the
transmission planning process.
The industry has always sought the application of equipment that will maximize the use of available
transmission. FACTS Controllers are just additional options available to the planning engineer.
Specifically, they are a new generation of power electronic based equipment with the same function as
conventional equipment but with enhanced controllability and speed of response. Traditional planning
methods still apply. Equipment selection will depend on function, availability, cost, applicability,
reliability, and robustness in the face of future uncertainties.
Transmission networks operating at current flow levels near the thermal limits of transmission lines require
large amounts of reactive power. They also require that this reactive power is properly distributed
throughout the network and that a portion be dynamic to prevent voltage collapse during system
contingencies. The allowed transmission limits are defined both by rules intended to meet reliability
requirements and the physical limits of the system. The value of FACTS Controllers increases as the
operating limits of the system approach the physical limits.
This document provides guidance on how to incorporate FACTS Controllers into the traditional planning
process. It includes detailed discussions of the various types of FACTS Controllers, their functions and
applicability, as well as commentary on appropriate models for the necessary planning analyses. With
these tools, the transmission planner now has additional options available to improve overall transmission
system usage while maintaining system reliability.

44

VII. APPENDIX- EXAMPLE OFREACTIVE POWERNEEDED TO SUPPORTTRANSMISSION

SYSTEMS
The energy represented by reactive power is alternately stored in inductive elements of the network and in
either capacitive elements or overexcited synchronous machines. The exchange occurs two times per cycle
and is reflected in the voltage levels throughout the ac network. In planning for additions or modifications
to a transmission network, it is useful to have an understanding of the magnitude of reactive power needed
to operate the network. It is also useful to have understanding of how this need varies as real power
transfer varies. The following subsections of this appendix discuss relationships between real power
transfer in transmission networks, reactive power requirements and system voltage.

A. System Model and Analysis Method

Concepts of reactive power requirements to allow real power transfer can be illustrated using a single line
transmission network. For this example, consider the operation of a 100-mile-long (160.9 Ian) 500 kV
transmission line. Typical data for such a line is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
LINE DATA FOR A100-MILE LONG, 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE.

Resistance (Rline)
Inductive Reactance (Xline)
Capacitive Reactance (Xc)

Surge Impedance
Base Voltage
BaseMVA
Surge impedanceloading
Maximum Continuous Phase
Current

Primary Quantity

Per Unit

2.8 Ohms
54.3 Ohms
1270 Ohms
262.6 Ohms
500kV
1000MVA
952MW
3000 Amperes

.011
.217
5.08
1.05
1.0
1.0
0.952
2.6

Adding a source and load as shown in Fig. 22 completes the single line transmission system. At the
sending end, the system is represented by a voltage source behind impedance. At the receiving end, the
load is represented by the leakage reactance of a step down transformer and a variable resistance.
Appropriate source impedance would be approximately the transient reactance (0.25 pu) and resistance
(0.0125 pu) of a generating source. Likewise an appropriate reactance for the step down transformer at
the load end would be 0.1 pu. In this example all reactance is associated with generation, transmission and
the interface transformer for the load. It is assumed that the load has unity power factor or is compensated
separately. This makes it clear that the reactive requirements for this system are those that would be the
responsibility of the transmission network or the generation station.

45

----100Miles - - - - -

Xs

VI

Rune

Xline

Vr

Xt

Vs
~
2

~
2

Fig. 22. Simplified Single Line Transmission System

P-V and P-Q Curves

If the source voltage for the single line system is adjusted so that the magnitude of the voltage at the
sending end of the transmission line is held at 1.0 pu while the load resistance is varied, a plot of receiving
end voltage vs. load power is the familiar plot seen in many discussions of Voltage Stability although the
formulation of the analysis is somewhat different [65]. Fig. 23 shows this curve for load resistance varied
from 10.0 pu (power flow ofO.1 pu or 100 MW for 1.0 pu load voltage) to 0.013 pu (power flow of 80 pu
or 80,000 MW if load voltage could be maintained at 1.0 pu). The curves show that as the load resistance
is decreased, the voltage drops at the load end. It also shows that real power can not be increased beyond a
theoretical maximum value of2.36 pu).
The curves in Fig. 23 are nearly the same as would be drawn for a voltage source supplying a resistive load
through a reactor. At the maximum power transfer point the voltage across the resistor would be source
voltage divided by the square root of two. These curves are altered from the simple reactance calculation
by the line resistance, the capacitance at the receiving end of the transmission line and by the fact that the
voltages include the voltage drop of the load transformer reactance and a portion of the transmission line.
Since the voltage at the sending end of the line (V 1) is regulated to 1.0 pu, the source reactance has no
effect on the curve. The two curves show the voltage profiles at two places in the transmission system and
illustrate the sensitivity of system planning criteria based on voltage profiles to location in the network.

46

1.2
1

- --

--

--- --

---

5. 08.

Q)
C)

>

0.6
0.4
0.2

a
a

0.5

1.5

2.5

Power to Load (pu)

----- is voltage 10 miles from the sending end of the transmission line (VI) the line (Vr )

is voltage at the load end of

Fig. 23. P-V Curve for Single Transmission Line System.

A second curve that is very helpful in understanding the behavior of the system shows the amount of
reactive power that is supplied at the source end of the transmission line corresponding to the power flow.
Fig. 24 shows the power level (0.77 pu) at which the line requires no reactive power to transmit the real
power. It is well known that a transmission line operating at surge impedance loading (defined in per unit
as the magnitude of the line voltage squared divided by the line surge impedance or equivalently where the
reactive power absorbed by the line is equal to the reactive power generated by the line charging current)
has a uniform voltage along the line and requires no reactive compensation . This point would be 0.952 pu
power for this example except for the fact that the reactive power to support the load transformer is being
supplied by the line. Many long distance transmission lines are limited to operate near their surge
impedance loading levels.
At the maximum power transfer point, the reactive power required at the sending end of the transmission
line equals the load power as would be expected. Beyond this point, reactive power requirements increase
while real power transferred decreases. It would not be practical to plan a system that operated the
transmission line with the voltage profile and reactive power requirements indicated at the higher loading
levels. The useful range of the curve in Fig. 24 is limited by the reactive capability of the source. It is also
limited by the ability of load tap changer operations to provide satisfactory load voltage. Both of these
limits would be reached near a load power of 1.75 pu. Since the line has a continuous current rating of2.6
pu, it would not be fully utilized

47

-:::s

c.

Q)

t:

-0
e
...

Q)

~
0

---- ~

e,

Q)

.~

<.>

o
m
Q)

n: 0
0.5

1.5

'\
/
2

25

-1
Real Power at Load (pu)
Fig. 24. Real Power at load vs. Reactive Power required at the sending end of the transmission line for a Single Line
Transmission System.

Reactive Power Required to maintain 1.0 pu Voltage at Load End ofLine

A simple method to modify the circuit shown in Fig. 23 to maintain the voltage at the load end of the line
is to add a variable capacitance in parallel with the receiving end line capacitance. The source impedance
and the load transformer reactance are varied as described above to represent systems capable of the larger
power flows. The source voltage is adjusted to hold the magnitude of the voltage at the sending end of the
line (VI) at 1.0 pu and the variable capacitance is adjusted to hold the magnitude of the receiving end
voltage (Vr) equal to 1.0 pu.
Fig. 25 shows reactive power supplied by the variable capacitor and reactive power supplied by the source
to the line as a function of the power supplied to the load. Providing reactive support at the receiving end
of the transmission line allows it to be operated beyond its maximum continuous current rating of 2.6 pu.
However, reactive requirements increase rapidly for higher real power transfer and they exceed the real
power at current levels above 3.5 pu.

48

3.5
3

-~

2.5

c.
~

Q)

~
0

.r:

a. 1.5
Q)

>
;;

Q)

0:::

/
I I

0.5

.r:

,/

t"

~ > .>

.-

_.- ..

0
(

-0.5

5
I

Real Power to load (pu)

_ _ Reactive Power added at receiving end of line

------- Reactive Power added at source end of line
Fig. 25. Reactive Power required for maintaining voltage at both ends of the transmission line at 1.0 pu as Real Power flow is
increased.

Reactive power supplied at the receiving end of the line is greater than that supplied by the source to the
line because the reactive power to support the receiving end transformer comes from the variable capacitor.
At the point where the line current is equal to the maximum continuous current of the line, reactive support
for at the receiving end is 991 Mvar (0.991 pu) while that for the sending end is 527 Mvar (0.527 pu). The
power to the load is 2485 MW (2.485 pu) with 76 MW of losses in the line and load transformer. The
power factor at the sending end of the line is 0.98. A generating source would be expected to supply the
527 MV Ar to the line along with about 350 MVAr required for the generating source transformer. This
results in a power factor of 0.95, which should be reasonable for the generating source to supply.
Extension to More Complex Systems

The insight into operation of a transmission network given by a simple example can be used to understand
power flow results in more complex networks. It is useful to think of per unit systems that generally match
the amount of power being transferred. This allows some generalization for varying size networks. One
conclusion that is readily apparent is that a relatively large amount of reactive power must be available if
the intent is to operate the network at loading levels near thennallimits.
One concept embedded in plans for utility system de-regulation is that generating plants will supply
ancillary services including voltage regulation and reactive power supply. The simple example confirms
the experience of many system operators that these services are much more valuable when the generating
plant is located at the load center or near a critical junction of multiple transmission lines. It will not be
possible to operate ac transmission networks with generation located remotely from load centers unless
there is a large amount of reactive power capability at the load center.
The simple example can be used to obtain an order of magnitude estimate about how large the reactive
capability at the load center should be. If the distance to a strong generation source is less than about 50

49

miles or the system loading is less than 1.5 times the surge impedance loading of the lines, the load center
probably could be operated satisfactorily with reactive power supplied by and voltage regulated at the
generating plants. Load tap changers could reduce the voltage variation near the load.
For longer transmission paths or higher loaded circuits, both reactive requirements and transmission
system losses increase rapidly. The example shows that to fully utilize a 100 mile long line, reactive
power capability equal to about 40% of the rated real power transferred should be supplied at locations
other than the generating plant. The requirement to absorb reactive power is less than half the requirement
to generate it.
It is difficult to define system-planning procedures using curves of critical bus voltage vs. power
transferred. The voltage magnitude at the point of maximum transfer is dependent on the location in the
system where the measurement is made. Such analyses do not easily show the additional capability that
may be realized by better management of reactive power. They also rely very heavily on representation of
system loading at reduced voltage. It may be more useful to define indices related to the amount of
reactive power needed to maintain voltage at critical points in the system to amount of additional power
transferred. A rapid increase in reactive power requirement together with the critical lines approaching
thermal limits would be a better indication that additional reinforcement is required. When the increase in
reactive power is nearly equally to or greater than the amount or increase in real power transferred, the
system is near a limit.
Steady state analyses do not show whether the reactive power needed to enhance transmission line flow
can be supplied using conventional equipment rather than a FACTS Controller. One indication of the
amount of dynamic reactive power that should be available can be obtained by determining the amount of
reactive power needed for a contingency power flow to maintain voltage levels at the same point at the
non-contingency case. This estimate may be larger than the minimum that would be needed if voltage
deterioration were permitted for contingency cases, but it would provide a starting point for more detailed
analysis.

50

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document contains contributions from a large number of individuals as well as excerpts from several
of the referenced books and technical papers. Many people contributed by attending working group
meetings and providing comments. The following people supplied text material, illustrations and written
comments that are contained in this guide: Ram Adapa, Jacques Brochu, Kara Clark, Abdel-Ati Edris, Edi
von Engeln, Carlos Gama, Brian Gemmel, John Hauer, Mike Henderson, Narian Hingorani, Brian
Johnson, Ben Mehreban, John Mountford, John Paserba, Don Ramey, Hector Sarmiento, Colin Schauder,
Rajiv Varma and Dennis Woodford,
The chairman of this working group throughout the 4-year period during which this guide was developed
was Mike Henderson. His efforts to maintain the focus of the document and assure completion are
acknowledged.

51

IX. REFERENCES
[1] N.G., Hingorani, "Power Electronics in Electric Utilities: Role of Power Electronics in Future Power
Systems," Proceedings of the IEEE Special Issue Vol. 76, No.4, April 1988.
[2] N.G., Hingorani, "High Power Electronics and Flexible AC Transmission System," IEEE Power
Engineering Review, vol. 8 no 7, July 1988. Reprint of Joint American Power Conference/IEEE
Luncheon Speech, Chicago, Illinois, April 1988.
[3] IEEE FACTS Terms and Definitions Task Force of the FACTS Working Group of the DC and FACTS
Subcommittee, A. Edris, Chairman, "Proposed Terms and Definitions for Flexible AC Transmission
Systems (FACTS)," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, October 1997, pp. 1848-1853.
[4] IEEE and CIGRE FACTS Working Groups, E. Larsen and D. Torgerson, Chairmen, "FACTS
Overview," IEEE Special Publication 95-TP-I08, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1995.
[5] Narian G. Hingorani and Laszlo Gyugyi, "Understanding FACTS Concepts and Technology of
Flexible AC Transmission Systems," IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ , ISBN 0-7803-3455-8, 2000.
[6] Task Force of the IEEE FACTS Working Group on FACTS Applications, Fred Sener, Chairman,
"FACTS Applications," IEEE Special Publication 96-TP-II6-0, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1996.
[7] IEEE/CIGRE Joint Task Force on Stability Terms and Definitions, (P. Kundur, J. Paserba, V.
Ajjarapu, G. Andersson, A. Bose, C. Canizares, N. Hatziargyriou, D. Hill, A. Stankovic, C. Taylor, T.
Van Cutsem, V. Vittal), "Definition and Classification of Power System Stability," IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, August, 2004.
[8] Northeast Power Coordinating Council NPCC Document A-II, "Special Protection System Guide,"
November 14, 2002, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY [Document available on NPCC web site]
[9] N.G. Hingorani, "Introducing Custom Power," IEEE Spectrum, June 1995.
[10] CIGRE Task Force 38.01.07 on Power System Oscillations, J.J. Paserba; Convenor and Lead
Editor, "Analysis and Control of Power System Oscillations," 200-page CIGRE Technical Brochure,
No. 111, December 1996.
[11] IEEE PES Working Group on System Oscillations, IEEE Special Publication 95-TP-I01 "System
Oscillations," 1995.
[12] A. S. Mehraban, A.I. F. Keri, M.G. Gernhardt, C.D. Schauder, E.J. Stacey, and A. Edris,
"Application of the World's First UPFC on the AEP System," The Future of Power Delivery EPRI
Conference, Washington, DC, April 9-11, 1996.
[13] B. Fardanesh, et. aI., "Convertible Static Compensator Application to the New York Transmission
System," CIGRE Aug. 1998.
[14] IEEE Special Stability Control Working Group, "Static Var Compensator Models for Power Flow
and Dynamic Performance Simulations," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, February 1994, pp.
229-240.
[15] J.J. Paserba, "Secondary Voltage-Var Controls Applied to Static Compensators (STATCOMs) for
Fast Voltage Control and Long Term Var Management," Proceedings of the IEEE PES Summer Power
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, July 2002.
[16] S. Mori, K. Matsuno, T. Hasegawa, S. Ohnishi, M. Takeda, M. Seta, S. Murakami, F. Ishiguro,
"Development of a Large Static Var Generator Using Self-Commutated Inverters for Improving Power
System Stability," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No.1, February, 1993, pp. 371-377.
[17] C. Schauder, M. Gernhardt, E. Stacy, T. W. Cease and A. Edris, "Development of a 100 MVAR
Static Condenser for Voltage Control of Transmission Systems," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 10,
No.3, pp. 1488-1496, July 1995.
[18] C. Schauder, M. Gernhardt, E. Stacey, T. Lemak, L. Gyugyi, T. W. Cease. A. Edris and M.
Wilhelm, "TVA STATCON Project: Design, Installation and Commissioning," CIGRE Paper 14-106,
1996.

52

[19] C. Schauder, M. Gernhardt, E. Stacey, T. Lemak. L. Gyugyi, T. W. Cease and A. Edris, "Operation
of +/-100 Mvar TVA STATCON," IEEE, PES Winter Power Meeting, 1997, Paper No. PE-509PWRD-O-O1-1997.
[20] G. Reed, J. Paserba, T. Croasdaile, M. Takeda, N. Morishima, Y. Hamasaki, L. Thomas, W. Allard,
"STATCOM Application at VELCO Essex Substation," Proceedings of the IEEE PES T&D
Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, October/November 2001.
[21] G. Reed, J. Paserba, T. Croasdaile, R. Westover, S. Jochi, N. Morishima, M. Takeda, T. Sugiyama,
Y. Hamazaki, T. Snow, A. Abed, "SDG&E Talega STATCOM Project - System Analysis, Design, and
Configuration," Proceedings of the IEEE PES T&D-Asia Conference and Exposition, Yokahama,
Japan, October 2002.
[22]
D.J. Hanson, C. Horwill, B.D. Gemmell, D.R. Monkhouse, "A STATCOM-Based Relocatable
SVC Project in the UK for National Grid," Proceedings of the IEEE PES Winter Power Meeting, New
York, January 2002.
[23]
A. Scarfone, B. Oberlin, J. Di Luca Jr., D. Hanson, C. Horwill, M. Allen, "Dynamic Performance
Studies for a 150 Mvar STATCOM for Northeast Utilities," Proceedings of the IEEE PES T&D
Conference and Exposition, Dallas, Texas, September 2003.
[24]
N. Reddy, H. Iosfin, "BC Hydro Experience Using a Small STATCOM to Address Utility Voltage
Problems," Proceedings of the IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition, Dallas, Texas, September
2003.
[25]
A. Oskoui, B. Mathew, J.P. Hasler, M. Oliveira, T. Larsson, A. Petersson, E. John, "Holly
STATCOM - FACTS To Replace Critical Generation, Operational Experience," Proceedings of the
IEEE PES 2005-2006 T&D Conference and Exposition, Dallas, Texas, May 2006.
[26]
Toshiyuki Fujii, Sadao Funahashi, Naoki Morishima, Masahiro Azuma, Hitoshi Teramoto,
Naotaka Iio, Hiroshi Yonezawa, Daisuke Takayama, Yoriko Shinki, "A 80MVA GCT STATCOM
for the Kanzaki Substation," International Power Electronics Conference, Japan, April 2005.
[27] S. Kolluri, "Application of Distributed Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage System (DSMES) in the Energy System to Improve Voltage Stability," Proceedings of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, 2002, Vol: 2, pp 838 -841.
[28] M. Steurer, and S. Eckroad, "Voltage Control Performance Enhancement by Adding Energy
Storage to Shunt Connected Voltage Source Converters," Proc. of the 10th IntI. IEEE Conf. on
Harmonics and Quality of Power ICHQP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Oct. 6-9, 2000.
[29] N. W. Miller, R.S. Zrebiec, R.W. Delmerico, and G. Hunt; "Battery Energy Storage Systems for
Electric Utility, Industrial and Commercial Applications," Proceedings PCIM/Power Quality Mass
Transit, 1994.
[30] P.F. Ribeiro, B.K. Johnson, M.L. Crow, A. Arsoy, and Y. Liu, "Energy Storage Systems for
Advanced Power Applications," Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 89, No. 12, December 2001, pp 17441756.
[31] J. McDowall, "Conventional Battery Technologies-Present and Future," Proceedings of 2000 IEEE
Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting. Vol. 3, July 2000, pp. 1538-1540.
[32] N. W. Miller, R.S. Zrebiec, R.W. Delmerico, and G. Hunt; "Design and Commissioning of a
5 MVA, 2.5 MWh Battery Energy Storage System," Proc. IEEE Transmission and Distribution
Conference, September 1996.
[33] C. Gama, L. Angquist, G. Ingestrom, and M. Noroozian, "Commissioning and Operative
Experience of TCSC for Damping Power Oscillation in the Brazilian North-South Interconnection,"
CIGRE Cigre 37 Session, Paris, 2000.
[34] C. Gama, "Brazilian North-South Interconnection - Application of Thyristor Controlled Series
Compensation (TCSC) to Damp Inter-Area Oscillation Mode," Cigre 37 Session, Paris, 1998.
[35] E. V. Larsen, K. Clark, S. A. Miske, and J. Urbanak, "Characteristics and Rating Considerations of
Thyristor Controlled Series Compensation," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, April 1994, pp.
992-1000.

53

[36] C. Gama, "Prospective Application of Controlled Series Compensation to Improve Transmission

System Performance," Cigre 35 Session, Paris, 1994.
[37] N. Christl, R. Hedin, K. Sadek, P. Liitzelberger, P. E. Krause, S. M. Mckenna, A. H. Montoya, and
D. Torgerson, "Advanced Series Compensation (ASC) with Thyristor Controlled Impedance," Cigre 34
Session, Paris, 1992.
[38] Cigre Working Group 14.18, "Thyristor Controlled Series Compensation," Cigre SC-14
International Colloquium on HVDC and FACTS, Johannesburg, South Africa, September 28-30,1997.
[39] IEEE Standard. 1534TM-2002, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Specifying Thyristor-Controlled
Series Capacitors," Published by IEEE, 20 November 2002, SH95002.
[40] L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder and K. K. Sen., "Static Synchronous Series Compensator: A Solid-State
Approach to the Series Compensation of Transmission Lines," IEEE, PES Winter Power Meeting,
Paper No. 96 WM 120-6 PWRD, 1996.
[41] L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder, S. L. Williams, T.R. Reitman, D.R. Torgerson, and A. Edris, "The
Unified Power Flow Controller: A New Approach to Power Transmission Control," IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 1085-1097, April 1995.
[42] L. Gyugyi, "A Unified Power Flow Control Concept for Flexible AC Transmission Systems," lEE
Proceedings-C, Vol. 139, No.4, July 1992.
[43] C. D. Schauder, L. Gyugyi, M. R. Lund, D. M. Hamai, T. R. Reitman, D. R. Torgerson and A.
Edris, "Operation of the Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) Under Practical Constraints," IEEE,
PES Winter Power Meeting, 1997, Paper No. PE-511-PWRD-0-11-1996.
[44] B.A. Renz, A. Keri, A. S. Mehraban, C. Schauder, E. Stacey, L. Kovalsky, L. Gyugyi and A. Edris,
"AEP Unified Power Flow Controller Performance," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 14,
No.4, October 1999, pp. 1374-1381
[45] M. Rahman, M. Ahmed, R. Gutman, R. J. O'Keefe, R. J. Nelson and J. Bian, "UPFC Application
on the AEP System: Planning Considerations," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No.4,
Nov, 1997, pp. 1695-1701.
[46] S. Zelingher. B. Fardanesh, B. Shperling, S. Dave, L. Kovalsky, C. Schauder, and A. Edris,.,
"Convertible Static Compensator: Project - Hardware Overview," Proceedings of the IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, 2000, pp. 2511-2517.
[47] F. Beauregard, J. Brochu, G. Morin, and P. Pelletier, "Interphase Power Controller with Voltage
Injection," IEEE Transactions PWRD, Vol. 9, No.4, October 1994, pp. 1956-1962.
[48] G. Sybille, Y. Haj-Maharsi, G. Morin, F. Beauregard, J. Brochu, J. Lemay, and P. Pelletier,
"Simulator Demonstration of the Interphase Power Controller Technology", IEEE Transactions
PWRD, Vol. 11, No.4, October 1996, pp. 1985-1992.
[49] J. Brochu, F. Beauregard, J. Lemay, G. Morin, P, Pelletier, and R. S. Thallam, "Application of the
Interphase Power Controller Technology for Transmission Line Power Flow Control," IEEE
Transactions PWRD, Vol. 12, No.2, April 1997, pp. 888-894.
[50] J. Lemay, M. Gvozdanovic, M. I. Henderson, M. R. Graham, G. E. Smith, R. F. Hinners, L. R.
Kirby, F. Beauregard and J. Brochu., "The Plattsburgh Interphase Power Controller," Paper presented
at the 1999 IEEE T&D Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, April 11-16, 1999.
[51] J. Brochu, F. Beauregard, G. Morin, J. Lemay, P. Pelletier, and S. Kheir, "The IPC Technology - A
New Approach for Substation Uprating with Passive Short-Circuit Limitation," IEEE Transactions
PWRD, Vol. 13, No.1, January 1998, pp. 233-240.
[52] G. Herold, G. Ebner, R. SubBrich, and C. Weindl, "Comparison of Different Calculation Methods
for a Power Semiconductor Based Interphase Power Flow Controller," Power Tech Conference
Proceedings, 2003 IEEE Bologna, Italy.
[53] CIGRE TF 38-01-08, "Modeling of Power Electronics Equipment (FACTS) in Load Flow and
Stability Programs: a Representation Guide for Power System Planning and Analysis."

54

[54] R. M. Mathur, and R. K. Varma, "Thyristor-Based FACTS Controllers for Electrical Transmission
Systems," IEEE Press and Wiley-Interscience, A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication, ISBN 0-47120643-1, 2002.
[55] H.W. Dommel, "Digital Computer Solution of Electromagnetic Transients in Single- and Multiphase Network," IEEE Trans. on PAS, Vol. 88, No.2, pp.734-741, April 1969.
[56] "IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic for Harmonic Control in Electical
Power Systems," IEEE Standard 519 - 992.
[57] R.G. Farmer, and B.L. Agrawal, "State-of-the-Art Techniques for Power System Stabilizer
Tuning," IEEE Trans. PAS, pp. 699-709, March 1983.
[58] P. Kundur, M. Klein, G.J . Rogers, and M. S. Zywno, "Application of Power System Stabilizers for
Enhancement of Overall System Stability," IEEE Trans. PAS, pp. 614-626, May 1989.
[59] J. F. Hauer, "Reactive Power Control as a Means for Enhanced Interarea Damping in the Western
U.S. Power System-A Frequency-Domain Perspective Considering Robustness Needs," IEEE
Publication 87THOI87-5-PWR ("Application of Static Var Systems for System Dynamic
Performance"), pp. 79-92.
[60] R. J. Piwko, H. A. Othman, O. A. Alvarez, and C. Y. Wu, "Eigenvalue and Frequency-Domain
Analysis of the Intermountain Power Project and the WSCC Network," IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, pp. 238-244, Feb. 1991.
[61] R. L. Cresap, et aI., "Operating Experience with Modulation of the Pacific HVDC Intertie," IEEE
Trans. PAS, pp. 1053-1059, July, August 1978.
[62] A. Hammad, "Analysis of a Second Harmonic Instability for the Chateauguay HVDC/SVC
Scheme," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, pp. 410-415, January 1992.
[63] T. J. Hammons, B. W. Tay, and K. I. Kok, "Power Links with Ireland-Excitation of TurbineGenerator Shaft Torsionals by Variable Frequency Currents Superimposed on DC Currents in
Asynchronous HVDC Links," IEEEI Trans. on Power Systems, pp. 1572-1579, August 1995.
[64] G. N. Taranto, and J. H. Chow, "A Robust Frequency Domain Optimization Technique for Tuning
Series Compensation Damping Controllers," IEEE/PES 1994 Summer Meeting, San Francisco, CA,
July 24-28, 1994. Paper 94 SM 531-4 PWRS.
[65] "Voltage Stability Assessment: Concepts, Practices and Tools," IEEE Special Publication no.
SPI0IPSS, IEEE Service Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4150.