IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Working Group C-13, System Protection Subcommittee

IEEE PES Power System Relaying Committee
Outline 1.5

Undervoltage Load Shedding Protection

Members, Working Group C-13 "Undervoltage Load Shedding": Alex Apostolov,

Miroslav Begoric, Munnu Bajpai, Gabriel Benmouyaz, Ken Birt, Sukumar
Brahma, Art Buanno (Chairman), Munnu Bajpai, Ken Birt, John Burger, Zoran
Gajic, Adly Girgis, Robert Haas, Keith Harley, Charlie Henville (to be asked),
Shinichi Imai (Vice Chairman), Hachidai Ito, Gerald Johnson, Meyer M. Kao, Bill
Kennedy, Raluca Lascu, Don Lukach, Vahid Madani (to be asked), Charles
Mozina, George Nail, Om Nayak, Damir Novosel, Venkat Nynam, Jaime De La
Ree, Tarlochan Sidhu, Tony Sleva, Rich Young, Benton Vandiver, Tom Wiedman

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Assignment.....................................................................................................................................................5
Scope...............................................................................................................................................................5
1.

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................5
Investigationsofrecentblackoutsindicatethattherootcauseofalmostallofthesemajorpowersystem
disturbancesisvoltagecollapseratherthantheunderfrequencyconditionsprevalentintheblackoutsof
the1960and70s.Thispaperexploresthenatureofrecentpowersystemblackouts(2003eastcoast,
1996 California and others) and explains why voltage collapse is the leading edge indicator of
impendingpowersystem problems.It alsodiscusses thedesign andsecurity issues that need tobe
addressed in the design of an undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) scheme and why relying on
underfrequencyloadshedding(UFLS)maybetoolittle,toolate.Thepaperaddressesthecurrentlevel
ofUVLSonutilitysystemsaswellascurrentNERC(NorthAmericanElectricReliabilityCouncil)
pronouncementsonthesubject....................................................................................................................5

2.

Background.............................................................................................................................................9

2.1.

VoltageStability(Begoric)......................................................................................................9

2.2. Voltage & reactive power management andemergency actions to avoid load
shedding(Begoric).................................................................................................................................9
2.2.1.

ContinuouslyControlledReactivePowerSource.....................................................9

2.2.2.

DiscontinuouslyControlledReactivePowerSource...............................................9

2.2.3.

AutomaticVoltageControl..............................................................................................9

2.2.4.

VoltagereductionandLTCblocking...........................................................................9

2.3.
3.

4.

CoordinationbetweenUVLSandUFLS.............................................................................9

Undervoltage load shedding philosophy............................................................................................9

3.1.

SystemStudies.............................................................................................................................9

3.2.

Selectionofmethod....................................................................................................................9

Undervoltage load shedding methods (application types)..............................................................9

4.1.

Manual/SCADAloadshedding..............................................................................................9

4.2.

Automaticloadshedding(Buanno,Imai)............................................................................9

4.3.

Local(Buanno,Imai).................................................................................................................9

4.3.1.

Centralized(Substation/Bus)...........................................................................................9

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

Distributed(Feeder)...........................................................................................................9

4.3.3.

Adaptive(Begoric)..............................................................................................................9

4.4.
5.

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

4.3.2.

Wideareaundervoltageloadshedding(Buanno,Imai)..................................................9

Voltage collapse detection, measuring principles and characteristics..........................................9

5.1.

U/V(Harley)..................................................................................................................................9

5.1.1. Voltage Slide Scheme [I.L. van der Merwe, J.Cloete and N.Fischer,
ImplementationofanUnconventionalVoltageSlideScheme].......................................9

6.

7.

5.2.

Rateofchangeofvoltage(Imai)............................................................................................9

5.3.

Impedancelocusdetection(Begoric,Novoseltobeasked)..........................................9

5.4.

Others............................................................................................................................................10

Scheme design (Buanno, Henville to be asked)............................................................................10

6.1.

Dependabilityandsecurity.....................................................................................................10

6.2.

Redundancy................................................................................................................................10

6.3.

Voltagemeasurementaccuracyandsecurity....................................................................10

6.4.

Otherconsiderations................................................................................................................10

6.4.1.

Timedelay...........................................................................................................................10

6.4.2.

Frequencyvariationeffects............................................................................................10

ExistingUVLSpractices(Young,Burger,Madanitobeasked,Henvilletobeasked)........................10

7.1. Classificationanddefinition[IEEEWGC4Draft4,IndustryExperiencesWith
SystemIntegrityProtectionSchemes(SIPS)]...............................................................................10
7.2.

Distributed(Buanno)...............................................................................................................12

7.2.1.

FlatArchitecture................................................................................................................12

PudgetSoundUVLS..........................................................................................................................12
FirstEnergyUVLS...........................................................................................................................12

7.2.2.

HierarchicalArchitecture...............................................................................................13

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

7.3.

Centralized(Imai).....................................................................................................................14

7.3.1.

FlatArchitecture................................................................................................................14

BC Hydro UVLS...............................................................................................................................14
Florida Power & Light FALS...........................................................................................................14
Entergy VSHED [S. Kolluri, Tao He, Design and Operating Experience with Fast

Acting Load Shedding Scheme in the Entergy System to Prevent Voltage

Collapse, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2004] ............14
Public Service New Mexico ICLSS [Jeff Mechenbier, et al, Design Of An Under Voltage
Load Shedding Scheme, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2004]
............................................................................................................................................................14
TEPCO UVLS...................................................................................................................................15

7.3.2.

HierarchicalArchitecture...............................................................................................15

TDST in HydroQuebec Defense Plan against extreme contingencies [D. Lefebvre, et al,
Undervoltage load shedding scheme for the Hydro-Quebec system, IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2004]...................................................................15
Korea UVLS (To be asked).............................................................................................................16
8.

Setting and performance criteria.......................................................................................................16

8.1.

Performancecriteria.................................................................................................................16

8.2.

Settingguidelinesforundervoltageloadshedding.........................................................16

9.

Maintenance, testing and reliability..................................................................................................16

10.

Major power system disturbances related to voltage instability...............................................16

10.1.

1987France............................................................................................................................16

10.2.

1987Tokyo(Imai)................................................................................................................16

10.3.

1989Quebec...........................................................................................................................18

10.4.

2001Peru.................................................................................................................................18

10.5.

2003NortheasternNorthAmerica...................................................................................18

10.6.

2003Sweden..........................................................................................................................18

10.7.

2003Italy.................................................................................................................................18

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

10.8. 2003 Mississippi, USA [Meyer Kao and Gary Kobet, Analysis of
UndervoltageLoadSheddingEventatPhiladelphia,Mississippi,GeorgiaTechFault
andDisturbanceAnalysisConferenceApril2627,2004]......................................................18
11.

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................18

12.

Bibliography......................................................................................................................................18

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Assignment
This working group produces a report on the implementation of undervoltage load shedding
(UVLS) in electric power systems. It presents background information, guidance in implementing
UVLS schemes and a bibliography. Voltage instability, voltage and reactive power management,
emergency actions to avoid load shedding, UVLS philosophy and methods, voltage collapse
detection, existing practices, settings and coordination between UVLS and UFLS are discussed.

Scope
This report presents information on implementing undervoltage load shedding schemes in electric
power systems. It will provide much of the reference material necessary for a future guide on
UVLS. The report will not cover other uses of undervoltage protection or the implementation of
underfrequency load shedding except as it pertains to coordination issues.

1. Introduction
Investigations of recent blackouts indicate that the root cause of almost all of these major power
system disturbances is voltage collapse rather than the underfrequency conditions prevalent in
the blackouts of the 1960 and 70s. This paper explores the nature of recent power system
blackouts (2003 east coast, 1996 California and others) and explains why voltage collapse is the
leading edge indicator of impending power system problems. It also discusses the design and
security issues that need to be addressed in the design of an undervoltage load shedding (UVLS)
scheme and why relying on underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) maybe too little, too late.
The paper addresses the current level of UVLS on utility systems as well as current NERC (North
American Electric Reliability Council) pronouncements on the subject.
Power systems today are much more susceptible to voltage collapses than they were 35 years
ago as we increasingly depend on generation sources that are located remotely from load
centers. Generators in eastern Canada and the midwestern U.S. provide large amounts of power
to east coast load centers such as New York City. Generators in Washington, Oregon and
western Canada provide substantial power to southern California. Two factors promote
generation that is remote from load centers:

The economics of purchasing power from lower-cost remote sources rather than
more expensive local generation.

The publics reluctance/refusal to permit new generating plants to be built in urban

high-load areas, causing utilities/IPPs to build these plants remote from these load
centers.

These two fundamental changes in operation of the U.S. power grid result in the transmission of
power over long distances. This makes the power grid very dependent on the transmission
system to deliver power to the load centers. It also results in increased reactive power losses
when transmission lines trip.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Another key factor that results in rapid system voltage collapse is the nature of the loads that are
being served by utilities. Many of todays loads are single-phase small air conditioning motors.
This was not the case 35 years ago when air conditioning was not as prevalent. These small
motors are prone to stall when subjected to voltage dips caused by transmission system short
circuits. During hot weather, these motors comprise a high percentage of the utility load. The
slow tripping of stalled motors and the relatively slow re-acceleration of more robust motors
result in low system voltage after a transmission system fault is cleared [2]. The voltage dip and
its effect on these motors are exacerbated if the transmission system fault is cleared via a time
delay backup relay or is a mullti-phase fault. Such a slow-clearing fault resulted in the voltage
collapse that caused a blackout of the city of Memphis in 1987 [3].

Fig. 1 shows an example of voltage recovery for a Phoenix area transmission system fault
incident that occurred in July 1995 during hot weather.

Residential Voltage Recovery for Phoenix Area Incident on July 29, 1995

Fig. 1 Example of Delayed Voltage Recovery Resulting from a Transmission Fault

Fig. 2 illustrates a basic power system with the remote generators supplying a significant
amount of power (Ps) over a considerable distance to the remote load center. The load is
comprised of resistive load and motor load. During a voltage dip resistive load current will
decrease and help limit the need for local reactive support. Motor loads are essentially constant
kVA devices. The lower the voltage, the more current they drawincreasing the need for local
reactive (VAr) support. Power systems loads consist of both resistive loads as well as reactive
motor loads. During hot weather, however, air conditioning motor loads comprise a large portion
of total load, thereby making the system more susceptible to voltage collapse.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Transmission System X

Load Center

Ps
Remote
Generation

PL
QL

VL

Resistive
Load

Motor
Load

Local
Generation

VAR
Support

Fig. 2 Basic Power System

Reactive power (VArs) cannot be transmitted very far, especially under heavy load
conditions, and so it must be generated close to the point of consumption. This is because the
difference in voltage causes VArs to flow and voltages on a power system are only typically +/- 5% of
nominal. This small voltage difference will not cause substantial VArs to flow over long distances.
Real power (MW) can be transmitted over long distances through the coordinated operation of
the interconnected grid whereas reactive power must be generated at, or near, the load center.

Since VArs cannot be transmitted over long distances, the sudden loss of transmission lines
results in the immediate need for local reactive power to compensate for the increased losses of
transporting the same power over fewer transmission lines. If that reactive support is not
available at the load center, the voltage will go down. For these reasons, voltagerather than
frequencyhas become the key indicator that the power system is under stress. Utilities
recognize that frequency can remain normal as voltage sags to a low level prior to a complete
system collapse and are implementing UVLS schemes to complement their existing
underfrequency load shedding programs.
[1] C. J. Mozina, Power Plant Protection and Control Strategies for Blackout Avoidance, Georgia
Tech Protective Relay Conference, April 2005.
[2] B.R. Williams, W.R. Schmus, D.C. Dawson, Transmission Voltage Recovery Delayed by
Stalled Air Conditioner Compressors, IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7,
No.3 August 1992.
[3] North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), 1987 System Disturbance Report, p19,
July 1998.
[4] U.S. Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003
Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations April 5, 2004.
[5] G.C. Bullock, Cascading Voltage Collapse in West Tennessee, August 22,1987, Georgia
Tech Relay Conference, May 1990.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

[6] S. Imai, Undervoltage Load Shedding Improving Security as Reasonable Measure for
Extreme Contingencies. IEEE PES Transactions on Power Delivery.
[7] IEEE Power System Relaying Committeee Report, Summary of System Protection and
Voltage Stability, Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10. No. 2, April 1995.
[8] Undervoltage Load Shedding Task Force (UVLSTF), Technical Studies Subcommittee of the
WECC, Undervoltage Load Shedding Guidelines, July 1999.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

2. Background
2.1.
2.2.

Voltage Stability (Begoric)

Voltage & reactive power management and emergency actions to
avoid load shedding (Begoric)

2.2.1.

Continuously Controlled Reactive Power Source

2.2.2.

Discontinuously Controlled Reactive Power Source

2.2.3.

Automatic Voltage Control

2.2.4.

Voltage reduction and LTC blocking

2.3.

Coordination between UVLS and UFLS

3. Undervoltage load shedding philosophy

3.1.

System Studies

3.2.

Selection of method

4. Undervoltage load shedding methods (application types)

4.1.

Manual/SCADA load shedding

4.2.

Automatic load shedding (Buanno, Imai)

4.3.

Local (Buanno, Imai)

4.3.1.

Centralized (Substation/Bus)

4.3.2.

Distributed (Feeder)

4.3.3.

Adaptive(Begoric)

4.4.

Wide area undervoltage load shedding (Buanno, Imai)

5. Voltage collapse detection, measuring principles and characteristics

5.1.

U/V(Harley)

5.1.1.

Voltage Slide Scheme [I.L. van der Merwe, J.Cloete and

N.Fischer, Implementation of an Unconventional Voltage Slide
Scheme]

5.2.

Rate of change of voltage (Imai)

5.3.

Impedance locus detection (Begoric, Novosel to be asked)

5.4.

Others

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

6. Scheme design (Buanno, Henville to be asked)

6.1.

Dependability and security

6.2.

Redundancy

6.3.

Voltage measurement accuracy and security

Theschemewillneedtoconsidertheaccuraciesofthevoltagetransformersandtherelays.Itwillneedto
alsoconsiderthesecondaryvoltagedropwhichmightbeseveralvoltsifotherdevicesareconnectedto
voltagetransformerwindingandtheleadlengthfromtheinstrumenttransformerislong.Theoverallerror
mightneedtobelessthan2or3%ifforexamplethepickupinaflat distributedschemeis88%of
nominalsystemvoltage.

6.4.

Other considerations

6.4.1.

Time delay

Iftheschemeisdesignedtomitigateavoltagecollapseevent,thedelaywillneedtobeveryshortsothat
operationswillbegintotakeplacewithin30cycles.Iftheschemeisdesignedtomitigateaslowvoltage
declineevent,itmaysuccessfullyoperateinamatterofseconds.Itwillneedtobegreaterthanbackup
faultclearingtimes.ThesetypesofUVLSschemesalsoneedtooperatebeforegeneratoroverexcitation
limitersandtransformerloadtapchangersact.Theseactionswilloccurin15secondsormore.

6.4.2.

Frequency variation effects

7. Existing UVLS practices (Young, Burger, Madani to be asked, Henville to

be asked)
7.1.

Classification and definition [ IEEE WG C4-Draft 4, Industry

Experiences With System Integrity Protection Schemes(SIPS)]

There are two classifications Flat and Hierarchical

a) Flat Architecture--the measurement and operating elements of the SIPS are typically
in the same location. The decision and corrective action may need a communication
link to collect remote information and/or to initiate actions.
b) Hierarchical Architecture- There are several steps involved in the SIPS corrective
action. For example, local measurement, and / or a series of predetermined
parameters at several locations are transmitted to multiple control locations.
Depending on the intent of the scheme, immediate action can be taken and further
analysis performed. The scheme purpose will drive the logic, design, and actions.
Typical logic involves use of operating nomograms, state estimation and
contingency analysis.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

SIPS(Subsystem/SystemWide)

SIPS
Measurements

Actions

Control
Coordination

EventReports
SIPS(Local)

PowerSystem

Seconds/
Minutes

Measurements

Milliseconds
/Seconds

Actions

FlatArchitecture
PowerSystem
HierarchicalArchitecture
The primary difference between the two architectures in Figure 1 is in the necessity of providing
information between the stations or between the measurement and switching devices in order to
add control coordination from the higher and wider system view. A hierarchical scheme may
involve multi-layers and will involve communication outside of the substation whereas a flat
scheme involves a single layer of decisions and actions. Note the typical operating times for
hierarchical schemes in Figure 1.
In some schemes, action is immediate and must satisfy the purpose instantly, hence scheme
logic may entail higher margins for actions taken. Other schemes may have a more adaptive
nature, which employ monitoring the system response to the control action. This implementation
requires communication. If the immediate action is not adequate to halt the progression of the
outage, then additional analysis and action is required.
For instance, SIPS that monitors transmission line congestion may immediately trip selected
transmission elements (lines or generators) and continue monitoring the system condition to
determine if further action is required. If the line loading is not relieved, tripping additional
generation or load, either local or distributed, may be required.

Another classification is the term for centralized and distributed schemes.

a) Centralized All the information from remote stations and terminals are brought to
one central location. Therefore, decision and corrective action of SIPS are
implemented in the controller in one location. The function may be realized as a
function of EMS, PLC installed in control center or RTU installed in a substation.
The decision and corrective action may need communication link to collect remote
information and/or to initiate actions.
b) Distributed Decision and corrective action of SIPS are implemented in controllers
installed in different locations. The system integrity protection function can be
realized by coordinated operation and control of distributed controllers that have
functions of decision and corrective action. The decision and corrective action may
need a communication link to collect remote information and/or to initiate actions.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

7.2.

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Distributed (Buanno)

7.2.1.

Flat Architecture

Pudget Sound UVLS

FirstEnergy UVLS
TheFEUVLSprogramcoversallofitssystemintheformerECARregion. ItactsasaSafetyNetto
prevent uncontrolled loss of load following extreme events. Under credible conditions, the schemes
shouldnotoperateforsinglecontingencies.FEsUVLSschemesareadistributedflatarchitectureinthat
thesystemsineachofthemanylocationsfunctionlocallyandindependentlymuchthesamewaythat
UnderFrequencyLoadSheddingisimplementedinFE.Thereisnointeractionwithacentralprocessoror
system for the decision logic. The scheme design is modified from four basic variations for each
installationandthesecurityoftheschemeisincreasedbasedontheamountofloadthatisshedatthe
location.FEhasinstalledUVLSprotectionat32locationsthatarecapableofsheddingintotalabout1320
MWofload.
FE implemented their UVLS schemes using digital relays that were commonly applied within the
company. Thisfacilitateddesign,programming,installing,andtestingoftheUVLSschemesandwill
assist in the analysis of operations. The design logic is illustrated in Figure R1. The logic was
programmedsothatallthreephasesneedtobebelow88%ofnominal.Thissetpointiswellabove80%
topreventmotorsintheareafromstallingbutbelowtheminimumpermissiblecontingencyoperating
voltageof90%.Allthreephasevoltagesalsoneedtobeabove35%sothatlossofsupplyorthelossof
secondarypotentialwouldnotcauseafalsetrip.Thesearethetwomaincriteriathatmustbesatisfiedfor
(typically)10secondsforaUVLSschemetooperate.Thisdelaydidnotneedtobeshortenoughfora
voltagecollapseevent. Itdidneedtobegreaterthanbackupfaultclearingtimeswhichconservatively
couldbeacoupleofseconds.TheUVLSschemesalsoneedtooperatebeforegeneratoroverexcitation
limitersandtransformerloadtapchangersact.Theseactionswilloccurin15secondsormore.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Voltage (P. U.)

Undervoltage Load Shed Setting Levels

1.0
0.88

Normal Voltage
Undervoltage Trip Level (27P1)

0.35

Voltage Supervision Trip Level (59P1)

Undervoltage Load Shed Trip Logic

27A1
27B1
27C1

59A1
59B1
59C1
27S

3P27

UV Time Delay
3P59
SV1

SV1T

600

0
0

50P1 *

599

11
0

OUT101
Trip, Block Auto Reclose,
Alarm

67P1T

* Optional

FigureR1:UVLSLevelsandLogic

FEsUVLSschemehasanoptiontouseasecondvoltagesource(VS)asanextraverificationoflow
voltage(27S).ThisoptionwasoftenemployedwhenCCVTswereusedforthreephasevoltagesensing.
Anotheroptionthatisavailableiscurrentsupervision(50P1).Thisoptionwasusedatlargesubstations
witheightormoreloadcircuitstoaccountforextendedclearingtimesofevolvingfaultsorfaultsthat
mightinvolvemultiplecircuits.Thecurrentsupervisiondetectorissetatfaultcurrentlevelsandmustbe
pickedupalmostaslongastheUVLStripdelayinorderforthecurrentsupervisiontoblockanoperation.
Theinstallationstypesbrakedownasfollows:58%werethetypeAinstallation(singlerelay),27%were
typeB(tworelaysinseries)and15%weretheothertypes(theseincludedcurrentsupervisionlogic).
SinglerelaytypeinstallationssuchastypeAwereusedatthoselocationswithlessthan30MWofloadto
beshed.Forlocationsthatshedmorethan30MWofload,FErequiresmorethanonerelaytooperatefor
additionalsecurity. TheUVLSschemesweredesignedwithnewlocalandSCADAalarmstoprovide
goodindicationofaUVLSoperation,alossofpotentialsupplyorarelayfailure.
FE also installed UVLS protection for Central New Jersey in 1990 to prevent a wide area potential
collapsethatmightresultfrommultiplegeneratorandsystemcomponentoutages.Theschememonitors
thevoltageonthe34.5kVsystemat13locations.Insomelocations,thelowsidetransformerbreakeris
trippedandinothercasesspecificdistributionlinesaretripped(whereotherlinesaretoocriticaltobe
tripped). Studiesdeterminedtheuseofan85%voltagesetpointfortheUVLSrelaystotripwitha30
secondtimedelayandtolocatetheprotectionatornearthelocationswherethevoltagewouldbebelow
85%theearliest.Thestudiesalsodeterminedthenumberoflocationsrequiredsuchthatthesystemwould

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

beabletofullyrecover.TheUVLSschemesinNewJerseyareenabledmanuallythroughtheSCADA
systemgenerallywhenthearealoadsurpassesapredeterminedlevel.

TVA UVLS [Meyer Kao and Gary Kobet, Analysis of Undervoltage Load Shedding Event at

Philadelphia, Mississippi, Georgia Tech Fault and Disturbance Analysis Conference April 2627, 2004]

7.2.2.

Hierarchical Architecture

ComEd UVLS
TheComEdUVLSschemeswereinstalledtoserveasasafetynettominimizetheriskofsystemvoltage
collapseduringseveredisturbancestothebulkpowersystem. Theschemedetectslowvoltageat12
distributionsubstationsinachosensectionofComEd'sterritoryandtripsdistributionfeedersatthese
substations. Theschemeisautomaticallyarmedanddisarmedbasedonasystemloadof20000MW
(dispatcherscanalsoarmanddisarmtheschemeviaSCADA).Thevoltagesetpointis0.87puat138kV.
Thevoltagemustalsobeabove~0.43pu.If0.43pu<VB<0.87pufor3seconds,thefeedersaretripped.
Inmostcases,foravoltagetriptooccur,voltagemustbedetectedtobewithinrangeontwoseparate
CCVTs.Theamountofloadshedis~800MW(estimated)athighsystemloads.

7.3.

Centralized (Imai)

7.3.1.

Flat Architecture

BC Hydro UVLS
Purpose: To prevent voltage collapse following loss of major transmission or reactive power support
facilities.
System Description: The scheme of two independent subsystems, one at Vancouver Island and another at
Lower Mainland, which can shed load in their respective areas, or jointly for more severe system
problems. The System Control Centre directs local control centers supervising each area to arm or disarm
this scheme as required in accordance with system conditions. Each subsystem monitors three key station
bus voltages and a designated group of units for its VAR reserve, which is the remaining VAR boost
capacity of the group. If the bus voltage drops below a set level or if the VAR reserve drops below a set
level, its sensor will key a continuous signal to either subsystem to initiate load shedding after time delay
until the initiating conditions have reset.
Florida Power & Light FALS
Entergy VSHED [S. Kolluri, Tao He, Design and Operating Experience with Fast

Acting Load Shedding Scheme in the Entergy System to Prevent Voltage

Collapse, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2004]
Purpose: To prevent voltage collapse following critical double contingencies.
System Description: This scheme uses EMS system and SCADA communication. This is activated
automatically,whentheloadinWesternRegionexceeds1000MW.Four138kVbusesaremonitoredto
detectvoltagecollapse.Furthermore,whenthreeofthevoltagesarebelowthresholdandoverexcitation
relayforoneoftwocriticalgeneratorsisactivatedorbothofgeneratorsareoutofservice,loadshedding
isexecutedinseveralsecondsorder.DuringadisturbanceonSeptember221998,whenWesternRegion

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

onthevergeofvoltagecollapse,VSHEDactivatedandoperatedsuccessfully,protectingtheregionfrom
widespreadvoltagecollapse.
Public Service New Mexico ICLSS
[Jeff Mechenbier, et al, Design Of An
Under
Voltage
Load
Shedding
Scheme, IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, June 2004]
Purpose: To prevent voltage collapse
following loss of both 345kV lines serving
the Albuquerque area during peak load
periods.
SystemDescription:Thisschemeisdesigned
so as to deal with both of shortterm and
longterm voltage instability, mitigate
equipment overloads, and allow for
acceptablereclosingangles.Loadistripped
ateitherthesubtransmissionorfeederlevel
through PLC and distribution SCADA.
Fig.@describestheblockdiagramforthisscheme.

TEPCO UVLS
Purpose: To prevent voltage collapse following extreme
contingencies like loss of multiple 500kV transmission lines during
abnormal high load periods.
System Description: This scheme is composed of MJ (Monitoring
and Judging) units installed at four 500kV substations and LS
(Load Shedding) units installed at several 275 or 154/66 kV
substations. Each MJ unit is connected via microwave
communication channel and LS units are connected to a MJ unit as
star topology via microwave. Long-term voltage collapse can be
detected on 500kV network, because 275kV or lower voltages are
automatically regulated by tap changing on 500/275 or 154
transformers. Therefore, the SPS requires MS units measuring
500kV busbar voltages. For the purpose of security, the SPS uses 3
out of 4 decision-making logic. MJ units detect slow types of
voltage collapse, ten seconds to minutes order by using unusual
continuous V/t value. Fast voltage collapse can be also detected
by V/t calculation with one second of data window.

500kV Main Grid

Communication; Measured
500kV voltages

MJ
MJ

27kV,154kV
radial network

MJ

MJ

Communication; Voltage
collapse detection result

Sub-Station

LS 275,154/66
LS

Sub-Station
275,154/66

MJ: Monitoring and Judging Unit

LS: Load shedding Unit

Fig@@TEPCOsUVLS

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

7.3.2.

Hierarchical Architecture

TDST in HydroQuebec Defense Plan against extreme contingencies [D. Lefebvre, et al,
Undervoltage load shedding scheme for the Hydro-Quebec system, IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2004]

Purpose: To prevent voltage collapse following loss of two or more 735kV lines or any other extreme
disturbances.
SystemDescription:TDSTisredundantscheme,whichislocatedattwodifferentoperatingcentersand
alwaysbearmed.Thecommunicationlinksbetweentheoperatingcentersandthesubstationsarealso
redundant.Todetectvoltageinstability,3out
of5decisionmakinglogicareappliedbased
on the average value of five positive
sequence bus voltages in Montreal area.
Cumulated possible shedding of 1500MW
forfirststagedependsonthevoltagedecline
and duration like less than 0.94pu for
11seconds,0.92pufor9secondsand0.90pu
for 6seconds. Additional load shedding of
1000MWcanbeinitiatedbasedon3second
voltageintegralcalculation.Fig.@showsthe
TDST operation to justify load shedding
based on voltage integral calculation
comparing to the case with only shunt
Fig@TDSToperationafterlossoftwo735kVlines
tripping.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Korea UVLS (To be asked)

8. Setting and performance criteria

8.1.

Performance criteria

8.2.

Setting guidelines for undervoltage load shedding

9. Maintenance, testing and reliability

10. Major power system disturbances related to voltage instability
10.1. 1987 France
10.2. 1987 Tokyo (Imai)
On July 23, 1987, the temperature of 35.9 C was recorded in Tokyo. It was the ninth-highest
temperature on record. In the morning of the day, TEPCO revised its demand forecast upward
from 38.5 GW to 39.0 GW and again 39.0 GW to 40.0 GW, in response to revisions of the
forecasted temperature. It would set a new record for TEPCO at that time, but secure and stable
operation had been expected with 40.0 GW of electricity demand in the summer operational
plan.
During lunch break on the same day, as electricity demand declined from 39.1 GW to 36.5
GW, some shunt capacitors had to be disconnected due to the upper bus voltage limits of the
secondary side or the tertiary side of transformers (shunt capacitors are installed mainly on the
tertiary side of transformers in the TEPCO network.). After lunch break, these shunt capacitors
were expected to be switched on automatically by the Voltage and Reactive Power (Q) Controller
(VQC) as demand increased. However, since the load increase was faster than ever
experienced previously, voltage and reactive power controls by VQC and AVR could not keep up
with it, and thus the bus voltages started to decline.
At 13:19, when the 500 kV bus voltages in the western part of TEPCO area dropped below
400 kV, two 500 kV transmission lines tripped due to zone 4 impedance relays, and one 500 kV
transmission line tripped due to a phase comparison relay. These impedance relays operated
because the voltage drop forced the apparent impedance to be inside the reach of the relays.
The apparent impedance of power flow in Shin-Tama 500 kV line (2L) and its zone 4 impedance
relay setting at the Shin-Tama substation is shown in Fig. 1.
200

Zone 4 Impedance Relay

Setting at Shin-Tama

R eac t a n ce [o h m ]

150

Center
Angle

100

13:19

13:15

50

0
-100

-50

50

100

150

200

13:00

250

300

0
0.017453
0.034907
0.05236
0.069813
0.087266
0.10472

Resistance [ohm]

Fig. 1. Apparent impedance of power flow in the Shin-Tama 500 kV line (2L).
The phase comparison relay at the Shin-Fuji substation operated by the following sequence.
A few minutes before the tripping, the contact of the under-voltage relay (1) in Figure 2 was
closed due to the voltage drop. Receiving an alarm triggered by this, substation operators of the
Shin-Tama substation manually blocked the phase comparison relay (2). This toggled the phase

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

comparison relay at the Shin-Fuji substation from the phase comparison mode to the overcurrent
mode, in which the contact of the phase comparison relay (3) was closed as the Shin-Tama 500
kV line (1L) was carrying current flow over the setting value (400 A). In order to prevent the
unwanted tripping, the phase comparison relay at the Shin-Fuji substation had to be blocked (4).
However, the contact of the under-voltage relay (5) was closed before the relay was blocked (4),
and the Shin-Tama 500kV line (1L) was tripped at the Shin-Fuji substation.

Fig. 2. Trip sequence of the phase comparison relay of the Shin-Tama 500 kV line (1L).
In addition to 500 kV transmission lines, four 275 kV transmission lines and four 275/66 kV
transformers tripped due to zone 4 impedance relays. Note that no fault occurred to cause these
relays to operate.
Inordertolimitfaultcurrentsandpreventunexpectedcascadingevents,theTEPCOnetworkoperatingat
275kVandbelowhasaradialstructure.Thus,thesetrippingeventscutdowntheloadattheendofthe
radial network,causingthelossof8,168MW,or21percent ofthetotal load. Thevoltagecollapse
stopped,avoidingfurthercascadingevents.

10.3. 1989 Quebec

10.4. 2001 Peru
10.5. 2003 Northeastern North America
Over a period of hours during the afternoon of August 14, 2003, a series of events occurred that
culminated at 16:10 (Eastern Daylight Time) in the blackout of portions of the Northeastern United States
and Canada. The event affected electrical systems in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Vermont and as well as the province of Ontario, Canada.
Approximately 61,800 MW of demand was lost as a result of the blackout that affected approximately 50
million customers. At least 265 power plants with more than 508 individual generating units shut down
during the event. As lines and units continued to trip that day, the voltage in a number of locations
degraded. NERC concluded in a subsequent report that if UVLS had been implemented in northeast
Ohio, the cascade could have been slowed or arrested.

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee
WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

10.6. 2003 Sweden

10.7. 2003 Italy

2003 Mississippi, USA [Meyer Kao and Gary Kobet, Analysis of

Undervoltage Load Shedding Event at Philadelphia, Mississippi,
Georgia Tech Fault and Disturbance Analysis Conference April 2627, 2004]

10.8.

11. Conclusion
12. Bibliography
Voltage Instability
- Definition and Classification of Power System Stability, IEEE/CIGRE Joint Task
Force on Stability Terms and Definitions, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 19,
No. 2, May. 2004
- Transmission Voltage Recovery Delayed by Stalled Air Conditioner Compressors,
Bradley R. Williams, Wayne R. Schmus and Douglas C. Dawson, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 7, No.3, August 1992
- C.W.Taylor,PowerSystemVoltageStability.NewYork:McGrawHill,1994
- J.A.DiazdeLeonIIandC.W.Taylor,UnderstandingandSolvingShortTerm
VoltageStabilityProblems,ProceedingofIEEE/PES2002SummerMeeting
- Khoi Vu, Miroslav Begovic, Damir Novosel and Murari Saha, Use of Local
Measurements to Estimate Voltage Stability Margin, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol.14, No3, August 1999
- Verbic G and Gubina, Fast algorithm for voltage collapse protection based on local
phasors, PES Summer Meeting, 2002 IEEE, Vol.3, 1650-1655
- T.Van Cutsem, A Method to compute Reactive Power Margins with respect to
Voltage Collapse, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.6, No.1, February
1991
- Miroslav M. Begovic and Arun G. Phadke, Control of Voltage Stability Using
Sensitivity Analysis, Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.7, No.1, February 1992
- T. Van Cutsem, Y. Jacquemart, J.-N. Marquet and P. Pruvot, A comprehensive
analysis of mid-term voltage stability, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol.10, No.3, August 1995
- T. Van Cutsem and C.D.Vournas, Voltage stability analysis in transient and midterm time scales, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.11, No.1, February
1996
- T. Van Cutsem and R. Mailhot, Validation of a fast voltage stability analysis method
on the Hydro-Quebec system, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No.1,
February 1997
- D.E.Julian, R.P.Schulz, K.T.Vu, W.H.Quaintance, N.B.Bhatt and D.Novosel,
Quantifying Proximity To Voltage Collapse Using The Voltage Instability
Predictor(VIP)
Wide Area Control, Secondary Voltage Control

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Response-Based, Feedforward Wide-Area Control, Carson W. Taylor, Position paper

for NSF/DOE/EPRI Sponsored Workshop on Future Research Directions for
Complex Interactive Electric Networks Washington D.C., 16-17 November 2000
The Coordinated Automatic Voltage Control of the Italian Transmission Grid- Part I:
Reasons of the Choice and Overview of the Consolidated Hierarchical System,
Sandro Corsi, Massimo Pozzi, Carlo Sabelli and Anonio Serrani, IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Nov. 2004
The Coordinated Automatic Voltage Control of the Italian Transmission Grid- Part II:
Control Apparatuses and Field Performance of the Consolidated Hierarchical System,
Sandro Corsi, Massimo Pozzi, Marino Sforna and Giuseppe DellOlio, IEEE Trans.
on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Nov. 2004
Wide Area Protection and Emergency Control, Working Group C-6 System
Protection Subcommittee IEEE PES Power System Relaying Committee
An Improved Voltage Control On Large-Scale Power System, H.Vu, P. Pruvot,
C.Launay, Y. Harmand, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, May. 2004
Hydro-Quebecs Defense Plan against Extreme Contingencies, Gilles Trudel, Serge
Bernard and Guy Scott, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 14, No.3, August 1999
Coordinated Voltage Control in Transmission Networks, CIGRE Task Force 38.02.23
Defense Plans Against Extreme Contingencies, CIGRE Task Force 38.02.24
M Zima, T Krause and G Anderson, Evaluation of System Protection Schemes,
Wide
Area
Monitoring
and
Control
Systems
available
on
http://www.eeh.ee.ethz.ch/downloads/psl/publications/apscom_evaluation_SPS.pdf
M Zima, Special Protection Schemes in Electric Power Systems Literature Survey,
available on http://www.eeh.ee.ethz.ch/downloads/psl/publications/zima_survey.pdf
Carson W. Taylor, Dennis C. Erickson, Kenneth E. Martin, Robert E. Wilson, and
Vaithianathan Venkatasubramanian, WACS- Wide Area Stability and Voltage
Control System: R&D and Online Demonstration, Proceedings of The IEEE, Vol.93,
No.5, May 2005
A. Guzman, D. Tziouvaras, E.O. Schweitzer, Ken Martin, Local and Wide-Area
Network Protection System Improve Power System Reliablity
R.L.Lee, D.J.Melvold, D.J.Szumlas, L.M.Le, A.T.Finley, D.E.Martin, W.K.Wong,
D.L.Dickmander, Potential DC System Support to Enhance AC System
Performance In The Western United States, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol.8, No.1, February 1993
J.L.Sancha, J.L.Fernandez, A.Cortes, J.T.Abarca, Secondary Voltage Control:
Analysis, Solutions and Simulation Results for The Spanish Transmission System,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.11, No.2, May 1996
P.Lagonotte,J.C.Sabonnadiere, J.Y.Leost and J.P.Paul, Structural Analysis of The
Electrical System Application to Secondary Voltage Control In France, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.4, No.2, May 1989

Reactive and Voltage Management

- Shunt Compensation For Voltage Stability, Carson W. Taylor, IFAC Symposium on
Power Plants and Power System Control, Panel Session on Voltage Stability, 15-18
September, Seoul, Korea
- Real Consequences Follow Imaginary Power Deficiencies, Charles F. Henville and
Yofre Jacome, Western Protective Relaying Conference, Oct. 2004
- Voltage Stability Criteria, Undervoltage Load Shedding Strategy, and Reactive Power
Reserve Monitoring Methodology, WSCC, May 1998
- Voltage Collapse Mitigation, Report to IEEE Power System Relaying Committee,
Dec. 1996

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Advanced Control of Reactive Power Supply Enhancing Voltage Stability of a Bulk

Power Transmission System And a New Scheme of Monitor on Voltage, Koishikawa,
et al, CIGRE 38/39-01, 1990
P.Nedwick,etal,ReactiveManagementAKeyToSurvivalInthe1990s,IEEE
TransactionsonPowerSystems,Vol.10,No.2,May1995
Abbas M.Abed, WSCC Voltage Stability Criteria, Undervoltage Load Shedding
Strategy, And Reactive Power Reserve Monitoring Methodology,
Ismail A.Hamzah and Jamal A.Yasin, Static Var Compensators (SVC) Required to
Solve the Problem of Delayed Voltage Recovery Following Faults In The Power
System of The Saudi Electricity Company, Western Region (SEC-WR), 2003 IEEE
Bologna PowerTech Conference, June 23-26, Bologna, Italy

Undervoltage Load Shedding

- Voltage Stability of The Puget Sound System Under Abnormally Cold Weather
Conditions, Nicholas W. Miller, Robert DAquila, Kebede M. Jimma, Michael T.
Sheehan and Gordon L. Comegys, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol.8, No.3,
August 1993
- Concepts of Undervoltage Load Shedding for Voltage Stability, Carson W. Taylor,
IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1992
- Double Contingency Transmission Outages in a Generation and Reactive Power
Deficient Area, Les Pereira and Don DeBerry, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.
15, No. 1, Feb. 2000
- Undervoltage Load Shedding Guidelines, UVLSTF WECC, 1999
- Undervoltage Load Shedding Improving Security as Reasonable Measure for
Extreme Contingencies, Shinichi Imai, IEEE PES General Meeting, June 2005
- Fast Acting Load Shedding, S.A.Nirenberg and D.A. McInnis, IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol.7, No.2, May 1992
- EWR Under Voltage Load Shedding Scheme, J. Deuse, J.Dubois, R.Fanna, I.Hamza,
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.12, No.4, Nov.1997
- Summary of System Protection and Voltage Stability, Protection Aids to Voltage
Stability Working Group of the Substation Protection Subcommittee of the IEEE
Power System Relaying Committee, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.10,
No.2, April 1995
- Undervoltage Load Shedding Using Global Voltage Collapse Index, M.Klaric,
I.Kuzle, and Tesnjak
- Emergency Load Shedding To Avoid Risks of Voltage Instability Using Indicators,
T.Quoc Tuan, J.Fandino, N.Hadjsaid, J.C.Sabonnadiere and H.Vu, IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems, Vol.9, No.1, February 1994
- A DSA-integrated Shedding System for Corrective Emergency Control, G.Giannuzzi,
R.Salvati, M.Sforna, A.Danelli, M.Pozzi, and M.Salvetti
- D. Lefebvre, et al, Undervoltage load shedding scheme for the HydroQuebec
system,IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyGeneralMeeting,June2004
- S. Kolluri, Tao He, Design and Operating Experience with Fast Acting Load
Shedding Scheme in the Entergy System to Prevent Voltage Collapse, IEEE
PowerEngineeringSocietyGeneralMeeting,June2004
- JeffMechenbier,etal,DesignOfAnUnderVoltageLoadSheddingScheme,
IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyGeneralMeeting,June2004
- M.ZimaandG.Anderson,StabilityAssessmentandEmergencyControlMethod
UsingTrajectorySensitivitiesavailableon
http://www.eeh.ee.ethz.ch/downloads/psl/publications/zima_powertech03.pdf

IEEEPowerEngineeringSocietyPowerSystemRelayingCommitteeSystemProtectionSubcommittee

WorkingGroupC13"UndervoltageLoadShedding

Stephen Lee, Recent EPRI R&D Threads related to Grid Operation and Planning,
available on http://phasors.pnl.gov/Meetings/2005%20April/presentations/Lee
%20EIPP_EPRI_4192005.pdf
Richard J.Kafka, Manually Initiated Fast Load Control
Daniel Lefebvre, Cedric Moors and Thierry Van Cutsem, Design of an undervoltage
load shedding scheme for Hydro-Quebec system
B.Isaias Lima Lopes and A.C.Zambroni de Souza, An Approach for Under Voltage
Load Shedding, 2003 IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference, June 23-26, Bologna,
Italy
C.Moors, D.Lefebvre and T.Van Cutsem, Design of Load Shedding Schemes
against Voltage Instability
Charles J.Mozina, Protection Of Power Plant Transformers Using Digital
Technology
I.L. van der Merwe, J.Cloete and N.Fischer, Implementation of an Unconventional
Voltage Slide Scheme
Meyer Kao and Gary Kobet, Analysis of Undervoltage Load Shedding Event at
Philadelphia, Mississippi, Georgia Tech Fault and Disturbance Analysis Conference
April 26-27, 2004

System Disturbances
-

Technical Summary on The Athens and Southern Greece Blackout of July 12, 2004,
Costas Vournas
Report on The Events of September 28th ,2003 Culminating in The Separation of The
Italian Power System From The Other UCTE Networks
Power Failure in Eastern Denmark and Southern Sweden on 23.09.03- Final Report
on the Course of Events, 04.11.03
U.S.CanadaPowerSystemOutageTaskForce,FinalReportontheAugust14,
2003BlackoutintheUnitedStatesandCanada:CausesandRecommendations,
April2004

UnderFrequencyLoadShedding
- B.Delfino,S.Massucco,A.Morini,P.ScaleraandF.Silvestro,Implementationand
ComparisonofDifferentUnderFrequencyLoadSheddingSchemes
- S.Jovanovic,B.FoxandJ.G.Thompson,OnLineLoadReliefControl
- CharlesConcordia,LesterH.FinkandGeorgePoullikkas,LoadSheddingonan
Isolated System, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.10, No.3, August
1995
- D.Prasetijo, W.R.Lachs and D.Sutanto, A New Load Shedding Scheme For
Limiting Underfrequency, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.9, No.3,
August1994
- P.M.Anderson and M.Mirheydar, An Adaptive Method for Setting
Underfrequency LoadShedding Relays, IEEETransactions onPower Systems,
Vol.7,No.2,May1992