AE2-261 Final System Impact Study (Retool 2) Report
v2.00 released 2026-05-14 11:46
Kincaid-Pana 345 kV
179.4 MW Capacity / 299.0 MW Energy
Introduction
This Final System Impact Study (SIS) Report has been prepared in accordance with the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 314 for New Service Requests (projects) in Transition Cycle 1 (TC1). The Project Developer/Eligible Customer (developer) is Black Diamond Solar Power, LLC, and the Transmission Provider (TP) is PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). The interconnected Transmission Owner (TO) is Commonwealth Edison Company.
Preface
The Final System Impact Study is conducted on an aggregate basis within a New Services Request’s Cycle, and results are provided in both (i) a single Cycle summary format and (ii) an individual project-level basis. The Final System Impact Study Results (for both the summary and individual reports) will be publicly available on PJM’s website. Project Developers must obtain the results from the website.
In accordance with PJM Manual 14H, section 5, Final Agreement Negotiation Phase, the purpose of the Final Agreement Negotiation Phase is to:
- Negotiate, execute and enter into the applicable final interconnection related service agreement found in Tariff, Part IX;
- Conduct any remaining analyses or updated analyses based on New Service Requests withdrawn during Decision Point III (DP3); and
- Adjust the security obligation based on New Service Requests withdrawn during Decision Point III and/or during the Final Agreement Negotiation Phase.
Retool 1:
In accordance with PJM Tariff Part VII.D 314 B(1)(a), Final Agreement Negotiation Phase:
- PJM will perform a retool (Retool 1) after the conclusion of DP3 considering only the projects moving on in the Final Agreement Negotiation Phase (Removes DP3 withdrawals).
- The Final System Impact Study reflecting results from the retooled analysis (Retool 1) will be publicly available on PJM’s website; Project Developers and Eligible Customers must obtain the results from the website.
- PJM will provide updated final electronic agreements to Project Developers and Eligible Customers in the Cycle reflecting updates from the Final System Impact Study after Retool 1 including the adjusted Security requirements.
The AE2-261 Final System Impact Study (Retool 1) Report is available for download here.
Retool 2 (if needed):
If particular New Service Requests do not sign their final agreements after receiving the updated information after Retool 1, there may be the need to run a second retool (Retool 2) to identify if any network upgrades are no longer necessary:
- PJM will perform Retool 2 (if necessary) considering only the removal of projects from the model which chose not to execute their agreements after Retool 1.
- The updated Final System Impact Study reflecting results from Retool 2 will be publicly available on PJM’s website; Project Developers and Eligible Customers must obtain the results from the website.
- If there are any adjustments to the agreements required after Retool 2, the necessary network upgrade or Security changes will be handled via the scope change process post-GIA.
General
The Project Developer has proposed a Solar generating facility located in the Commonwealth Edison Company zone — Christian County, Illinois. The installed facilities will have a total capability of 299.0 MW with 179.4 MW of this output being recognized by PJM as Capacity.Project Information
Physical Interconnection Facility Study
The transmission owner has completed the Physical Interconnection Facilities Study. This report is available for download.
Point of Interconnection
AE2-261 will interconnect with the ComEd transmission system via a newly constructed 345kV breaker-and-a-half substation, TSS 903 Tovey, tapping the STA. 21 Kincaid - Auburn Solar 345kV line, L.2105, approximately miles from STA. 21 Kincaid and 8.3 miles from Auburn Solar.
Cost Summary
The table below shows a summary of the total cost estimates for this New Service Request project. The Facilities Studies for the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities (TOIF) and Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades were performed by the Transmission Owner in Phase II. Facilities Studies are available for download on PJM.com (see General Section for document links). The Interconnected Transmission Owner has performed a Facilities Study for the required System Reliability Network Upgrades in Phase III (see System Reinforcement Section for document links).
Based on the Final SIS results, the AE2-261 project has the following allocation of costs for interconnection. The Security amount required after the Final SIS and revised agreements is also shown below.
| Cost Summary | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Cost Allocated to AE2-261 | Cost Subject to Security* | |
| Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities (TOIF) | $0 | $0 | |
| Other Scope | $0 | $0 | |
| Option To Build Oversight | $997,871 | $997,871 | |
| Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades | |||
| Stand Alone Network Upgrades | $0 | $0 | |
| Network Upgrades | $5,449,938 | $5,449,938 | |
| System Reliability Network Upgrades | |||
| Steady State Thermal & Voltage (SP & LL) | $14,227,600 | $14,227,600 | |
| Transient Stability | $0 | $0 | |
| Short Circuit | $0 | $0 | |
| Transmission Owner Analysis | |||
| SubRegional | $0 | $0 | |
| Distribution | $0 | $0 | |
| Affected System Reinforcements | |||
| AFS - PJM Violations | $1,358,664 | $0 | |
| AFS - Non-PJM Violations | $387,879 ** | $0 ** | |
| Total | $22,421,953 | $20,675,410 | |
* Contributes to calculation for Security. See Security Requirement Section of this report for additional detail.
** This value reflects the results at the time of the report posting and it is subject to change. AFS – Non-PJM Violations are not subject to Security. For latest AFS – Non-PJM Violations, please refer to the latest Affected System Study Report for your project.
Definitions
Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities: Facilities that are owned, controlled, operated and maintained by the Transmission Owner on the Transmission Owner’s side of the Point of Change of Ownership to the Point of Interconnection, including any modifications, additions or upgrades made to such facilities and equipment, that are necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the Generating Facility with the Transmission System or interconnected distribution facilities.
Stand Alone Network Upgrades: Network Upgrades, which are not part of an Affected System, which a Project Developer may construct without affecting day-to-day operations (e.g. taking a transmission outage) of the Transmission System during their construction.
Network Upgrades: Modifications or additions to transmission-related facilities that are integrated with and support the Transmission Provider’s overall Transmission System for the general benefit of all users of such Transmission System. Network Upgrades have no impact or potential impact on the Transmission System until the final tie-in is complete.
Notes
Note 1: PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Part VII, Subpart D, section 307.5 outlines cost allocation rules. The rules are further clarified in PJM Manual 14H, section 4.2.6. PJM shall identify the New Service Requests in the Cycle contributing to the need for the required Network Upgrades within the Cycle. All New Service Requests that contribute to the need for a Network Upgrade will receive cost allocation for that upgrade pursuant to each New Service Request’s contribution to the reliability violation identified on the transmission system in accordance with PJM Manuals.
Note 2: There will be no inter-Cycle cost allocation for Interconnection Facilities or Network Upgrades identified in the System Impact Study costs identified in a Cycle; all such costs shall be allocated to New Service Requests in that Cycle.
Note 3: For Project Developers with System Reinforcements listed: If this project presents cost allocation to a System Reinforcement indicates $0, then please be aware that as changes to the interconnection process occur, the cost responsibilities can change and a cost allocation may be assigned to this project. In addition, although this project presents cost allocation to a System Reinforcement is presently $0, this project may need this system reinforcement completed to be deliverable to the PJM system. If this project desires to come into service prior to completion of the system reinforcement, the Project Developer will need to request PJM to perform an interim deliverability study to determine if they would be deliverable for all or a portion of their output for each delivery year until the system reinforcement is complete.
Security Requirement
Per Tariff Part VII, Subpart D, section 314 (Final Agreement Negotiation Phase) A.1 and PJM Manual 14H, Section 5, if a Transition Cycle 1 New Service Request is withdrawn during Decision Point III and/or the Final Agreement Negotiation Phase, PJM shall remove the New Service Request from the Cycle and adjust the Security obligations of other New Service Requests based on the withdrawal. The Final System Impact Study results will reflect the updated Security amount for this project. Security may be in the form of cash, letter of credit, or other form of Security acceptable to PJM (see PJM M14H, Section 6.4).
Security is calculated for a New Service Request based on the Network Upgrade costs allocated pursuant to the Final System Impact Study results.
Note 1: "Network Upgrades" referred to in the calculation include both (i) the Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades and (ii) the System Reliability Network Upgrades as shown in the Cost Summary table.
Security Due for AE2-261/AG1-460
Security has been calculated for the AE2-261/AG1-460 project(s) based on the Final System Impact Study results and is shown in the table below. This Security must be provided at Final SIS through either a wire transfer or letter of credit or other form of Security deemed acceptable by PJM per Manual 14H, Section 6.4.
Security Due for AE2-261/AG1-460
In accordance with Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 314(B)(4)(a) (Final Agreement Negotiation Phase) failure to provide any required adjustments to Security within the 15 Business Day period will result in the New Service Request project being terminated and withdrawn.
Please see the cover letter for more details on Letter of Credit/Wire details to satisfy the additional Security requirement.
If no additional Security is required, please coordinate with your assigned Project Manager to initiate any refunds of Security reductions.
Transmission Owner Scope of Work
As shown in the one line diagram, this Interconnection Request is sharing the Point of Interconnection (POI) with one or more other Interconnection Requests. Should other requests withdraw from the Interconnection Queue, the cost allocation for Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities, Stand Alone Network Upgrades, and applicable Network Upgrades identified in the study report will be updated for the remaining project(s). Refer to the one line for other Interconnection Requests at this POI.
The total preliminary cost estimate for the Transmission Owner scope of work (including TOIF and Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades) is given in the table below. These costs do not include CIAC Tax Gross-up.
(No Transmission Owner Scope for this project.)
Developer Scope
Project Developer has elected the option Option to Build where they will assume responsibility for the design, procurement and construction of the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities and/or Stand-Alone Network Upgrades identified in this SIS report.
The Project Developer must fulfill additional requirements in accordance to PJM Manual 14C, section 5.1 and PJM Manual 14H, section 8.6.2.
The cost estimates for eligible facilities and Option to Build oversight are highlighted below:
| Network Upgrades | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTEP ID | Description | Direct | Indirect | Total Cost ($USD) | Allocated Cost ($USD) | ||
| Labor | Materials | Labor | Materials | ||||
| n9571.0 | Extend existing distribution power to tie in the auxiliary power for the new interconnection substation. | $834,434 | $489,578 | $138,388 | $29,061 | $1,491,461 | $745,730 (See Note 1) |
| n9570.0 | Cut the STA. 21 Kincaid - Auburn Solar 345kV line (L2105/L9032) to loop into the new TSS 903 Tovey substation. | $4,557,738 | $2,011,824 | $755,884 | $119,421 | $7,444,867 | $3,722,434 (See Note 1) |
| n9569.0 | Perform Relaying Upgrades at TSS 964 Clear Creek (L90302) and Sta 21 Kincaid (L2105). | $316,123 | $61,197 | $52,428 | $3,633 | $433,381 | $216,690 (See Note 1) |
| n9568.0 | Install 0.5 miles of fiber from TSS 903 Tovey substation to the L.2105 345kV transmission line. | $989,972 | $354,944 | $164,183 | $21,069 | $1,530,168 | $765,084 (See Note 1) |
| Option to Build Oversight | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTEP ID | Description | Direct | Indirect | Total Cost ($USD) | Allocated Cost ($USD) | ||
| Labor | Materials | Labor | Materials | ||||
| (Pending) | Provide oversight for the construction of the new 345 kV breaker-and-a-half TSS 903 Tovey substation tapping the L.2105 345kV transmission line. | $1,646,852 | $0 | $273,125 | $0 | $1,919,977 | $959,988 (See Note 1) |
| (Pending) | Provide oversight for the construction of the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities from the Point of Change in Ownership to the TSS 903 Tovey Substation. | $64,987 | $0 | $10,778 | $0 | $75,765 | $37,882 (See Note 1) |
Based on the scope of work for the Interconnection Facilities, it is expected to take 60 month(s) after the signing of a Generator Interconnection Agreement (as this is a FERC connection) and construction kickoff call to complete the installation of the physical connection work. This assumes that there will be no environmental issues with any of the new properties associated with this project, that there will be no delays in acquiring the necessary permits for implementing the defined interconnection work, and that all system outages will be allowed when requested.
Note that the TO findings were made from a conceptual review of this project. A more detailed review of the connection facilities and their cost will be identified in a future study phase. Further note that the cost estimate data provided should be considered high level estimates since it was produced without a detailed engineering review. The Project Developer will be responsible for the actual cost of construction. TO herein reserves the right to return to any issues in this document and, upon appropriate justification, request additional monies to complete any reinforcements to the transmission systems.
Remote Terminal Work: During Phase II of the PJM interconnection process, TO’s System Protection Engineering Department will review transmission line protection as well as anti-islanding required to accommodate the new generation and interconnection substation. System Protection Engineering will determine the minimal acceptable protection requirements to reliably interconnect the proposed generating facility with the transmission system. The review is based on maintaining system reliability by reviewing TO’s protection requirements with the known transmission system configuration which includes generating facilities in the area. This review may determine that transmission line protection and communication upgrades are required at remote substations.
Note 1: A Common Use Upgrade is a Network Upgrade that is needed for the interconnection of Generating Facilities or Merchant Transmission Facilities of more than one Project Developer or Eligible Customer and which is the shared responsibility of each Project Developer or Eligible Customer. If multiple Project Developers request to connect to the same interconnection substation, the Transmission Owner will determine the cost to accommodate all the requests at the substation. The cost for the interconnection will be allocated in proportion to the number of required terminations into the substation.
Notes on Cost Estimate:
- These estimates are Order-of-Magnitude estimates of the costs that ComEd would bill to the Project Developer for this interconnection. These estimates are based on a one-line electrical diagram of the project and the information provided by the Project Developer.
- There were no site visits performed for these estimates. There may be costs related to specific site related issues that are not identified in these estimates. The site reviews will be performed during the Facilities Study or during detailed engineering.
- These estimates are not a guarantee of the maximum amount payable by the Project Developer and the actual costs of ComEd's work may differ significantly from these estimates. The Project Developer will be responsible for paying actual costs of ComEd's work in accordance with the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
- The Project Developer is responsible for all engineering, procurement, testing and construction of all equipment on the Project Developer’s side of the Point of Change in Ownership.
These cost estimates do not include cost of acquiring right-of-way for the transmission line and purchasing any additional land, if needed, for the line terminations.
Transmission Owner Analysis
No Transmission Owner impacts identified.
Developer Requirements
The developer is responsible for all design and construction related activities on the developer’s side of the Point of Change in Ownership. ComEd interconnection requirements can be found here.
To the extent that these Applicable Technical Requirements and Standards may conflict with the terms and conditions of the Tariff, the Tariff shall control.
Revenue Metering and SCADA Requirements
The developer will be required to install equipment necessary to provide Revenue Metering (KWH, KVARH) and real time data (KW, KVAR) for their generating Resource. See PJM Manual 01, PJM Manual 14D, and PJM Tariff Part IX, Subpart B, Appendix 2, section 8.Meteorological Data Reporting Requirement
The solar generation facility shall provide the Transmission Provider with site-specific meteorological data including:Transmission Owner Requirements
- Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
- Atmospheric Pressure (hectopascals)
- Irradiance
- Forced outage data
The Project Developer will be required to comply with all interconnected Transmission Owner’s revenue metering requirements located at the following link: PJM - Transmission Owner Engineering & Construction Standards.
Summer Peak Analysis
The New Service Request AE2-261 was evaluated as a 299.0 MW (179.4 MW Capacity) injection in the ComEd area.
Note: The capacity portion of Generation Interconnection Requests are evaluated for single or N-1 contingencies. The full energy output of Generation Interconnection Requests are evaluated for multiple facility contingencies (double circuit tower line, fault with a stuck breaker, and bus fault).
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Study | Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GD1 | AEP/DEI | 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-1 | Tower | AC | 106.03 % | 1374.0 | B | 1456.89 | 26.32 | |
| GD1 | AEP/DEI | 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | AEP_P7-1_#11042___SRT-A | Tower | AC | 104.37 % | 1374.0 | B | 1434.0 | 22.42 | |
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | AB2-070_POI-7BROKAW 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_LAT-45-BT15____SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 102.7 % | 1327.0 | B | 1362.86 | 68.64 | |
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | AB2-070_POI-7BROKAW 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_LAT-45-BT11____SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 102.27 % | 1327.0 | B | 1357.19 | 69.87 | |
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | AB2-070_POI-7BROKAW 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_021-45-BT5-7___SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 101.61 % | 1327.0 | B | 1348.37 | 92.72 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Study | Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GD1 | CE | LORETTO ; B-AD1-100 TAP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_012-45-BT12-14_SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 130.94 % | 2107.0 | STE | 2758.84 | 61.36 | |
| GD1 | CE | LORETTO ; B-AD1-100 TAP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_012-45-BT14-15_SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 127.29 % | 2107.0 | STE | 2682.0 | 60.54 | |
| GD1 | CE | PONTIAC ; B-LORETTO ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_012-45-BT12-14_SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 139.84 % | 1837.0 | STE | 2568.92 | 61.43 | |
| GD1 | CE | PONTIAC ; B-LORETTO ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P4_012-45-BT14-15_SRT-A | Breaker | AC | 135.76 % | 1837.0 | STE | 2493.84 | 60.61 |
Summer Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
PJM also studied the delivery of the energy portion of this interconnection request. Any problems identified below are likely to result in operational restrictions to the project under study. The developer can proceed with network upgrades to eliminate the operational restriction at their discretion by submitting an Upgrade Request into the New Service Request process.
Note: Only the most severely overloaded conditions are listed below. There is no guarantee of full delivery of energy for this project by fixing only the conditions listed in this section. With an Upgrade Request, a subsequent analysis will be performed which shall study all overload conditions associated with the overloaded element(s) identified.
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Study | Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | 7BROKAW-MCLEAN ; R 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L8002___-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 106.74 % | 1793.0 | B | 1913.78 | 57.28 | |
| GD1 | CE | AD1-100 TAP-WILTON ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | 765-L11216__-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 136.42 % | 1528.0 | B | 2084.5 | 22.62 | |
| GD1 | CE | AD1-100 TAP-WILTON ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | Base Case | OP | AC | 118.44 % | 1364.0 | A | 1615.54 | 17.69 | |
| GD1 | CE | AD2-100 TP-AF1-090 TP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | EXT_347945 7PANA 345 347955 7AUSTIN 345 1 _SRT-S | OP | AC | 103.32 % | 1201.0 | B | 1240.89 | 92.14 | |
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | AF1-090 TP-7PANA 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | EXT_347945 7PANA 345 347955 7AUSTIN 345 1 _SRT-S | OP | AC | 111.16 % | 1201.0 | B | 1334.97 | 92.14 | |
| GD1 | CE | BLUEMOUND; B-PONTIAC ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L8001___-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 130.87 % | 1528.0 | B | 1999.69 | 49.56 | |
| GD1 | AMIL/CE | KINCAID ; B-7AUSTIN 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L2105___-S_SRT-A-4 | OP | AC | 101.25 % | 1319.0 | B | 1335.48 | 144.32 | |
| GD1 | CE | LORETTO ; B-AD1-100 TAP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 173.47 % | 1528.0 | B | 2650.62 | 60.49 | |
| GD1 | CE | LORETTO ; B-AD1-100 TAP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | Base Case | OP | AC | 139.62 % | 1364.0 | A | 1904.35 | 43.0 | |
| GD1 | CE | MCLEAN ; R-PONTIAC ; R 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L8002___-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 141.56 % | 1726.0 | B | 2443.24 | 57.19 | |
| GD1 | CE | MCLEAN ; R-PONTIAC ; R 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | Base Case | OP | AC | 113.98 % | 1553.0 | A | 1770.13 | 39.07 | |
| GD1 | CE | PONTIAC ; B-LORETTO ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A | OP | AC | 162.71 % | 1528.0 | B | 2486.15 | 60.56 | |
| GD1 | CE | PONTIAC ; B-LORETTO ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | Base Case | OP | AC | 130.92 % | 1334.0 | A | 1746.46 | 43.07 | |
| GD1 | CE | PONTIAC ; R-DRESDEN ; R 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | COMED_P1-2_345-L11212_B-S_SRT-A-2 | OP | AC | 139.52 % | 1656.0 | B | 2310.44 | 52.97 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.)
Winter Peak Analysis
PJM will start performing Winter Peak analysis in Transition Cycle 2.
Winter Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
PJM will start performing Winter Peak analysis in Transition Cycle 2.
Light Load Analysis
The New Service Request AE2-261 was evaluated as a 299.0 MW injection in the ComEd area.
Note: The capacity portion of Generation Interconnection Requests are evaluated for single or N-1 contingencies. The full energy output of Generation Interconnection Requests are evaluated for multiple facility contingencies (double circuit tower line, fault with a stuck breaker, and bus fault).
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No impacts were found for this analysis)
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.)
Light Load Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
PJM also studied the delivery of the energy portion of this interconnection request. Any problems identified below are likely to result in operational restrictions to the project under study. The developer can proceed with network upgrades to eliminate the operational restriction at their discretion by submitting an Upgrade Request into the New Service Request process.
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No impacts were found for this analysis)
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.)
Short Circuit Analysis
Based on PJM’s Short Circuit Analysis, this project did not contribute >1% fault duty to previously identified overdutied breakers, nor did it cause any new overdutied breakers.
Stability Analysis
Analysis Complete - No Issues
Executive Summary
New Service Requests (projects) in PJM Transition Cycle 1, Cluster 07 are listed in Table 1 below. This report will cover the dynamic analysis of Cluster 07 projects.
This analysis is effectively a screening study to determine whether the addition of the cluster 07 projects will meet the dynamics requirements of the NERC, ComEd and PJM reliability standards.
The load flow scenario for the analysis was based on the RTEP 2027 summer peak load case, modified to include applicable projects. Cluster 07 projects have been dispatched online at maximum power output, with 1.0 voltage at the terminal bus.
Cluster 07 projects were tested for compliance with NERC, PJM, Transmission Owner and other applicable criteria. Steady-state condition and 110 contingencies were studied, each with a 20 second simulation time period. Studied faults included:
- Steady-state operation (20 second run).
- Three-phase faults with normal clearing time.
- Single-phase faults with stuck breaker.
- Three-phase faults single-phase delayed clearing due to a stuck breaker (IPO breaker with FD Logic).
- Three-phase faults with three-phase delayed clearing due to a stuck breaker (GO Breakers with A-contact Logic).
- Three-phase faults with single-phase delayed clearing due to a stuck breaker (GO Breakers with FD Logic).
No relevant high-speed reclosing (HSR) contingencies nor single-phase bus faults were identified for this study.
For all simulations, the queue project under study along with the rest of the PJM system were required to maintain synchronism and with all states returning to an acceptable new condition following the disturbance.
For all the fault contingencies tested on the 2027 peak load case:
- Cluster 07 projects were able to ride through the faults (except for faults where protective action trips a generator(s)),
- The system with Cluster 07 projects included is transiently stable and post-contingency oscillations were positively damped with a damping margin of at least 3% for interarea modes and 4% for local modes.
- Following fault clearing, all bus voltages recovered to a minimum of 0.7 per unit after 2.5 seconds (except where protective action isolates that bus).
- No transmission element tripped, other than those either directly connected or designed to trip as a consequence of that fault.
AE2-261, AG1-236, and AG1-460 meet the 0.95 leading and lagging PF requirement.
The IPCMD and IQCMD states in the REGCAU model of AE2-261, and AG1-236 showed erratic behavior for some contingencies in which these generators have been disconnected as part of the contingency event. Since the machine is disconnected and no active or reactive power is injected into the system, this behavior is likely fictitious and a limitation of the software. This does not cause instability in the system.
AG1-236 GEN exhibited slow reactive power recovery within the 20 second simulation window for several contingencies. This issue did not cause instability in the system and the models have been tuned to achieve a faster reactive power output settlement by updating Kp and Kc from REPCTA1 module in generator AG1-236.
The tripping of AD2-100 was identified in contingencies P4.68, P4.69, and P4.70, as well as during the Cluster 07 pre-project test. Therefore, it has been confirmed that the tripping of AD2-100 is not caused by the TC1 Cluster 07 queue projects. Tripping was avoided for all events by updating the undervoltage protection settings: Relay 93677405 was adjusted to 0.177 seconds (10 cycles, adding one cycle to the original P4 fault clearing time of 9 cycles).
No mitigations were found to be required.
Table 1: TC1 Cluster 07 Projects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cluster | Project | Fuel Type | Transmission Owner | MFO | MWE | MWC | Point of Interconnection |
07 | AE2-261 | Solar | ComEd | 299 | 299 | 179.4 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV |
AG1-460 | Storage | ComEd | 30 | 30 | 12 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | |
AG1-236 | Wind | ComEd | 180 | 180 | 23.4 | Lanesville- Brokaw |
Reactive Power Analysis
The reactive power capability of AE2-261 meets the 0.95 leading and lagging PF requirement at the high side of the main transformer.
Steady-State Voltage Analysis
Steady State Voltage Analysis is Not Required.
New Service Request Dependencies
The New Service Requests below are listed in one or more dispatch for the overloads identified in this report. These projects contribute to the loading of the overloaded facilities identified in this report. The percent overload of a facility and cost allocation you may have towards a particular reinforcement could vary depending on the action of other projects. The status of each project at the time of the analysis is presented in the table. This list may change as other projects withdraw or modify their requests. This table is valid for load flow analyses only.
| New Service Requests Dependencies | ||
|---|---|---|
| Project ID | Project Name | Status |
| AB1-006 | Meadow Lake 345kV | In Service |
| AB1-087 | Sullivan 345kV #1 | Under Construction |
| AB1-088 | Sullivan 345kV #2 | Engineering & Procurement |
| AB2-047 | Brokaw-Pontiac Midpoint | In Service |
| AB2-070 | Mt. Pulaski-Brokaw | In Service |
| AC1-053 | Lanesville-Brokaw | In Service |
| AC2-157 | Sullivan 345 kV | Partially in Service - Under Construction |
| AD1-148 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| AD2-100 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | Suspended |
| AD2-131 | Kincaid-Pana 345kV | Suspended |
| AE1-205 | McLean 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AE2-223 | McLean 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AE2-267 | Woodsdale 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AE2-276 | Sullivan 345kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-090 | Kincaid-Pana | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-204 | Eugene 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-207 | Reynolds-Olive #1 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-322 | Meadow Lake 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-032 | Kincaid 345 kV | Withdrawn |
| AF2-078 | Reynolds-Olive #1 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-225 | McLean 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-252 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-305 | Brokaw-Lanesville 345 kV | In Service |
| AF2-317 | Hill Topper 345 kV | In Service |
| AF2-352 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-226 | Dequine-Eugene 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-237 | Dequine-Eugene 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-374 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-398 | Brokaw-Lanesville 345 kV | In Service |
| AG1-460 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-555 | Dequine 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| W2-048 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| W4-005 | Blue Mound-Latham | In Service |
| X2-022 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| Y1-054 | Rochelle 138kV | In Service |
| Z2-087 | Pontiac MidPoint-Brokaw 345kV | In Service |
Affected System - PJM Identified Violations
As part of PJM's analysis, PJM evaluated the potential impacts on tie line facilities between PJM and an affected system entity, which were identified per PJM planning analysis criteria. This upgrade may be required on the affected system portion of the tie line along with cost allocation of such upgrade if applicable, in coordination with the affected system. Depending on the affected system, this project may not be contingent on upgrade based on PJM planning analysis criteria, but may be contingent on this upgrade based on the Affected System Operator's planning criteria, provided in the Affected Systems Study Section, herein.
| AE2-261 System Reinforcements: | TO | Trans Owner ID | Title | Category | Allocated Cost ($USD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEI | DEI_TC1_16079 | Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor. | Cost Allocated | $1,358,664 | ||||||
| Grand Total: | $1,358,664 | |||||||||
System Reinforcement
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- DEI
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- (Pending) / DEI_TC1_16079
- Title
- Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor.
- Description
- Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor. Projected in-service date is 6/1/2030.
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $23,213,515
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $1,358,664
- Time Estimate
- 48 Months
Contributor
| Facility | Contingency | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
|
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AE2-223 ⧉ McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-223, AF2-225 | 11.4 MW | 2.5% | $586,216 |
| AE2-261 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 26.3 MW | 5.9% | $1,358,664 |
| AF1-204 | 135.5 MW | 30.1% | $6,994,424 |
| AF2-225 ⧉ McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-223, AF2-225 | 11.4 MW | 2.5% | $586,216 |
| AG1-226 | 239.0 MW | 53.2% | $12,341,670 |
| AG1-374 | 23.4 MW | 5.2% | $1,210,019 |
| AG1-460 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 2.6 MW | 0.6% | $136,305 |
Affected System - Non-PJM Identified Violations
In coordination with other Affected System Operators, PJM has determined that the Affected System Operator for this project that requires an Affected System Study. For the latest Affected System Study results pertaining this project, please refer to your Affected System Study report by the Affected System Operator. If the Affected System Operator identified the need for a system reinforcement on their system due to their planning criteria, Project Developer must follow the Affected System Operator Tariff for construction of the network upgrade. PJM lists any required network upgrades identified by the Affected System Operator in the PJM Project Developer’s GIA under Schedule F.
System Reinforcements
Based on the Final System Impact Study analysis results, this project is contingent on and may have cost responsibility for the following System Reinforcements:
PJM evaluated the impact of topology changing reinforcements to mitigate the impacts driven by New Service Requests. PJM determined which reinforcements were eliminated as a result of modeling the topology changing reinforcements. PJM then grouped the topology changing and eliminated reinforcements by region and computed a discount factor to apply to reinforcements to reduce the cost of all these reinforcements down to the cost of contstructing only the topology changing reinforcements. For additional details, please click the icon below
Shown below are the details of the cost allocated, contingent, eliminated, topology and potential aggregate contributor reinforcements for this project. Please refer to the System Reinforcement table above and the information below for more detail.
System Reinforcement: n9101.0
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n9101.0 / CE_NUN_L18806
- Title
- Mitigate sag on the Brokaw to TSS 909 Deer Creek 345 kV line L90907.
- Description
- • Perform a sag mitigation study of 22.1 Miles of 345kV transmission line 90907 from Brokaw to TSS 909 Deer Creek.
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $14,966,004
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $14,966,004
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $13,601,297
- Time Estimate
- Dec 15 2030
Contributor
| Facility | Contingency | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AB2-070_POI-7BROKAW 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
|
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AE2-261 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 68.6 MW | 90.9% | $13,601,297 |
| AG1-460 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 6.9 MW | 9.1% | $1,364,707 |
System Reinforcement: n9195.0
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n9195.0 / CE_NUN_STA12_345 NEW CB
- Title
- Install a new 345 kV circuit breaker at Station 12 Dresden.
- Description
- • Upgrade the existing substation STA 12 Dresden by adding 345kV BT 14-15 circuit breaker and associated disconnect switches. • Upgrade relay & protection at 345kV substation STA 12 Dresden to support installation of 345kV BT 14-15
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $3,357,627
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $3,357,627
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $626,303
- Time Estimate
- Dec 15 2030
Contributor
| Facility | Contingency | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (Any) | COMED_P4_012-45-BT14-15_SRT-A | No new ratings for this Flowgate. |
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AE2-223 ⧉ McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-223, AF2-225 | 133.8 MW | 20.6% | $691,648 |
| AE2-261 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 121.2 MW | 18.7% | $626,303 |
| AF2-225 ⧉ McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-223, AF2-225 | 133.8 MW | 20.6% | $691,648 |
| AG1-374 | 248.6 MW | 38.3% | $1,285,183 |
| AG1-460 ⧉ Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI: AE2-261, AG1-460 | 12.2 MW | 1.9% | $62,843 |
System Reinforcement
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- (Pending) / AEP_TC1_13727
- Title
- AEP SE rating is 1868 MVA
- Description
- AEP SE rating is 1868 MVA
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Time Estimate
- 0 to 1 Months
Note: This reinforcement is fictitious and will not be cost allocated to projects. It is listed for information purposes only.
| Facility | Contingency | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
|
System Reinforcement: n6840
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n6840 / CE_NUN_Sta. 12 Dresden
- Title
- Install a new 345kV bus tie circuit breaker at Station 12 Dresden
- Description
- For Dresden stuck breaker (COMED_P4_012-45-BT12-14): The upgrade will be to install a new 345kV bus tie circuit breaker at Station 12 Dresden. The new 345kV breaker will be installed as BT CB 12-13. The ratings for L11212 will not change rather the contingency as stated above will be revised.
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Time Estimate
- Dec 18 2024
Not Contingent Note: Based on PJM cost allocation criteria, AE2-261 does not receive cost allocation towards this upgrade which is already in-service.
| Facility | Contingency | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (Any) | COMED_P4_012-45-BT12-14_SRT-A | No new ratings for this Flowgate. |
Attachments
AE2-261 One Line Diagram
