By Kim Wirgau

The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 laid the foundation for wholesale electricity deregulation and ordered FERC to facilitate the transition1,2.  Since the deregulation of the power industry, the generation side of the industry has flourished.  The recovery of costs to build, operate, and maintain a generation plant as well as obtaining a rate of return on the investment has been straightforward.  However, the transmission side of the business has floundered.  It has not been clear on how to recover costs to build new lines let alone make a rate of return on the investment.  Therefore, new significant transmission lines have basically not been built over the past 15 years, with few exceptions of course.  The transmission system was never designed to operate as it is does today with most of the design margin having been depleted3.  Reliability of the power system has degraded through time that can be seen by brown-outs and black-outs that have occurred with the situation most likely getting worse. 

Paul Hines of Carnegie Mellon University published data on the frequency of large blackouts in the United States which shows how blackout frequency has been increasing4 over the last 10 years (see figure).

With the need for improvements to the transmission system, it is important to evaluate how the power system operates under various conditions.  The normal method of evaluation of a power system under normal and emergency conditions is by simulation using a power flow program.  A study of the power system helps locate problem areas and helps evaluate the effect of various system corrections.

When studies of the network indicate a power transfer problem into a load area, three basic methods to increase transmission line transfer capability are possible:

Improvement of line rating calculations
Reconductor
Addition of a new circuit

Line ratings are normally simulated as a static value.  The actual value changes depending on conductor characteristics, weather, amount of sunshine, and even the location of the line.  Recently, a more precise calculation of the limits has been given in the IEEE Standard 738-20065.  In addition to improvements in the calculations, a computer program is also given to assist the engineer in making the required computations.

When considering reconductoring or adding a new circuit, the potential use of “composite core conductors” should be considered6.  One of the new conductors is the aluminum conductor composite core (ACCC).  The ACCC conductor has the following advantages over the traditional ACSR conductors:

Provides twice the ampacity
Incorporates more aluminum for conductivity
Has similar weight, diameter, and tension
Eliminates sag
Can be operated at higher temperatures (up to 200°C)
Utilization can help meet emission initiatives
Eliminates steel core which reduces EMF
Eliminates galvanic core corrosion

In summary, in today’s operating environment it is important to study the power system in various operating conditions (normal and emergency) to identify transmission weaknesses.  Once transmission weaknesses are found, they can be improved by refinement of line ratings (small problems) and/or new conductors using new materials (major problems).  These improvements must be then verified through computer simulations and economic evaluations.
References:
Energy Policy Act of 1992, H.R.776, //thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c102:H.R.776.ENR.
Energy Policy Act of 1992, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992.
Casazza, J., “Electric Power Deregulation-A Bad Idea?”, IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Online, May 2005.
Hines, P., “The Frequency of Large Blackouts in the United States”, Carnegie Mellon University, March 2006.
“IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature of Bare Overhead Conductors”, IEEE Std 738-2006 (Revision of IEEE Std 738-1993).
Engelbrecht, E., Francis, M., “The Use of Composite Core Conductor for Re-Stringing the Existing 220kV Circuits”, Composite Technology Corporation, July 2005, http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/pdfs/submissions/

By Lance Lanier

I recently moved my family from an apartment built in 2005 into a house built in 1959. The listed square footage for both is nearly the same. We were pleasantly surprised to find that our furniture fit in the living room of our house better than in the apartment. We also seemed to have more living space throughout.  These discoveries lead me to the realization that we forfeited real estate in closets and bathrooms to gain living space.  Sensing that I was onto the lead-in for another newsletter article, I pondered why closets and bathrooms grew at the expense of living space over the past 40 plus years.

My conclusion was that we have more stuff now than families did in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Our bathrooms have to be bigger to hold the dizzying array of personal care products and our closets have to be bigger to hold everything else. One who is so inclined and talented and has nothing better to do would be able to determine the year when the typical American family will accumulate so much stuff that their closets and bathrooms must be bigger than their living rooms and dining rooms.  I would include bedrooms, but I have friends who have already built a house featuring a closet and a bathroom with a combined square footage that dwarfs their master bedroom.

Those same friends work very hard to pay for their big house with mammoth closets and bathrooms.  They work even harder to be able to buy the stuff to fill their substantial storage space.  I don’t fault them for their stuff accumulation tendencies because they are merely part of a culture dedicated to stuff. (Perhaps I’m onto something and have found the true cause of global warming—too much stuff.)

Many businesses also have become victims of the stuff accumulation culture.  One of my former employers had leather placemats and coasters engraved with its logo at every place at each of several large conference tables. Before we could do any work, our fist task was to stack those leather placemats in the corner so we could actually use the table. Apparently the managers determined that engraved leather placemats to keep dust off of the tables and engraved leather coasters that didn’t absorb moisture were the exact right type of stuff such a business should have.

I often sat at those tables watching the moisture from my Diet Coke pool on the table next to the coaster wondering how many hours I worked to pay for this useless coaster and those engraved leather placemats stacked in the corner. I also wondered how many hours I worked to pay for the fresh-cut flowers that perfumed the lobby every day and made me sneeze each time I walked through.  Or how many hours I worked to pay for the massive computer network which allowed us to type letters and memos and send jokes by e-mail.  The system apparently was capable of much more, but no one seemed to really do more that create Word documents and an occasional Power Point presentation—OK, to be fair, we surfed the net too.

One who is so inclined and talented and has nothing better to do could calculate the exact number of hours I spent working for the unnecessary stuff purchased by my former employer. I would call it overhead, but the term overhead presumes the necessary expenses to operate a business. Much of the expensive stuff I saw was not necessary or even useful to help us accomplish our assigned tasks.

Some may argue that such accessories in an office are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to a productive business environment. Of course they are probably the same people who sell engraved leather placemats. Personally, I would like to either work less, or work to pay for a vacation to some nice scenic spot before all such spots are replaced with leather placemat factories.

Being presented with hard evidence of our general quest for stuff, made me wonder how many houses sucked up in the current foreclosure vacuum had bathrooms and closets that were too expensive to finance with a conventional loan and contained too much stuff to sustain a reasonable monthly budget.  I also wonder how many businesses fail because the owners or managers felt compelled to buy the newest and best stuff before thinking about whether they really need it or whether it would actually improve productivity.

So how many hours do you work to pay for superfluous stuff?

By the way, so you don’t think me hypocritical, Lanier Consulting bought a 20-pack of cork coasters for $10 which are eco-friendly and actually absorb moisture.