12 Kent

Counsel Instructed:
Trevor Robinson
Wellington
Tel 64-4-472 1755. Fax 64-4-472 1766. PO Box 8018 Wellington
trobinson@xtra.co.nz
Solicitor Acting:
H Rosemary Dixon
Contact Energy Limited
Telephone 64-4-462 1284. PO Box 10742, Wellington
rosemary.dixon@contact-energy.co.nz
BOARD OF INQUIRY
HAUURU M RAKI WIND FARM PROPOSAL
In the Matter of the Resource Management Act 1991
And
In the matter of resource consent applications by Contact Wind Limited in
respect of the Hauuru m raki Wind Farm Proposal
And
In the matter of notices of requirement and a resource consent application
by Contact Energy Limited for transmission infrastructure
related to the Hauuru m raki Wind Farm Proposal
BRIEF OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF OF HENRY KENT
WGTN_DOCS\928374\v1 Page 2
Introduction
1. My name is Henry Kent. I am employed as an Engineering Consultant by
Energy Action Pty Ltd.
2. I have the following qualifications and experience relevant to the evidence I
shall give:
(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering, NSW University of Technology;
(b) Accepted to Institution of Engineers, Australia;
(c) Convener of CIGRE Australian Panel AP 21 & member of CIGRE
international Study Committee SC 21 HV Insulated Cables - 1984 to
1990 (representing Australian and New Zealand cable industry);
(d) Current member of CIGRE Australian Panel B1 Insulated Cables;
(e) Past member ESAA (Energy Supply Association of Australia) Technical
Advisory Committee Electro-Magnetic Fields;
(f) Extensive experience in cable design, installation & maintenance with
Electricity Commission of NSW - now TransGrid (NSW transmission
company) and later with Integral Energy (NSW distribution company);
(g) Engaged by the Inquiry into the Auckland CBD Power Supply Failure
as chief technical consultant to determine the cause of failure of the
110kV oil filled & gas filled power cables in 1998;
(h) 2000 onwards, with Energy Action Pty Ltd: Provide consulting services
to Utilities & Industry (Cable Design; Condition Assessment &
Monitoring; Project Management and Training);
(i) Currently engaged by ElectraNet (South Australia) as team
leader/cables to assist with technical specification, tender analysis &
installation of 275kV underground cable; and
(j) Currently engaged by Snowy Hydro (NSW Australia) to prepare
technical specification and assist in tender analysis for the removal of
existing 330kV underground cables and installation of replacement
330kV cables at Tumut 1 power station.
3. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses
contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2006. My
evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code in the same way
as I would if giving evidence in the Environment Court. In particular, unless
I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have
not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or
detract from the opinions I express.
Scope of Evidence
4. The purpose of my evidence is to assess the costs and practicability of
connecting the proposed Hauuru m raki (HMR) wind farm to the New
Zealand National Grid by means of underground cabling. I and my
colleague George Bucea prepared a detailed report investigating the
feasibility of an underground transmission solution for the HMR wind farm.
Our analysis considered two underground options:
Option 1 - Cross country, taking the shortest route between the exit
point from the wind farm at Limestone Downs and the proposed
switchyard site at Orton;
Option 2 - a more circuitous route using existing public roadways.
5. In addition, we also assessed a partial underground option at the eastern
end of the proposed transmission route, in the vicinity of Orton.
6. We also considered the potential for insertion of sections of single or double
circuit underground cabling into the proposed overhead line, but discounted
that possibility on account of the lack of access for installation and
maintenance, as well as protection co-ordination difficulties between
multiple overhead and underground sections of line.
7. Our report was written in conjunction with a separate report prepared by
Electrix costing the overhead line route for comparison purposes and Mr
Bucea and I prepared a cover report drawing key comparisons between the
underground and overhead line options to enable an overall assessment of
the competing merits of the various options to be made. Our terms of
reference were annexed to our report. It was emphasised to us both in our
terms of reference and in verbal discussions with Contact Energy (Mr Mills)
that the company was open minded as to the option ultimately adopted and
therefore needed a full and fair comparison of their competing merits.
8. Ms Yorke comments in her evidence on the matters canvassed in the
Electrix report.
9. Rather than repeat the detailed analysis contained in our reports, I have
attached them as Appendix 2 to this evidence and will merely set out the
main conclusions that we came to.
Discussion of Report Conclusions
10. The cross country route (Option 1) is totally unsuited to installing
underground extra high voltage cables except at exorbitant cost and
questionable system security. In essence the civil works involved will be
equivalent to creating a new roadway along the entire route plus the
associated cost for the supply and installation of the 220kV cable circuit.
11. The majority of roadways that would be utilised in the public roadway route
(Option 2) considered are on steep slopes with a multitude of sharp bends
and are too narrow for installation of a 220kV cable circuit without major
road upgrades.
12. Even if the necessary upgrades were undertaken, the Baker,
Wairamarama, Onewhero and Matakitaki Roads would still be subject to
lengthy road closures or severe traffic restrictions during cable installation
with no alternative roads (within reasonable distance) available to the
public. The road terrain is subject to landslides, and native soils exhibit the
characteristics of poor thermal resistivity. Such conditions would require
large quantities of imported special cable bedding and back filling at cable
installation to provide for reliable cable operation.
13. Excavated trench material (1.3 to 2 cubic metres per metre length of trench)
followed by importation of an equal quantity of special cable bedding and
backfill and road restoration materials would lead to a construction time for
an underground transmission route in excess of 30 months even by utilising
two simultaneous construction teams for a single cable circuit.
14. To underground a single circuit connection for the total of 38.3km route, had
an assessed cost $278 million. This level of cost for a transmission
connection across uneven rural land seems to me to be totally unusual by
any industry standard that I am aware of. Certainly there is nothing
comparable in Australasia.
15. Since preparation of the original report I have received additional
information (competitive pricing from underground cabling of a shorter
length of similar voltage cable in an urbanised setting) that suggests
undergrounding the HMR wind farm transmission connection along local
roads could be more in the vicinity of $220 million. Even so, this remains
significantly higher than the overhead option.
16. These estimates exclude provision for necessary road upgrades which
would need a separate civil engineering assessment to quantify with any
precision. In my opinion, however, the cost of such upgrades could be in
the vicinity of half the initial capital cost, that is to say approximately another
$100 million.
17. A double circuit overhead transmission line as proposed, provides a
redundancy level of n -1. That is to say one circuit remains capable of
transmitting the full load from the HMR wind farm with the other circuit out
of service, which is a basic requirement for a significant generation plant.
To provide an equivalent level of redundancy by underground cable, a
double circuit would be required. Such an option would lead to further
substantial increases in cost and construction time. The cost increase from
single circuit to double circuit would take initial costs up to $367 million
without provision for road upgrading costs.
18. Lack of data associated with civil works costs that would be necessary to
enable underground cable installation over the terrain involved made a
budget estimate for the greenfields (option 1) undeterminable. However, in
my opinion, the cost would certainly be significantly greater than for option 2
utilising existing local roads. Further, system security is likely to be
compromised through cable faults or damage by interference inadvertedly
caused by others over the life time of the circuit when excavating in what
are isolated areas not likely to contain assets that are not visible. By
comparison, Electrix estimated the additional capital cost of an overhead
double circuit line as being $33 million. In her evidence, Ms Yorke concurs
with the Electrix estimate.
19. The cost difference between underground and overhead circuits is voltage
dependant. That is to say the higher the voltage the higher the incremental
cost of undergrounding. This is why distribution voltage cables up to 33kV
are more likely to be undergrounded than transmission voltage cables.
20. There are also differences between installing cables and other underground
assets. Explanations for this are given in Appendix 5 of our consolidated
report. That Appendix is titled Comparisons between installing 220kV
underground transmission cables and installing other longitudinal
infrastructure for example, high pressure gas or water pipe lines;
underground distribution cables and communication cables.
21. An overhead line would result in least cost and least construction time.
Fault incidents with an overhead line would have short repair times.
22. By comparison, an underground cable would incur a much higher initial
cost, longer construction time and would have major impact on the
community during construction. Fault incidents with an underground cable
would be low but repair times would be long.
23. In our report, we noted that visual impacts, property easement issues and
matters related to electric and magnetic fields could raise some community
concerns, even in a sparsely populated area. I note there are some
submissions on these issues. By comparison, visual impact of underground
cables would be low, but contrary to public perception, underground cables
also generate magnetic fields. Directly above cables magnetic fields are
higher than those directly beneath equivalent overhead lines when
measured at the conventional reference level, that is to say one metre
above ground directly over a cable.
24. Lastly, the easement required for underground high voltage cables is much
narrower than for overhead lines (6 metres as opposed to 42-60 metres).
However, easement restrictions on uses within the corridor above the
underground cable will be more severe than those for overhead lines. This
is to allow immediate and unhindered ability to re-excavate the cable in the
event of a fault, for example and to protect cables from being damaged by
agricultural and other machinery.
25. The partial undergrounding option consisted of undergrounding the last 8
kilometres into the Orton switchyard site at the eastern end of the proposed
line. We assessed an estimated cost for this option of $58 million for a
single circuit and $76 million for a double circuit. These compare to the
estimated cost for that section of the route installed as overhead line of $6
million.
26. Our report contained a summary comparison table of overhead line options
versus underground cable. I produce a copy of that table separately for
convenience as Appendix 1.
27. In summary, the various comparison points indicate to me that a double
circuit overhead transmission line option is by far the preferred option.
28. As part of our report, we commented on the use of underground cabling in
Europe where there is also local community pressure towards installing
underground cables for high voltage transmission networks. We noted that
notwithstanding that pressure, the latest available literature, which
admittedly reflected the position in 2003, suggested that is still only a very
small percentage of high voltage underground cables.
H Kent
Appendix 1
Summary of Comparison Table of Overhead line option vs. Underground Cable
Rating of Options
Overhead Line Underground Cable
Item Criterion Description
Rating Discussion Rating Discussion
Economic cost A measure of the economic
attractiveness of the solution
Initial Capital
Cost
Sum of the total upfront
investment amount
$33 M
(+++)
Based on 25km route $220 M
single
cct.
$367M
double
cct.
(- - -)
Based on 38.3km route, excluding
necessary road upgrades and based
on 600MVA circuit capacity.
1
Life Cycle Cost Effective cost of the
investment brought back to
2008 costs
$66 M
(++)
Life cycle cost including initial
capital cost; cost of losses,
maintenance, refurbishment
and, faults expressed as a Net
Present Value is still lower
than the cable option
$298 M
single
cct.
$387 M
double
cct
(- -)
Life cycle cost including initial capital
cost; cost of losses, maintenance and,
faults expressed as a Net Present
Value is far higher than the overhead
line option
0
0
0
0
0
1
Asset Reliability
and Availability
A measure of how reliable
the system is based upon its
availability
Failure rates Based upon current failure
rates of existing equipment
forced outage per 100km.yr
(-)
Forced
outage
rate
of.34
per
100km/
yr
This figure is based upon the
current Transpower recorded
results of 220kV transmission
lines in New Zealand over the
past 10 years. Auto recloses
for transient faults are not
included in this analysis.
(+)
Forced
outage
rate
0.072
failures
per
100km/yr
Since 220kV failure rates are not
available for New Zealand, this figure
is based upon the Commission of
European communities Background
Paper Undergrounding of Electricity
Lines in Europe- Brussels, December
2003. Cables
Repair times A measure of the time taken
to restore the circuit to
service under fault conditions
(++) Based upon Transpower
records of forced outage repair
time of 1.808 hrs and planned
outage repair time of 17.45
hrs. Overhead lines can be
maintained using live line
techniques which further
reduces the repair times
(- -) Based upon research by MERITEC
on 220kV cable repair times ranging
from 200hrs to 300 hrs.
2
Availability This is based upon the
measure of the circuits
availability and is influenced
by the circuit failure rate and
repair times
(+)
0.996
(p.u.)
Based upon P B Power
analysis on historical 220kV
data as presented in
Transpower Report -2005-
Comparison of Reliability of a
400kV Underground cable with
an Overhead Transmission
Line
(-)
.988
(p.u.)
Based upon P B Power analysis on
probable availability presented in
Comparison of Reliability of a 400kV
Underground cable with an Overhead
Transmission Line. The figures
indicate a slightly better availability
associated with the overhead line
configuration.
0
0
0
0
0
2
Environmental
Impact
A measure of the impact the
which each option has on the
environment
During
Construction
Each option has a different
impact on the environment
and local community during
the construction phase
(+ +) Overhead line construction
requires the excavation of
approx 25 m3 of soil per
tower- total of 2100m3.
Construction impact on local
traffic is minimal
(- -) Under ground cable requires the
excavation of approx 500,000 m3
(single circuit of route length 38.3 km)
which has to be disposed with severe
community impact.
An equal quantity of special fill is
required to backfill trenches
Project Duration The length of time taken to
complete the site works
(+) The overhead line can be
constructed over a 12 month
period
(- -) Underground Cable is expected to
take more than 30 months to
complete a 38.3km route
3
Final condition The final condition of each
option reflects the relative
(- -) Overhead lines are imposing
structures on the landscape
and have a negative visual
impact. Land use is restricted
within the easement which is
much wider than the cable
easement
(+ +) Cable systems pose a minimal visual
impact. Land use within the cable
corridor is subject to easement
restrictions.
0
0
0
0
0
3
Operational A measure by which the
operation and maintenance
of the options affects the
community
Magnetic and
Electric Fields
Overhead lines generate
electric fields whereas
underground cables do not.
When measured at reference
level (one metre above
ground line) magnetic field
generated by underground
cable is higher than that
produced by an overhead
line.
(-) There have been concerns
expressed regarding electric
and magnetic fields and at this
point research is inconclusive.
The overhead transmission
line complies with the ICNIRP
& EU recommendation 1999 -
100T
(-) While there are some shielding
options to minimise magnetic field
generated by underground cables the
reduction factor is modest
4
Noise Noise emission from the
transmission system
(-) Overhead transmission lines
emit noise especially when
there is a high moisture
content in the air. The design
specification for the Franklin
district is 42dbA
(+) Underground cables have no noise
emission
Climatic
Influence
Weather impacts on the
system
(-) Overhead lines are affected by
lightening, winds, snow and
ice
(+) Underground cables are not
influenced by weather
Total Rating 11 (+)
6 (-)
5 (+)
13 (-)
Net Result 5 (+) 8 (-)
0
0
0
0
0
4
Appendix 2
Hauuru m raki Waikato Wind Farm
Connection to 220kV Main Grid
Undergrounding Study
Energy Action Pty Ltd and
Electrix
March 2008 Report
000005
Report
Hauuru m raki
Waikato Wind Farm
Prepared for
Contact Energy Ltd
By
Energy Action Pty Ltd and
Electrix
March 2008
000006
Waikato Wind Farm - Connection to 220kV Main Grid - Undergrounding Study March 2008
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The scope called for an in-depth feasibility study of the benefits and
disbenefits of undergrounding a double circuit overhead transmission line,
each circuit of 600MVA.
The undergrounding study is based on a 600MVA single cable circuit;
however, the study also evaluates a double cable circuit (each 400MVA) for
grid security purposes.
The ratio of initial direct cost for single circuit underground cable versus
double circuit overhead line is 8.4 while for a double circuit cable the ratio Is
11.
The resulting conclusions, based on a single cable circuit, are conservative in
comparison to a double circuit underground cable option which would
exacerbate the economic, environmental and logistic issues during
construction.
CONSOLIDATED
REPORT
(This document)
Attachment No. 2
REPORT BY ELECTRIX
Focus:
Overhead Lines
REPORT STRUCTURE
Attachment No. 1
REPORT BY ENERGY
ACTION
Focus:
Underground Cables
000007
2
Site inspections were undertaken during January, 2008.
BECA and Wind Farm Group were represented and provided required
assistance during site investigations.
Two undergrounding options were evaluated:
Option 1: Cross country (green field) route and,
Option 2: Using existing public roadways
In addition to the abovementioned total undergrounding options between
Limestone Downs & Orton, a partial undergrounding option at the Eastern
end, in the vicinity of Orton, was also evaluated.
Insertion of sections of single or double circuit underground cable into the
overhead line at intermediate points along the route was also considered but
disregarded on account of lack of access for installation and maintenance as
well as protection coordination difficulties between multiple O/H and U/G
sections.
An overhead line design option prepared earlier for Contact Energy by BECA
was also reviewed.
By all accounts the cross country route is totally unsuited to installing
underground (extra high voltage) cables except at exorbitant cost and
questionable system security. In essence the civil works involved would be
equivalent to creating a new roadway along the entire route plus the
associated cost for the supply and installation of the 220kV cable circuit.
The majority of roadways (Option 2) are on steep slopes with a multitude of
sharp bends and are too narrow for installation of a 220kV cable circuit
without major road upgrades.
Even if the necessary upgrades were undertaken, the Baker, Wairamarama
Onewhero and Matakitaki roads would still be subject to lengthy road closures
or severe traffic restrictions during cable installation with no alternative roads
available to the public.
000008
3
Terrain is subject to landslides and native soils exhibit characteristics of poor
thermal resistivity. Such conditions would require large quantities of imported
special cable bedding & backfilling at cable installation to provide for reliable
cable operation.
Excavated trench material (1.3 to 2 cubic metres per metre length of trench)
followed by importation of an equal quantity of special cable bedding and
backfill and road restoration materials would lead to a construction time in
excess of 30 months even by utilising two simultaneous construction teams
for a single cable circuit.
To underground the total 38.3km route at any cost seems totally unusual by
any industry practice.
A double circuit O/H line provides a redundancy level of N-1. (One circuit
capable of transmitting full load with the other out of service).
To provide an equivalent level of redundancy by U/G cable, a double circuit
would be required. Such an option would lead to further substantial increases
in cost and construction time.
A cost comparison summary for a single & double circuit underground cable
installation and for a double circuit overhead line is given in Table 1.
An overhead line would result in least cost and least construction time. While
fault incidence with an overhead line would be relatively high repair times
would be short.
Visual impact, property easement issues and matters related to EMF could
raise some community concern even in a sparsely populated area.
An underground cable would incur much higher initial cost, longer construction
time and have major impact on community during construction.
Fault incidence would be low but repair times long.
Visual impact would be low, but contrary to public perception magnetic field is
higher than for an equivalent overhead line when measured at conventional
reference level; i.e. one metre above ground directly over a cable.
000009
4
Table 1: Cost comparison between overhead (O/H) transmission line and
(U/G) underground cable
Route description
Initial Capex
(M$NZ)
Capex plus
O&M (NPV)
(M$NZ)
O/H Line Double
Circuit (25km)
33 66
U/G Single Cct
(25km)
N/A (see Note) N/A (see Note)
Limestone Downs to
Orton: Cross country
(green field) route
U/G Double Cct
(25km)
N/A (see Note) N/A (see Note)
O/H Line Double
Circuit (25km)
33 66
U/G Single Cct
(38.3km)
278 298
Limestone Downs to
Orton:
O/H line
(cross country)
U/G cable
(in existing roads) U/G Double Cct
(38.3km)
367 387
O/H Line Double
Circuit (5km)
6 12
U/G Single Cct
(8.7km)
58 62
Eastern end only:
O/H line
(cross country)
U/G cable
(in existing roads)
U/G Double Cct
(8.7km)
76 81
Note:
Cross country route is totally unsuited to installing underground (extra high
voltage) cables except at exorbitant cost and questionable system security.
Whilst in many European countries there is local community pressure towards
installing underground cables for high voltage transmission networks, there is
000010
5
still only a very small percentage of high voltage underground cable. Table 2
shows the relative percentages.
1
.
Table 2: Installed Underground Cable European Countries
Extra High Voltage Networks
220kV to 275 kV Country
Km of Network Km of
U/ground
%
Netherlands 648 6 0.9%
UK 3 029 71 2.3%
Germany 21 545 35 0.2%
Denmark 5 578 375 6.5%
Belgium 267 - 0%
Norway 6 049 64 1.1%
Italy 13 641 387 2.8%
France 27 890 813 2.9%
Portugal 4 409 - 0%
Switzerland 5 822 22 0.4%
Despite significant developments in installation practices and wider
introduction of polymeric insulated cables it is evident that even in Europe,
which is densely populated, urban and extremely well developed from an
infrastructure point of view, underground cables still account for only a small
percentage of total networks.

1
Commission of European Communities- Background Paper- Under grounding of Electricity
Lines in Europe Brussels 10 December 2003
000011
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 7
2. COMPARISON BETWEEN 220KV OVERHEAD LINES &
UNDERGROUND CABLES.................................................................................. 7
2.1. Cost Comparisons ................................................................................ 8
2.2. Environmental issues..........................................................................10
2.3. Reliability...............................................................................................10
2.4 Repair times ..........................................................................................12
2.5 Efficiency ...............................................................................................13
2.6 Maintenance..........................................................................................13
2.7 Timing and Constructability ..............................................................13
2.8 Comparative Summary .......................................................................14
3 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 19
4 APPENDIX - Scope for Undergrounding Study .................................... 22
000012
7
1. INTRODUCTION
Contact Energy (CEN) plans to construct a purpose-built transmission line to
transport electricity output from a new windfarm on the west coast of the
Waikato region to the main grid connection. The detail of this project is
contained in the final Project Description document prepared for the purposes
of applying for Resource Consents under the Resource Management Act.
The main transmission link to the Grid is proposed to be 220 kV. Current
plans are for the link to be a double circuit overhead transmission line on
tower construction.
CEN has received comments from some landowners whose properties will be
traversed by the proposed transmission line. Several landowners are opposed
to overhead cabling and want the company to instead install underground
cabling.
CEN is open-minded on this issue and has engaged Energy Action Pty Ltd
and Electrix to provide expert advice on the practicability of undergrounding
and comparisons (including benefits and disbenefits) between the two
alternatives refer to APPENDIX Scope for Undergrounding Study.
The undergrounding study is based on a 600MVA single cable circuit;
however, the study also evaluates a double cable circuit (each 400MVA) for
grid security purposes.
2. COMPARISON BETWEEN 220KV OVERHEAD LINES &
UNDERGROUND CABLES
When comparing an overhead transmission line with underground cables it is
important to consider all issues related to the design, construction, operation
and maintenance of both transmission systems including:
Design Criteria: number of circuits, route length, ratings, maximum
operating temperature, nominal voltage, conductor type, cable type,
earthing system, ground conditions, structure types, maximum electric field
000013
8
strength, maximum magnetic flux density, audible noise level, radio
frequency interference and easement width etc.
Line security status
Reliability
Terrain conditions through which the route passes
Environmental impact during construction and final solution
Aesthetic and visual impact
Life cycle costs which include initial capital costs, cost of losses,
maintenance and refurbishment costs
Constructability and timing, including impact on local community during
construction
Current technology and future upgrading.
2.1. Cost Comparisons
CIGRE (International Council on Large Electric Systems) published a
guideline Comparison of High Voltage Overhead Lines and Underground
Cables [Attachment 1 Ref 7] where, for 220 kV UG/OH circuits, the cost
ratio varies between 5.1 and 21.1.
The guideline cautions that cost estimates should be based on actual site &
environmental conditions as opposed to ratios that can only be a guide at
best.
Accordingly the cost estimates presented in summary Table 1 (Executive
Summary) and in sub-sections (a) to (e) below are based on actual site &
environmental conditions as they apply to this project.
a) Initial capital cost of double circuit, lattice tower, overhead transmission
line, route length 25km: M$NZ 33.
000014
9
b) Initial capital cost of underground cable circuits in existing roadways in
existing conditions between Limestone Downs and Orton 220kV Switching
Station, route length 38.3km :
Single circuit: M$NZ 278 (*)
Double circuit: M$NZ 367 (*)
(*) The cost estimates do not take into consideration the cost to upgrade the
roads to meet cable installation conditions.
c) Cost of single or double circuit underground cable through green field
sites.
Lack of data associated with costs of civil works (access roads, bridges,
directional drilled ducts, etc) that will be necessary to meet cable installation
conditions in this type of terrain makes a budget estimate impossible without a
prior detailed civil engineering assessment. However, the cost would certainly
be significantly greater than that for option (b) above.
Limestone Downs & Orton, a partial undergrounding option at the Eastern
end, in the vicinity of Orton, was also evaluated - refer to estimated costs in
(d) & (e) below.
d) Initial capital cost of single circuit underground cable in predominantly
sealed roads (Orton 220kV Switching Station to required Orton Transition
Point, route length 8.7 km): M$NZ58.
i.e. an increase of approximately M$NZ52 above that of a double circuit
overhead line.
e) Initial capital cost of double circuit underground cable in predominantly
sealed roads (Orton 220kV Switching Station to required Orton Transition
Point, route length 8.7 km): M$NZ76
i.e. an increase of approximately M$NZ70 above that of a double circuit
overhead line.
000015
10
2.2. Environmental issues
For the purposes of this study Visual and EMF (electromagnetic fields) issues
were considered in particular. Comparative observations are as follows:
Underground cables exhibit minimal visual impact.
Overhead transmission lines on the other hand are large structures
and create a visual impact. However, particular design solutions can be
adopted to minimise the visual impact by keeping structures below ridgelines
and out of sight where possible. In addition the route can be selected to
minimise the impact on any natural bush, areas of environmental, ecological
or archaeological significance.
Overhead lines generate electric fields whereas underground cables
do not exhibit any external electric field.
When measured at reference level (one metre above ground line)
magnetic field generated by underground cable is substantially higher than
that produced by an equivalent overhead line. While there are some shielding
options to minimise magnetic field generated by underground cables the
reduction factor is modest.
In respect of other environmental issues a review of environmental factors
(REF) study is recommended on approval of the selected system option.
2.3. Reliability
A measure of underground and overhead transmission line reliability is the
rate at which they fail or are subjected to outages. Outages can be forced
(due to a problem on the network), or planned. Overhead transmission lines
are often subjected to transient faults which are normally cleared via an
automatic reclose. These faults are not considered in this analysis as they are
normally cleared within a few seconds.
000016
11
Outage rates are measured by considering the number of outages per 100
circuit kilometres. Transpower prepared a report which highlighted the outage
rates for forced and planned outages. Since these figures are a record of the
10 year period between July 1992 and June 2004, they are considered
appropriate for this analysis. The results are as follows:
Forced Outage Rate 0.34 per 100km per annum
Planned outage rate 0.92 per 100km per annum
When considering underground cable outage rates, there is no data for New
Zealand since there is little 220kV cable installed. For the purposes of this
analysis, figures from the report Commission of European Communities-
Background Paper- Undergrounding of Electricity Lines in Europe Brussels 10
December 2005 which indicate the following:
Average Failure Rate 0.072 per 100km per annum
Planned Failure Rate 2.5 per 100km per annum
This figure was confirmed by a DISCAB Group on figures over the past 12
years and was presented at the ICF Congress in Barcelona. Other reports
including CIGRE and various American studies show varying rates from 1.4 to
4.1 faults per circuit kilometre.
For this analysis the rate of .072 has been used which equates to the
following expected outages for a 25 km long overhead line and a 38.3 km long
underground cable.
O/H Line U/G Cable Ratio
Outage Rate-
forced
0.34 /100km 0.072/100km -4.7
No expected
outages/annum
0.085 per annum 0.027 per annum -3.1
Total no outages
40 years
3.4 outages 1.08 -3.1
Outage Rate-
Planned
0.92 /100km 2.5/100km 2.6
No expected
outages/annum
0.23 per annum 0.95 per annum 4.1
Total no outages
40 years
9.2 outages 38 outages 4.1
000017
12
From the above it is evident that underground cables have a better reliability
rate based upon forced outages but require more planned outages. In
addition there are reported data which indicate the reverse, depending on the
sample size, type of cable analysed etc. However for the purposes of this
report and based upon recent developments in cable technology, the figures
used are believed to be representative.
Note: The abovementioned data is based on service experience related to
U/G cables installed in accessible and secure environments including
established roadways, parks and reserves.
A cross country route is more likely to be adversely affected by third party
damage and prevailing terrain conditions resulting in reduced system reliability
and security.
2.4 Repair times
Another important factor to be considered is the repair time and how that
affects the availability of the circuit. It is a well known fact that the repair time
of overhead lines is significantly shorter than that for underground cables. In
addition some repair activities for overhead lines can be performed live and
thus the outage rate can be reduced.
Results for the last 10 years from Transpowers records for overhead lines
show the following:
Average repair time for forced outages 1.808 hrs
Planned maintenance average 17.45 hrs
Studies conducted by consultants Meritec show the following repair times for
underground cables specific to New Zealand conditions:
Average Underground (XLPE) Cable repair time 200hrs to 300 hrs.
Based upon the failure rate and the repair times, availability per unit can be
calculated. This is based upon the outage rate and the total number of hours
000018
13
per year. Using the figures above, the following availability per unit is
expected.
Overhead Line Underground Cable Ratio
Availability per unit . 9962 p.u. 9802 p.u. 1.01
This availability is based upon the fact that the underground cable option is a
single circuit system. Introduction of a dual circuit will significantly enhance
the system availability.

2.5 Efficiency
The efficiency of a transmission system is dependent upon the losses. In
general losses in overhead lines are due to Joule heating i.e. the resistive
losses; however, in underground cables in addition to Joule losses there are
dielectric losses and losses in cable metallic sheaths. Reference: Attachment
1 Appendix 2 & 6.
The losses for overhead line (4145kW) and for a single circuit underground
cable (4125kW) specific to this project are included in the NPV calculations in
Attachments 1 and 2.
2.6 Maintenance
Maintenance aspects related to underground cables are given in detail in
Attachment 1 Section 4.6 and for overhead lines in Attachment 2 Section 6.4.

2.7 Timing and Constructability
Construction of a transmission line through a type of terrain encountered
between Limestone Downs and Orton is restricted by access to the tower
sites. In some cases access will possibly only be by helicopter due to the
restrictions of native bush and the terrain.
000019
14
Construction of the overhead transmission line is dependent on the resources
allocated. With 4 foundation crews, 4 tower erection crews and 2 large
conductoring crews, the line could be constructed within 12 months. However
due to the nature of the terrain, winter work would be significantly more
difficult and hazardous, particularly in the Limestone Downs area. It is
therefore suggested that an 18month construction period be allocated to
ensure that optimum productivity is achieved during the summer months.
The estimated installation time for a 38.3km cable circuit in roadways is
approximately 62 months; however this period could be halved by utilising two
independent cable contractors.

2.8 Comparative Summary
Details of overhead line and the underground cable alternatives are discussed
in detail in the two attached reports focusing specifically on underground
cables (Attachment 1) and overhead lines (Attachment 2).
Since a number of attributes of both alternatives are quantifiable and others
are subjective, a comparison is given in Table 2 where each criteria is
weighted as either (+), (++), (+++) or (-), (- -), (- - -) depending on the scale of
the difference between the attributes.
000020
15
Table 2
Summary of Comparison Table of Overhead line option vs. Underground Cable
Rating of Options
Overhead Line Underground Cable
Item Criterion Description
Rating Discussion Rating Discussion
Economic cost A measure of the
economic attractiveness of
the solution
Initial Capital
Cost
Sum of the total upfront
investment amount
$33 M
(+++)
Based on 25km route $278 M
single
cct.
$367M
double
cct.
(- - -)
Based on 38.3km route, excluding
necessary road upgrades.
1
Life Cycle Cost Effective cost of the
investment brought back to
2008 costs
$66 M
(++)
Life cycle cost including
initial capital cost; cost of
losses, maintenance,
refurbishment and, faults
expressed as a Net Present
Value is still lower than the
cable option
$298 M
single
cct.
$387 M
double
cct
(- -)
Life cycle cost including initial
capital cost; cost of losses,
maintenance and, faults expressed
as a Net Present Value is far
higher than the overhead line
option
0
0
0
0
2
1
16
Asset
Reliability and
Availability
A measure of how reliable
the system is based upon
its availability
Failure rates Based upon current failure
rates of existing equipment
forced outage per
100km.yr
(-)
Forced
outage
rate
of.34
per
100km
/yr
This figure is based upon
the current Transpower
recorded results of 220kV
transmission lines in New
Zealand over the past 10
years. Auto recloses for
transient faults are not
included in this analysis.
(+)
Forced
outage
rate
0.072
failures
per
100km/y
r
Since 220kV failure rates are not
available for New Zealand, this
figure is based upon the
Commission of European
communities Background Paper
Undergrounding of Electricity Lines
in Europe- Brussels, December
2003. Cables
Repair times A measure of the time
taken to restore the circuit
to service under fault
conditions
(++) Based upon Transpower
records of forced outage
repair time of 1.808 hrs and
planned outage repair time
of 17.45 hrs. Overhead
lines can be maintained
using live line techniques
which further reduces the
repair times
(- -) Based upon research by MERITEC
on 220kV cable repair times
ranging from 200hrs to 300 hrs.

2
Availability This is based upon the
measure of the circuits
availability and is
influenced by the circuit
failure rate and repair
times
(+)
0.996
(p.u.)
Based upon P B Power
analysis on historical 220kV
data as presented in
Comparison of Reliability of
a 400kV Underground cable
with an Overhead
Transmission Line
(-)
.988
(p.u.)
Based upon P B Power analysis on
probable availability presented in
Comparison of Reliability of a
400kV Underground cable with an
Overhead Transmission Line. The
figures indicate a slightly better
availability associated with the
overhead line configuration.
0
0
0
0
2
2
17
Environmental
Impact
A measure of the impact
the which each option has
on the environment
During
Construction
Each option has a different
and local community
during the construction
phase
(+ +) Overhead line construction
requires the excavation of
approx 25 m3 of soil per
tower- total of 2100m3.
Construction impact on
local traffic is minimal
(- -) Under ground cable requires the
excavation of approx 500,000 m3
(single circuit of route length 38.3
km) which has to be disposed with
severe community impact.
An equal quantity of special fill is
required to backfill trenches
Project
Duration
The length of time taken to
complete the site works
(+) The overhead line can be
constructed over a 12
month period
(- -) Underground Cable is expected to
take more than 30 months to
complete a 38.3km route
3
Final condition The final condition of each
option reflects the relative
(- -) Overhead lines are
imposing structures on the
landscape and have a
negative visual impact.
Land use is restricted within
the easement which is
much wider than the cable
easement
(+ +) Cable systems pose a minimal
visual impact. Land use within the
cable corridor is subject to
easement restrictions.
0
0
0
0
2
3
18
Operational A measure by which the
operation and
maintenance of the options
affects the community
Magnetic and
Electric Fields
Overhead lines generate
electric fields whereas
underground cables do
not. When measured at
reference level (one metre
above ground line)
magnetic field generated
by underground cable is
higher than that produced
by an overhead line.
(-) There have been concerns
expressed regarding
electric and magnetic fields
and at this point research is
inconclusive. The overhead
transmission line complies
with the ICNIRP & EU
recommendation 1999 -
100T
(-) While there are some shielding
options to minimise magnetic field
generated by underground cables
the reduction factor is modest
4
Noise Noise emission from the
transmission system
(-) Overhead transmission
lines emit noise especially
when there is a high
moisture content in the air.
The design specification for
the Franklin district is
42dbA
(+) Underground cables have no noise
emission
Climatic
Influence
Weather impacts on the
system
(-) Overhead lines are affected
by lightening, winds, snow
and ice
(+) Underground cables are not
influenced by weather
Total Rating 11 (+)
6 (-)
5 (+)
13 (-)
Net Result 5 (+) 8 (-)
0
0
0
0
2
4
19
3 CONCLUSIONS
a) Installation of a high capacity underground 220kV cable circuit cross
country (green field site) between Limestone Downs and Orton is not
practical in terms of installation techniques & system security and
would be at very high cost. However, an overhead transmission line is
feasible and is the recommended option.
b) Installation of an underground cable circuit in existing public
roadways using the most direct route (Baker Rd., Wairamarama
Onewhero Rd., Matakitaki Rd., Highway 22; and Otuiti Rd) is feasible.
However, Baker; Wairamarama Onewhero and, Matakitaki Roads
would require significant widening to accommodate construction of a
220kV single or double circuit cable installation. No alternative road
options were considered due to extensive distances involved.
c) Should the road widening option be adopted cable installation would
be feasible. However, even under this option significant traffic
disruption and public inconvenience would occur during cable
installation (trench excavation, cable laying, back-filling and cable
jointing and road restoration).
d) Installation of cables in ducts, which would have a lesser
inconvenience level, is not feasible due to the proliferation of road
bends and terrain profile. The only option would be a direct laid
installation involving a series of trench excavations (each 500 to 700
metres long) to accommodate sequential installation works in
accordance with industry practice.
e) Outages of overhead lines are caused primarily by the following
factors:
Flashovers due to lightning strikes
Accidental contacts either due to man/machine, vegetation or
birds
000025
20
Flashover due to insulator contamination
Most of the outages on overhead lines are caused by temporary
phenomena and the lines are usually restored to service by automatic
re-closure.
f) Outages of underground cables are generally caused by either a
failure of the cable insulation or third party damage eg. excavation /
directional drilling etc in the vicinity of the cable.
Outages to underground cables are usually extensive and require
significant repair time before they can be restored to service.
g) Under the proposal a double circuit overhead transmission line is
envisaged which would provide N-1 system reliability.
For an equivalent level of system reliability a double circuit
underground cable would be required - with its associated increased
installation time and cost.
h) In respect of environmental impacts the following comparisons apply:
Underground cables exhibit minimal visual impact.
Overhead transmission lines on the other hand are large structures
and create a visual impact. However, particular design solutions can
be adopted to minimise the visual impact by keeping structures
below ridgelines and out of sight where possible. In addition the
route can be selected to minimise the impact on natural bush, areas
of environmental, ecological or archaeological significance.
Overhead lines generate electric fields whereas underground
cables do not exhibit any external electric field.
When measured at reference level (one metre above ground line)
magnetic field level from an underground cable is substantially
higher than that from an overhead line. While there are some
shielding options to minimise magnetic field generated by
underground cables the reduction factor is modest and even so
remaining field is still high.
000026
21
Contrary to public perception high voltage underground cables also
require easements, 6 metres wide, along the entire cable route for
the safe operation and access for maintenance & repairs. Easement
restrictions are more severe than those for overhead lines.
000027
22
4 APPENDIX - Scope for Undergrounding Study
Background
transport electricity output from a new windfarm on the west coast of the
Waikato region to the main grid connection. The detail of this project is
contained in the final Project Description document prepared for the purposes
of applying for Resource Consents under the Resource Management Act. A
copy of this report is attached to this scope.
The transmission lines both for internal lines, interconnecting the substations
and for the main line are proposed to be 220 kV. Current plans are for the
internal lines to be single circuit on pole construction, and the external line will
be double circuit on tower construction.
CEN has received submissions from some landowners whose properties will
be traversed by the proposed transmission line. Several landowners are
opposed to overhead cabling and want the company to instead install
underground cabling.
CEN is open-minded on this issue and has undertaken to seek expert advice
on the practicability of undergrounding and comparisons between the two
alternatives.
The company is not an electricity lines business and is not therefore
constrained by any New Zealand statutory regulation governing the pricing
aspects of its transmission lines. Instead CEN operates in a competitive
market for the pricing of its daily offer of electricity generation. CEN does not
have any material existing investment in overhead transmission assets, nor an
inventory to support such infrastructure.
The company requires an in-depth study of the benefits and disbenefits of
underground transmission lines versus overhead lines. The study should
address the following matters.
000028
23
Scope of Study
Analyse the preferred route in the context of terrain, geotechnical and
any other issues that would impact upon the practicability of
underground cabling of 220kV circuits;
Consider whether a more efficient and lower cost route could be
adopted for an undergrounding project such as, for example, burying
cable along existing roading networks;
Review overseas trends in underground cabling practices in developed
countries and assess any recent improvements in technology that
make undergrounding comparatively more practicable than in the past;
Prepare typical installation concept (e.g. typical installation cross
sections of key aspects of the cables and terminal stations).
Prepare an indicative route based on available contour data which
would provide at least the equivalent reliability, redundancy and
functionality of the alternative proposed overhead line.
Compare and contrast advantages and disadvantages including such
aspects as:
o reliability,
o efficiency,
o maintenance,
o environmental impacts of the installation and ongoing operations
e.g. trenching, radiation effects etc
o typical easement width required to install and then operate,
o any restriction on the land during operations,
o construction timeline,
o installation techniques,
o equipment transport issues of undergrounding concept versus
overhead line in the context of this specific project; and
Provide an estimate of the comparative costs of either methodology
assuming that most recent technology is adopted for undergrounding
000029
24
and the optimal corridor is chosen to implement such an alternative.
The assessment should include, if possible, an assessment of
comparative ongoing maintenance costs, and possible incremental
revenue arising from lower transmission losses that might arise from
the selection of one or other alternative.
000030
Report
Hauuru m raki
Waikato Wind Farm
ATTACHMENT No. 1 OF THE CONSOLIDATED REPORT
Prepared for
Contact Energy Ltd
By
Energy Action Pty Ltd
Authors: Henry Kent and
George Bucea
March 2008
000031
Waikato Wind Farm Undergrounding Study - Attachment No. 1 To Consolidated Report March 2008
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 2
2. UNERDGROUND CABLE ROUTE OPTIONS BASED ON SITE
INSPECTIONS...................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Option 1: Cross country (Green Field) route .........................................3
2.2 Option 2: Installing cables in existing roadways..................................5
3. REVIEW OF OVERSEAS TRENDS IN HIGH VOLTAGE UNDERGROUND
CABLING PRACTICES ........................................................................................ 7
4. COSTS AND CHARACTERISTICS PERTAINING TO 220KV
UNDERGROUND CABLE OPTIONS ................................................................... 9
4.1. Cost and basis for calculation..................................................................9
4.2. Cable losses ............................................................................................... 10
4.3. Availability................................................................................................... 12
4.4. Reliability and repair times...................................................................... 12
4.5. Efficiency..................................................................................................... 13
4.6. Maintenance XLPE insulated cables .................................................. 13
4.7. Electromagnetic field (EMF) .................................................................... 14
4.8. Easements................................................................................................... 15
4.9. Reactive power compensation Critical length of cable circuit ..... 16
5. CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME CASE STUDIES................................... 16
5.1 Single circuit: Orton 220kV Switching Station (along Otuiti Rd) to
OH/UG transition point near Fleming Rd., 8.7 km route length................... 16
5.2 Double circuit: Orton 220kV Switching Station (along Otuiti Rd) to
OH/UG transition point near Fleming Rd., 8.7 km route length................... 17
5.3 Orton 220kV Switching Station Limestone Downs 33/220kV
Substation 38.3km route length...................................................................... 18
6. REFERENCES............................................................................................. 18
7. APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 19
000032
2
1. INTRODUCTION
transport electricity output from a new wind farm on the west coast of the Waikato
region to the main grid connection. The detail of this project is contained in the
final draft Project Description document prepared for the purposes of applying for
Resource Consents under the Resource Management Act.
The main transmission link to the Grid is proposed to be 220 kV. Current plans
are for the link to be a double circuit overhead line on tower construction.
CEN has received submissions from some landowners whose properties will be
traversed by the proposed transmission line. Several landowners are opposed to
overhead cabling and want the company to instead install underground cabling.
CEN is open-minded on this issue and has engaged Energy Action Pty Ltd and
Electrix to provide expert advice on the practicability of undergrounding and
comparisons (including benefits and disbenefits) between the two alternatives.
2. UNERDGROUND CABLE ROUTE OPTIONS BASED ON SITE
INSPECTIONS
The high cost of underground cables determines that, at the initial planning stage,
the shortest possible route is considered. In this case this is a direct line, cross
country, between Limestone Downs and Orton.
Next it is necessary to examine practicalities imposed by the terrain for example,
access for plant & materials; geo-technical data (ground conditions including
ground stability and soil thermal resistivity); and, the requirement or otherwise of
special installation features such as cable bridges, micro-tunnels, flexible troughs
(in unstable ground); directional drilling options and the like.
More recently environmental considerations and community concerns have
played an increasing part in route selection often eliminating shortest route
options.
Included in this context are:
Impacts to flora & fauna during construction stages
000033
3
Long term visual impacts by virtue of sterilising wooded areas by the
establishment of 6 metre wide easements for safe circuit operation and
maintenance access
Disruption to traffic during construction
EMF
It is recommended that on approval of the project a review of environmental
factors (REF) study be performed.
The sheer size and complexity of 220kV underground cable circuits pose greater
installation challenges in comparison to other longitudinal infrastructure projects
including gas and water pipelines. (refer to Appendix 5)
2.1 Option 1: Cross country (Green Field) route
The landscape between the proposed 33/220kV substation at Limestone Downs
and the point of connection of the proposed 220kV transmission link to the main
grid near Orton consists of undulating terrain, lightly wooded in places, with a
continuous interspersion of relatively deep gullies and ridges [Photo No. 1]
moderating somewhat toward Orton [Photo No. 2]. See also Contour Maps (Ref.
Appendix 4)
Photo No. 1
Photo No. 2
The countryside is essentially rural in nature with very few dwellings along the
38.3 km road route.
000034
4
Composition of the ground is an overburden (soil) which may contain volcanic
ash and weak alluvial deposits prone to landslides [Photo No. 3].
Photo No. 3
The overburden (soil) has a high thermal resistivity. This would present a barrier
to heat flow (from the cable to ambient air) and could lead to the cable becoming
overheated and fail unless the cable is bedded and back-filled with a thermally
stable mix such as a weak sand/cement mix or similar.
Such landscape presents many challenges to the installation of an underground
cable which, by virtue of the power it has to transmit from the wind farm complex,
would consist of three single-core cables for a single circuit and six single core
cables for a double circuit.
Note: Underground HV power cables of voltage above 132kV are only of single-core
construction.
Typical single-core HV cable Typical three-core HV cable
Land slides
000035
5
A single core 220kV cable, rated 600MVA, would have a diameter of
approximately 120mm and weigh approximately 25 kg per metre.
Normally this type of cable is installed in a trench one metre deep and one metre
wide (for a single circuit) or around 1.6 metre wide for double circuit.
Major challenges include:
Creating access from existing roadways for excavators and trucks to remove
approximately 1.2 to 1.7 m of spoil per lineal metre of cable trench.
Transporting to site(s) approximately 200 drums of cable (each around 20
tonnes)
Importing 1.2 to 1.7 m, per lineal metre, of suitable cable trench backfill
material (comprising a weak mix of sand & cement having proper thermal
quality), protective concrete covers and backfill
Re-vegetating & stabilising the route to original green field condition
Negotiating with various land owners a continuous, six meter wide, easement
along the entire cable route and vehicular access to it from existing roadways.
In essence the exercise would be equivalent to creating a new roadway between
Limestone Downs and Orton suitable to accommodate heavy vehicles,
excavators and cranes refer Section 5.2 below.
Contrary to existing roadways (which were constructed on ridge tops) the cable
corridor may require bridges, directional drilling, ducts & micro tunnels.
In summary, the green field sites are totally unsuited to installing underground
cables except at exorbitant cost.
2.2 Option 2: Installing cables in existing roadways
The shortest road route between Limestone Downs and Orton comprises
sections of Baker Rd., Wairamarama Onewhero Rd., Matakitaki Rd., Highway 22;
and Otuiti Rd.
Most roads are winding, unsealed and of insufficient width to accommodate
underground cables of the required capacity
000036
6
In particular, Baker Rd. [Photos 4 & 5], Wairamarama Onewhero Rd. and
Matakitaki Rd. are totally unsuitable for excavation of the required size cable
trench and installation of large capacity power cables without road upgrading.
Below are shown typical examples of roadways:
Photo No.4 Photo No.5
000037
7
There are issues with:
Extended road closures for many weeks or even months continuously, with no
alternative routes available for other road users, during excavating 700 meter
long sections of trench at a time, installing cables, back-filling & reinstating
the area.
Sections of road barely four metres wide requiring considerable upgrading to
accommodate conditions for cable installation refer Section 5.
The composition (high thermal resistivity) of the native ground (beneath the
gravel) requiring vast quantities of special cable bedding to be obtained and
transported to site (further road closures).
Installation of an underground cable in existing public roadways using the most
direct route (Baker Rd., Wairamarama Onewhero Rd., Matakitaki Rd., Highway
22; and Otuiti Rd) is feasible. However, Baker; Wairamarama Onewhero and,
Matakitaki Roads would require significant widening to accommodate
construction of a 220kV cable installation. No alternative road options were
considered due to extensive distances involved.
To underground the total 38.3km route without road widening is impractical
considering the size & weight of machinery involved for the project - refer Section
5.2.
Even if road widening was undertaken significant traffic disruption and public
inconvenience could still be expected during cable installation.
The situation is substantially improved closer to Orton where roads are wider and
generally sealed.
3. REVIEW OF OVERSEAS TRENDS IN HIGH VOLTAGE
UNDERGROUND CABLING PRACTICES
Recent developments in high voltage cable technology that make
undergrounding cable installation projects more practical and cost effective
include:
000038
8
a) Use of polymeric insulated cables, including polyethylene (PE) and cross-
liked polyethylene (XLPE) in lieu of paper insulated pressure assisted
cable types.
Significant savings in manpower and installation & maintenance times are
achieved through the use of polymeric cables.
The absence of impregnating fluid in paper insulated fluid-filled cable has
eliminated the possibility of potential environmental issues arising out of
fluid leaking from faulty or damaged cables.
b) Introduction of pre-fabricated joints and terminations specific to polymeric
cables - reducing complexity of installation and time.
Laborious application of taping insulated layers in jointing operations has
been replaced with assembling of pre-fabricated and pre-tested
component parts.
c) Use of mechanised systems for cable laying including motorised rollers,
hauling machines and winches all integrated via a computerised
monitoring system to control longitudinal & radial stresses during laying
operations.
d) Directional drilling and micro-tunneling
These methods eliminate expensive and time consuming deep trench
excavations to overcome natural and man-made obstacles
e) Special laying methods for use in unstable ground conditions for example
flexible troughing and bedding materials.
f) Modular, transportable jointing enclosures with associated facilities
including humidity, temperature & dust control and in-built facilities to
handle heavy components.
000039
9
4. COSTS AND CHARACTERISTICS PERTAINING TO 220KV
UNDERGROUND CABLE OPTIONS
4.1. Cost and basis for calculation
Prysmian provided cost estimates and technical data for supply and installation of
single and double circuit underground 220kV cables refer Appendices 2 and 3.
Recent projects tend to suggest that the cost of civil works equates to the cost of
cable and accessories especially in difficult environments.
The abovementioned data is used in the following cost estimates:
a) Cost of underground cable circuits in existing roadways in existing
conditions between Limestone Downs and Orton 220kV Switching Station, route
length 38.3km :
CABLE CIRCUIT TYPE INITIAL COST (M$NZ) WHOLE OF LIFE COST
(M$NZ)
SINGLE 278(*) 298
DOUBLE 367(*) 387
(*) The cost estimates do not take into consideration the cost of necessary road
upgrades to meet cable installation conditions. It is estimated that the cost of
such road upgrades could be in the vicinity of half the Initial Costs stated above
albeit that a separate civil engineering review of road upgrades is required.
b) Cost of single or double circuit underground cable through green field sites
was not undertaken due to lack of data associated with costs of civil works
(bridges, directional drilled ducts, etc) that will be necessary to meet cable
installation conditions.
Limestone Downs & Orton a partial undergrounding option in the vicinity of Orton
was also evaluated refer cost estimated (c) & (d) below.
000040
10
c) Initial capital cost of single circuit underground cable in predominantly
sealed roads (Orton 220kV Switching Station to Orton Transition Point, route
length 8 km): M$NZ58
d) Initial capital cost of double circuit underground cable in predominantly
sealed roads (Orton 220kV Switching Station to Orton Transition Point, route
length 8 km): M$NZ76
4.2. Cable losses
Cable losses were calculated from information provided by Prysmian (refer
Appendix 2) and included in the NPV calculations below.
NET PRESENT VALUE UNDERGROUND CABLE
SINGLE CIRCUIT 600 MVA
Initial Investment for Underground Cable ($ NZ)
C
o.ug
1.137 10
6
:=
C
f.ug
20 10
3
:=
Operational costs for underground Cable including
losses and maintenance per annum ($ NZ)
Fault costs for underground Cable per annum ($
NZ)
i 5% :=
Capitalisation Index
Evaluation period 40 years -effective life of the
system
NPV
ug
C
i.ug
1
n
j
C
o.ug
C
f.ug
+
( )
1
1 i +
|
\
|
|
.
j
(
(
=
+ :=
n 40 :=
NPV
ug
297.853 10
6
=
C
i.ug
278 10
6
:=
000041
11
DOUBLE CIRCUIT 2 X 400 MVA
Initial Investment for Underground Cable ($
NZ)
C
i.ug
367 10
6
:=
C
o.ug
1.137 10
6
:= Operational costs for underground Cable
including losses and maintenance per annum
($ NZ)
C
f.ug
20 10
3
:=
Fault costs for underground Cable per annum
($ NZ)
Capitalisation Index
i 5 % :=
Evaluation period 40 years -effective life of
the system
n 40 :=
NPV
ug
C
i.ug
1
n
j
C
o.ug
C
f.ug
+
( )
1
1 i +
|
\
|
|
.
j
(
(
=
+ :=
NPV
ug
386.853 10
6
=
000042
12
4.3. Availability
Outages of underground cables are generally caused by third party damage, bad
workmanship during cable installation & jointing or manufacturing defects.
Outages to underground cables are usually extensive and require significant
repair time before they can be restored to service.
4.4. Reliability and repair times
Reliability is significantly affected by quality of materials, quality of workmanship
during installation & maintenance.
The incidence of underground cable faults is low, but outages are of long duration
due to repair times involved refer to example below:
Example:
Considering the most likely condition i.e. third party damage to one of three single
core cables in a cable circuit the following actions are involved:
o Fault location and site assessment
o Mobile plant & personnel, excavate fault location & assess damage,
cut & cap cable
o Excavate trench & two joint bays
o Concrete joint bay slabs and install joint bay cover
o Transport to site cable & joints
o Lay & joint cable
o Bedding, back-filling, mechanical protection of cable & joints
o Electrical tests
o Reinstate area
Total time to repair a single fault, assuming availability of spares and local 220kV
jointers is estimated at 200 to 300 hours.
000043
13
4.5. Efficiency
The efficiency of a transmission system is dependent on electrical losses.
For underground cables, in addition to Ohmic losses, there are other component
losses dependent on cable configuration (single-core cables) and type of
bonding system of cable metallic sheaths or/and screens.
The basic concept of management of cable losses is presented in Appendix 6
4.6. Maintenance XLPE insulated cables
Contrary to some popular perception underground transmission cables,
regardless of type, do require regular maintenance including:
o Perform electrical tests to verify integrity of anti-corrosion jacket:
2 x 2 mandays/pa
o Perform electrical tests to verify cross-bonding system including sheath
voltage limiters, link boxes and local earthing:
2 x 2 mandays/pa
o Inspect all above ground structures, cable termination supports, bridges,
cable route markers & general route patrol: 1 manday/pa
o Inspect termination including thermo-vision checks: 1 manday/pa
o Partial discharge tests; 2 x 5 mandays/pa
o Verify & interrogate/evaluate performance of DTS (distributed temperature
sensing) system: 2mandays/pa
Total:
o 8 km single circuit route: 22 mandays/pa @ $NZ60/hr = $NZ 11,000/pa
o 8 km double circuit route: 42mandays/pa @ $NZ60/hr = $NZ 21,000/pa
o 38.3 km route: 106 mandays/pa @ $NZ60/hr = $NZ 53,000/pa
000044
14
4.7. Electromagnetic field (EMF)
For comparative circuit loads underground cables exhibit significantly higher
levels of magnetic fields in comparison to overhead lines. Field reduction
techniques, including special configuration of single core cables and shielding
methods can reduce levels by up to around 10 to 20%
Underground cables exhibit no external electric field
The magnitude of magnetic field intensity [milliGauss] or [micro-Tesla] is not
related to the cable type, conductor size or metallic sheath. The geometric
arrangement of single-core cables plays a major role in EMF magnetic field
intensity.
The single-core cables could be installed in trefoil, flat or L touching or spaced
formations.
0.1
1
10
100
1000
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x - axis [m] - Lateral distance from cable circuit
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

E
M
F

[
m
G
]

[One circuit
Reference
Single Circuit
600MVA/1420A
Magnetic field magnitude produced by a single cable circuit carrying 600MVA
The trefoil touching formation produces the lowest level of magnetic field.
In case of double circuit the forward phase sequence phase sequence (R-Y-B /
B-Y-R) generates smaller magnetic field than (R-Y-B / R-Y-B) phase sequence.
000045
15
In this case, if the two circuits are in close proximity, the magnetic field intensity is
smaller that that produced by a single circuit.
Internationally there is not a consensus on magnetic field exposure levels.
0.1
1
10
100
1000
-2
0
-1
8
-1
6
-1
4
-1
2
-1
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x - axis [m] - Distance from the median axis
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

E
M
F
{
m
G
]

[
One circuit
two circuit
Reference
Magnetic field magnitude produced by a double cable circuit carrying
400MWA (360MW) /1050A
4.8. Easements
High voltage cables require easements, 6 metres wide, along the entire
cable route for the safe operation and access for maintenance & repairs.
Easement conditions apply.
Generally easements restrictions include:
o No buildings or other built encroachments
o No stored materials that affect heat dissipation from cables
o No deep rooted vegetation
o No inflammable materials
o No earthworks without prior asset owner approval
o Unrestricted access
000046
16
4.9. Reactive power compensation Critical length of cable
circuit
In cases involving long cable circuits, the compensation of charging current
requires installation of shunt reactors connected at one end or both end of cable
circuits which are selected based on specialised system studies by taking into
consideration cable specific data and system parameters.
In consideration of a 38.3km long cable the effects of reactive power
compensation with respect to critical length was evaluated refer Appendix 7.
From that evaluation it is concluded that the capacitive charge has no noticeable
impact on cable rating capacity.
5. CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME CASE STUDIES
A time line outlining actual installation works shall be prepared once detailed local
site conditions are established; however, the following guidelines apply for a large
capacity, single circuit underground cable installation:
5.1 Single circuit: Orton 220kV Switching Station (along Otuiti
Rd) to OH/UG transition point near Fleming Rd., 8.7 km
route length
The main activities & estimated times are as per Table following table:
000047
17
Construction activities and time estimates
Task Time Involved
Per 650metre
cable section
Excavate & remove spoil from site 2 weeks
Trench shoring & apply steel plates at road crossings concurrent
Construct joint bay 1 week
Place & compact cable bedding material 1 week
Pull in 3 power cables, evenly spaced and fixed in position 1 week
Pull in communication & DTS cables concurrent
Jointing operations concurrent
Place and compact controlled backfill 1 week
Install protective concrete cable covers & warning tape concurrent
Perform electrical tests to confirm integrity of cable sheath 1 day
Remove shoring material & steel plates at road crossings 2 days
Place and compact controlled backfill over slabs up to road base
level
1 week
Place & compact road base 1 week
Restore roads to initial condition 2 days
Apply cable markers as appropriate concurrent
Commissioning tests 2 days
Total time for the first cable section 7 weeks
Total time: Orton 220 kV switching station (along Otuiti Rd.) to
OH/UG Transition Point near Fleming Rd. 8.7 km
Following the first section a series of activities would be
performed concurrently on multiple sections leading to a total
estimated time for
14 cable sections of 56 weeks
14 months
5.2 Double circuit: Orton 220kV Switching Station (along Otuiti
Rd) to OH/UG transition point near Fleming Rd., 8.7 km
route length
The main activities are as for Section 7.1 with estimated total time 18 months
000048
18
5.3 Orton 220kV Switching Station Limestone Downs
33/220kV Substation 38.3km route length
Total time: 33 months utilising two construction teams taking into account the
following issues with this route:
o Road widening necessary in particular Baker Rd., Wairamarama
Onewhero Rd. & Matakitaki Rd.
o Wider than normal trench excavations at ridge tops to compensate for dry
conditions & higher thermal soil resistivity
o Wider than normal trench excavations to snake cables in trench to
compensate for land slips / unstable grounds
o Export excavated soil to designated dumping areas and imports an equal
amount of bedding, back-filling and road restoration material.
o Long distance from quarry to source special back-fill materials
o Lengthy road closures with no alternative routes for residents
6. REFERENCES
1. Electric Cables Handbook (BICC Cables)
2. Underground Transmission Systems Reference Book Power
Technologies, Inc
3. Rating of Electric Power Cables George J Anders
4. General Guides for the Integration of a New Underground Cable System in
the Network CIGRE SC21
5. Maintenance for HV Cables and Accessories CIGRE TB 279 - Working
Group mB1.04
6. Construction, Laying and Installation Techniques for Extruded and Sel-
contained Fluid-filled Cable Systems CIGRE TB 194 Working Group
21.17 /October 2001
7. Comparison of High Voltage Overhead Lines and Underground Cables
CIGRE Report JWG 21/22-01
8. Budget estimate to supply and install 220kV cable (Prysmian)
000049
19
9. Cable technical information including losses (Prysmian)
10. Magnetic Field In HV Cable Systems Without Ferromagnetic Component
CIGRE Technical Brochure 104
7. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Scope for undergrounding study
Appendix 2: Cable technical information including losses (Prysmian)
Appendix 3: Budget estimates. Supply and install 220kV cables (Prysmian)
Appendix 4: Topographical maps showing the investigated cable routes
Appendix 5: Comparison between installing 220kV U/G transmission cables
and other U/G services
Appendix 6: Current rating and losses of HV power cable systems
Appendix 7: Reactive power compensation
Appendix 8: Curriculum Vitae
000050
Appendix 1
Scope for Undergrounding Study
Background
transport electricity output from a new windfarm on the west coast of the Waikato
region to the main grid connection. The detail of this project is contained in the
final draft Project Description document prepared for the purposes of applying for
Resource Consents under the Resource Management Act. A copy of this report
is attached to this scope.
The transmission lines both for internal lines, interconnecting the substations and
for the main line are proposed to be 220 kV. Current plans are for the internal
lines to be single circuit on pole construction, and the external line will be double
circuit on tower construction.
CEN has received submissions from some landowners whose properties will be
traversed by the proposed transmission line. Several landowners are opposed to
overhead cabling and want the company to instead install underground cabling.
CEN is open-minded on this issue and has undertaken to seek expert advice on
the practicability of undergrounding and comparisons between the two
alternatives.
The company is not an electricity lines business and is not therefore constrained
by any New Zealand statutory regulation governing the pricing aspects of its
transmission lines. Instead CEN operates in a competitive market for the pricing
of its daily offer of electricity generation. CEN does not have any material
existing investment in overhead transmission assets, nor an inventory to support
such infrastructure.
000051
The company requires an in-depth study of the benefits and disbenefits of
underground transmission lines versus overhead lines. The study should
address the following matters.
Scope of Study
Analyse the preferred route in the context of terrain, geotechnical and any
other issues that would impact upon the practicability of underground
cabling of 220kV circuits;
Consider whether a more efficient and lower cost route could be adopted
for an undergrounding project such as, for example, burying cable along
existing roading networks;
Review overseas trends in underground cabling practices in developed
countries and assess any recent improvements in technology that make
undergrounding comparatively more practicable than in the past;
Prepare typical installation concept (e.g. typical installation cross sections
of key aspects of the cables and terminal stations).
Prepare an indicative route based on available contour data which would
provide at least the equivalent reliability, redundancy and functionality of
the alternative proposed overhead line.
Compare and contrast advantages and disadvantages including such
aspects as:
o reliability,
o efficiency,
o maintenance,
o environmental impacts of the installation and ongoing operations
e.g. trenching, radiation effects etc
o typical easement width required to install and then operate,
o any restriction on the land during operations,
o construction timeline,
000052
o installation techniques,
o equipment transport issues of undergrounding concept versus
overhead line in the context of this specific project; and
Provide an estimate of the comparative costs of either methodology
assuming that most recent technology is adopted for undergrounding and
the optimal corridor is chosen to implement such an alternative. The
assessment should include, if possible, an assessment of comparative
ongoing maintenance costs, and possible incremental revenue arising
from lower transmission losses that might arise from the selection of one
or other alternative.
000053
Appendix 2
Cable technical information including losses
(Prysmian)
000054
Client: Contact Energy January 2008
Project Name: New Zealand North Island Wind Farms 220kV
Subject: Technical Assessment 2 1 Revision 0 Prepared: JMO
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT - 2
1 INTRODUCTION
Further to our assessment of December 2007, we have been asked to consider a revised requirement, for
only one circuit, between Limestone and Orton, of which approximately 8km would consist of underground
cables.
The specified ratings for this circuit are:
single group of cables carrying 600MVA
or
two groups of cable each capable of carrying 400MVA.
We have assumed installation conditions the same as those that have been specified for other projects in
New Zealand.
When assessing the number of sections of cable, we have assumed nominal lengths of approximately
500m and the need to have a balanced cross-bonded system.
2 MAIN PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
The following main electrical, laying, environmental and operating data were specified or assumed:
3.1 Electrical data
Nominal rated voltage (specified) 220 kV
Power frequency (known) 50 Hz
Phase phase short circuit (assumed) 40 kA for 1 second
Phase earth short circuit (assumed) 40 kA for 1 second
Maximum conductor temperature (assumed) 90 C
Current ratings 1575 A (600MVA)
or
2 1050 A (2 400MVA)
3.2 Installation conditions
We have assumed the following parameters when assessing the ratings of the cables:
Depth to top of cables 1000 mm
Maximum ground temperature 25 C
Thermal resistivity of cable surround & trench backfill 1.2 C.m/W
000055
3 220kV CABLE DESIGNS
We have assumed that the 220kV cables would be manufactured at our factory in Gron, France, our centre
of excellence for extra-high-voltage power cables. A typical cross-section is shown at the end of this
document.
The significant features of the cables would be:
4.1 Conductor
Copper, Milliken construction, complying with IEC 60228 Class 2, with oxidised wires where required to
reduce the skin effect for conductors larger than 1600mm.
4.2 Conductor Screen
Extruded semi-conducting compound would be bonded to the insulation and applied in the same operation
as the insulation.
4.3 Insulation
Extruded cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) suitable for operation at a maximum conductor temperature of
90C. The insulation would be made of dry cured extruded cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE), extruded
simultaneously with the semi conductive conductor and core screen (triple head extrusion).
4.4 Insulation Screen
Extruded semi-conducting compound applied in the same operation as the insulation. The insulation screen
layer would be firmly bonded to the insulation.
4.5 Metallic Sheath and Screen
A welded aluminium sheath, with copper wire screen underneath if required to assist in carrying the phase-
earth short circuit.
4.6 Anti-corrosion sheath
The anti-corrosion protection consists of an extruded polyethylene oversheath.
4 220kV TERMINATIONS
We do not know what terminations would be required but we assume that they would be outdoor sealing
ends.
A drawing of a typical outdoor sealing end, with a polymeric insulator, is shown at the end of this document.
5 220kV JOINTS
The buried joints would have sectionalising insulation to enable the cable cleats to be cross-bonded, and
would be installed on reinforced concrete bases.
The GRP casing of the joint would be filled with a compound suitable for the prevailing conditions, e.g. the
depth of the water table.
A drawing of a typical joint is shown at the end of this document.
000056
6 REQUIRED CABLE SIZES AND INSTALLATION
6.1 600MVA Circuit
Cables with 2000mm Milliken conductors would be adequate for the specified rating.
The cables would be installed in flat formation, at 300mmbetween cable centres.
6.2 2 400MVA Circuit
Cables with 1200mm Milliken conductors would be adequate for the specified rating. Copper wires would
be required in addition to the welded aluminium sheath.
The cables would be installed in flat formation, at 250mmbetween cable centres.
The groups would be installed with a minimum of 1000mm between centres, i.e. 500mm between the
adjacent cables of the two groups.
6.2.1 Rating of Single Cable Group
A single group of cables, operating thermally independently, would be rated at 1220A, equivalent to
465MVA.
6.3 Adjacent services or increased depths
Should the cables be installed close to other services, e.g. power cable circuits generating significant heat
or large pipes which inhibit heat flow, or if it were necessary to install the cables at depths significantly
greater than 1000mm, e.g. when crossing roads, the spacing between the cables could be increased to
maintain the rating capacity.
7 LOSSES
7.1 600MVA Circuit
The conductor temperature would be 90C and the losses, for the circuit, would be:
Conductor losses 95.8 W/m
Sheath losses 8.0 W/m
Dielectric losses 3.9 W/m
Total losses 107.7 W/m
Conductor losses 2 65.7 W/m
Sheath losses 2 3.6 W/m
Dielectric losses 2 3.2 W/m
Total losses 2 72.5 W/m
=145.0 W/m
000057
8 SHEATH BONDING AND EARTHING
The metallic sheaths of the 220kV cables would be cross-bonded.
At the terminations the sheaths would be solidly bonded and earthed, either by three-way or 3-off single-
way link boxes and single core 300mm bonding leads.
At every third joint bay the sheaths would again be solidly bonded and earthed, this time by buried 3-way
link boxes and concentric 300mm bonding leads.
At the other joint bays the sheaths would be cross-bonded by buried three-way link boxes containing sheath
voltage limiters, again connected with concentric 300mm bonding leads.
A typical cross-bonding diagram, for the Waikawau Limestone, is shown at the end of this document.
000058
9 SECTION LENGTHS AND SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES
In order for the cross-bonding system to work correctly the circuits should be divided into a number of major
sections, each consisting of three minor sections.
We suggest that the 600MVA circuit would consist of 15 sections of 535m and the 2 400MVA circuit of 12
sections of 665m.
9.1 Schedule of Quantities
Item Detail 600MVA Circuit 2 400MVA Circuit
1200mm - 72 665m
220kV cable
2000mm 45 535m -
Terminations Not specified 6 12
Joints Sectionalised 42 66
3-way 2 4
3-way buried 4 6 Link box
3-way cross-bonding 10 16
Single-core 300mm 130 230
Bonding lead
Concentric 300mm 420 660
10 CABLE AND DRUMMASSES
The estimated masses are:
10.1 600MVA Circuit
2000mm cable 28.8 kg/m
535m of cable 15.4 tonnes
Drum 2.5 tonnes
Gross mass of cable and drum 17.9 tonnes
1200mm cable 20.1 kg/m
665m of cable 13.4 tonnes
Drum 2.5 tonnes
Gross mass of cable and drum 15.9 tonnes
000059
11 DRAWINGS
11.1 220kV Cable
This drawing shows a cross-section of a cable with a 1200mm conductor.
Voltage
220kV
Conductor Size
1200mm
Insulation :
XLPE
Max. Stress
8.9MV/m
Earth Fault Current
40kA for 1s
Diagrammatic only - Not to scale
Item Description
Nominal
Thickness
(mm)
Details
Nominal
Diameters
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Conductor
Binder
Conductor Screen
Insulation
Insulation Screen
WaterblockingTape
Wires
Equalising Tape
Waterblocking Tape
Metallic Sheath
Oversheath
-
-
-
19.5
-
-
1.075
-
-
1.2
5.0
Copper Milliken
-
Semi-Conducting Compound
XLPE
Semi-Conducting Compound
-
98 Copper Wires
Copper
-
Welded Aluminium
Polyethylene & Graphite
43.5
-
-
87.0
-
-
94.8
-
-
98.4
110.6
000060
11.2 220kV Termination
This drawing shows an outdoor sealing end with a polymeric insulator.
000061
11.3 220kV Joint
This drawing shows sectionalised joint and casing.
000062
B
Client: ContactEnergy
Project Name: Contact Energy NewZealand Wind Farms 220kV
Subject: Schematic Bonding Diagram- Limestone to Orton 600MVA
January2008
Revision 0 Prepared: JMO
Concentric
core 300mm
bonding lead
Single core
300mm
bonding lead
Detail at cross-
bonding positions
X
Detail at solid
bonding positions
B
220kV
2500mm
XLPE cable
Sectionalised
joint
B
Solid-bonding
link box at
terminations
Cross-bonding
link box
X
Schematic Bonding Diagram
600MVA Circuit
X S
Solid-bonding
link box
S
Detail at solid-
bonding positions
S
Termination
X X S X X S X X S X X X B
0
0
0
0
6
3
B
Client: ContactEnergy
Project Name: Contact Energy NewZealand Wind Farms 220kV
Subject: Schematic Bonding Diagram- Limestone to Orton 2 400MVA
January2008
Revision 0 Prepared: JMO
Concentric
core 300mm
bonding lead
Single core
300mm
bonding lead
Detail at cross-
bonding positions
X
Detail at solid
bonding positions
B
220kV
1200mm
XLPE cable
Sectionalised
joint
B
Solid-bonding
link box at
terminations
Cross-bonding
link box
X
Schematic Bonding Diagram
2 400MVA Circuit
S
Solid-bonding
link box
S
Detail at solid-
bonding positions
S
Termination
X B X S X X S X X X X
B S X B X S X X S X X X X
0
0
0
0
6
4
Appendix 3
Budget estimate: Supply and install 220kV cable
(Prysmian)
000065
000066
000067
Appendix 4
Topographical Maps Showing
Investigated Routes
000068
0
0
0
0
6
9
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
7
3
Appendix 5
Comparisons between installing 220kV underground
transmission cables and installing other longitudinal
infrastructure for example, high pressure gas or water
pipe lines; underground distribution cables and
communication cables
Installation requirements and provision for maintenance & repairs differ
significantly between those for extra high voltage (220kV) underground
transmission cables and lower voltage underground distribution cables;
underground communication cables and high pressure gas or water pipe lines.
There are also variations in easement requirements and easement conditions
In simple terms:
Metallic or polymeric (plastic) gas or water pipes are transported to site and laid
in manageable sections (and manageable weights) and welded, or otherwise
connected together, as trench excavation progresses.
Trenches are narrow and, other than a bedding comprised of sand (to protect the
outer surface of pipes) there are no special trench excavation or back-filling
requirements.
Similar installation conditions to those for gas & water pipes may apply for lower
voltage underground distribution cables and communications cables (whether
electric or fibre optic). These are often laid in ducts.
Trenches are narrow (the width of a small back-hoe bucket) and other than for
sand bedding there are no special trench excavation or back-filling requirements.
000074
In the case of extra high voltage underground power cables (including 220kV)
there are factors that impose significant differences in installation & maintenance
requirements to those for water or gas pipes or lower voltage circuits namely:
1. Dissipation of heat generated by underground cables.
As underground cables transmit energy (in this case from the wind farm to the
main grid) the cables generate heat which, if not efficiently dissipated, will cause
the cables to over-heat and eventually fail. (This was precisely one of the
contributing factors that led to the cable failures and eventual black-outs in
Auckland in 1998)
Soil samples taken from site in the Limestone Downs Orton area are estimated
to have a high thermal resistivity meaning the soil will impose a barrier to heat
wanting to escape from the cables to the surface. This shall be confirmed by
thermal resistivity test on site & in laboratory prior to proceeding with the project.
Well accepted practice, world wide, is to improve this situation by bedding and
covering the cables with a controlled medium comprised of a weak mix of sand
and cement. (Refer diagram below)
Vast quantities of this mix (equivalent to excavated spoil) would be required
adding substantial costs and transport difficulties in acquiring, delivering, placing
& compacting it over the entire cable route.
Typical cable installation in trench with cables in flat formation
000075
2. Installing and jointing cables
Cables of this size and voltage are not manufactured in New Zealand. Each
cable drum, containing around 700metres of cable and weighing up to 20 Tones,
would require to be transported from Auckland on multi-wheeled vehicle to sites
at 700 m intervals, there to be craned off, winched/pulled into position (in the
cable trench), then to be bedded & covered with protective concrete cable covers
and special backfill and then to be jointed in a controlled environment in what is
known as a joint bay comprising a tented enclosure of the size, and with
features, as shown below. The duration of works associated with Joint bays
(construction and cable jointing) could be as long as 3 to 4 weeks.

Joint bay (4m x 12m) in roadway Interior of joint bay prior to jointing
(Would exceed width of Baker Rd.
in places)
3. Managing cable sheath losses
At transmission voltages, including 220kV, special bonding techniques termed
cross bonding provide the only practical means to mitigate losses in outer
metallic sheaths of underground power cables. (For technical explanation refer to
Appendix 6)
Cross bonding systems include surge arrestors and other equipment mounted in
underground link boxes that require testing at regular intervals (usually annually).
For that purpose that equipment is located within pits as shown below which, for
000076
ready access and safety to testing staff, are located away from trafficable roads
in footpaths see below.
Link box U/G concrete pit
Baker, Wairamarama and Matakitaki Rds. would present considerable challenges
in that they are very narrow and in many cases bounded by steep drops on one
side and steep inclines on the other where they are carved into mountain sides
see Photos No 4 & 5 in Attachment No.1 to Consolidated report.
In these situations there would be no alternative but to install link pits together
with joint bays and pits for optic fibre cables (if fibres were to be part of the cable
installation) in road ways.
000077
Appendix 6
Current rating and electrical losses of high
voltage power cable systems
1. Cable Rating Influencing Factors
The current rating of high voltage (HV) underground (U/G) power cable circuits is,
primarily, influenced by the environmental factors and cable losses.
Both factors are fully considered for determination of cable type and installation
particulars by taking into consideration the economic aspects related to the cost of
materials, installation of cable and accessories, running cost (whole life cost),
capitalised cost of losses and ancillary equipment such as bonding, condition
monitoring systems and compensating equipment.
a. Environmental Factors
The most specific factors which have a greater impact on cable current rating or
loading capacity are as follows:
Air and soil maximum ambient temperature
Soil thermal resistivity (TR) under the most severe climatic conditions in
respect to water (humidity) content
b. Installation Particulars
Extra high voltage (EHV) power cable circuits (including 220kV) are
manufactured in form of single-core cables which could be installed in trefoil or
flat formations.
000078
The installation option is selected to correlate the cable type /conductor size with
the environmental parameters to get the required cable carrying capacity.
Fig1: Typical installation configuration of single-core power cables in trefoil
formation
This type of cable configuration has the advantage of minimising the sheath
circulating currents induced by the magnetic flux linking the cable conductors and
metallic sheath or copper wire screens. This configuration is generally used for
cables of lower voltages (33 to 132kV) and of smaller conductor sizes
However, for EHV cable systems the trefoil formation is not appropriate for heat
dissipation because there is an appreciable mutual heating effect of the three
cables.
The cumulated heat in cables and cable trench has the effect of reducing the cable
rating and accelerating the cable ageing
In order to improve the natural heat dissipation from around the cable circuits the
three single-core cables could be installed in flat formation (Fig2). This
configuration allows for a significant increase of current rating of EHV cable circuits.
000079
Fig. 2: Typical installation configuration of single-core power cables in flat
formation
In Fig. 2 are shown the CMS (condition monitoring system) and
communication cables installed between the 220kV single-core power
cables.
In addition, to the centre power cable is attached the DTS (distributed
temperature sensing) optical fibre cable. Both the DTS and CMS are
designed to continuously monitor the cable and environment temperatures
and to perform other supervisory functions as well
The installation of cables in flat formation requires special bonding solutions
of cable metallic sheaths to reduce/eliminate the circulating currents.
Nevertheless, in case of unfavourable environmental conditions related to
soil thermal characteristics or of ambient temperature the sole application of
flat configured cables and of special bonding system may not provide the
expect result and as a consequence the following techniques should be
employed to achieve the required current rating:
000080
Replace a certain amount of soil adjacent to the excavated cable
trench with aggregates or imported soils of suitable thermal resistivity.
Use of specialised bedding and backfilling materials such as:
Sand/cement mix of 14: 1, 20:1 or of other proportions
Fluidised backfill
Blended sands or crushed rock of variable gain sizes
All ducts and micro tunnels be filled with bentonite and respectively
light concrete
Artificial cooling
Particular installation configurations of single-core cables or of cable
circuits within a given cable corridor
Special bonding system of cable metallic sheaths designed to reduce
the electric losses
Install double cable circuits in a single or adjacent trenches or other
applicable site conditions
2. Electrical Losses
Under service conditions, regardless of magnitude of transported the power
cables are subjected to electrical losses manifested as heat in insulation and
metallic components.
Based on the location were they are generated and the generation cause the
electrical losses could be qualified as current and voltage-dependent losses.
The current-depending losses are generated in cable conductors, metallic sheath
or/and metallic wires designed to carry fault currents
For a simplified cable system (land cable circuit) the three main cable
component responsible for electrical losses are the conductor(s), the insulation
and the metallic sheaths or/and the metallic wire screens.
000081
2.1 Conductor Losses
Conductors losses are ohmic losses, i.e. heat (Watt/meter) generated by the
current flowing in the cable conductor(s) and are calculated with the following
formula:
W
c
= I
2
R
a.c
I = current flowing in the conductor (A)
R
a.c
= A.C. electrical resistance () of conductor at given temperature (C)
The A.C. electrical resistance () is dependent, in addition to the D.C resistance
(Rd.c) on skin (ys) and the proximity (yp) effects which are responsible for the
uneven distribution of load current across the conductor cross sectional area, so
the Ra.c resistance could be defined as:
R
a.c
= R
d.c
(1 + ys + yp)
Rd.c = R
o
[1 +
20
( 20)]
Ro = D.C electrical resistance at 20C
20 =
Constant mass temperature coefficient at 20C per Kelvin
= maximum operating temperature (C)
Skin effect (y
s
) is attributed to the variation of conductor self-inductance which
is greater to the centre of the conductor than to its periphery and as a
consequence the current flow is maximum at the conductor surface and minimum
at the conductor core This phenomenon is one cause of increased A.C.
resistance of conductors.
Proximity effect (y
p
) is generated by the magnetic field produced by the currents
flowing in parallel cable conductors of another cable circuit or other parallel
current carrying conductors. The associated magnetic field embraces that
conductor and at the same time it encircles the parallel conductors in close
proximity.
000082
The effect is explained by the fact that when two conductors carrying alternating
current are parallel and in close proximity, the current densities on the inner area
(side facing each other) are smaller than the current density flowing in the outer
area (remote side) of the conductors due to the difference in magnetic flux
densities cutting the conductors cross area.
So, the A.C. conductor resistance is defined by the D.C resistance and the skin
and proximity factors as indicated by the following formula:
R
a.c
= R
d.c
(1 + y
s
+ y
p
)
The calculation of skin (y
s
) and proximity (y
p
) effect factors is based on the
empirical formula given in the IEC 60287 Standard
The proximity effect factor (y
p
) is determined by the cable D.C. resistance,
system frequency, cable spacing and cable diameter while the y
s
is influenced
only by conductor d.c resistance and system frequency:
y
s
= (R , f)
y
p
= (d
c
, R, s , f)
The skin and proximity effects could be ignored for small conductors carrying low
currents, however for high rating cables requiring large conductors these effects
are significant and it is essential to include design feature to compensate their
effect.
000083
The Milliken or Segmental conductors, which consist of several individually or
alternated insulated sector shaped strands, provide the desired solution (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3: Milliken Cable Conductor (Fluidfilled Cable System)
The modern technologies apply a layer of enamel or Cu oxide on individual wires
forming the sector shaped strands.
The economic justification of this type of conductor is validated when using
cables of minimum 800mm
2
2.2 Dielectric and Charging Current Losses
A power cable is a large capacitor of certain capacitance characterised by
dielectric constant () and electrical resistance. The two parameters and the
magnitude and frequency of applied voltage determine the magnitude of charging
current and dielectric losses.
Both, the charging current and dielectric losses are voltage-dependent and they
are generated in cable insulation at any time the cable is connected to the grid.
The charging currents are generated by the cable itself and produce a certain
amount of losses which, in combination with the system reactive power generate
losses reducing the flow of active/real power (MW).
Cable
conductor
(Milliken)
Cable
Insulation
000084
The charging current charges and discharges the cable (capacitor) 50 times per
second. While the charging current is a reactive current the dielectric losses are
determined by real power currents.
The reactive power transported by the cable is independent of cable system; it is
a parameter determined by the system configuration and the elements designed
to compensate the reactive power flow
The charging (I
C
) and resistive (I
R
) currents flowing through the cable insulation
are calculated with the following equations:
I
C
= C U
o
(charging current)
I
R
= Uo/R (leakage current),
While the dielectric losses are calculate from the equation:
W
d
= U
o
I
c
tan, or
W
d
= CU
o
2
tan Where:
10
9
ln 18
=
d
D
c
i
c

C = cable capacitance
= 2
= system frequency
U
o
= phase voltage
tan = dielectric power factor
R = insulation resistance
= dielectric constant
D
i
= insulation diameter
d
c
= conductor diameter
For high and extra-high voltage cables the dielectric losses (Wd) could be
relatively high and may have significant contribution to in determination of cable
ratings
The cable dimensions and the insulation dielectric constant are the basic factors
responsible for the size of capacitance.
[C = /18ln (D
insulation /
d
conductor
)] while the tan is dependent on frequency,
temperature and the applied voltage and is being influenced by the following
factors:
000085
Leakage current flowing across the resistive component of cable
(capacitor) insulation is very much influenced by the quality-cleanliness of
insulating materials. The leakage current is an ionic conduction due to
the presence of free electrons flowing in the direction of electric field.
Dielectric hysteresis losses caused by the interaction of alternating
electrical field with the molecular structure of cable insulation; a sort of
mechanical work aiming to orientate the bipolar microscopic molecules of
insulation, or of contaminants, in the direction of electrical field. As the
field direction changes 50 times/sec, the cumulative impact of hysteresis
effect could be significant and, in fact, it is the major contributor to
dielectric losses.
Ionisation and low energy discharges inside the insulation.
2.3 Sheath Losses
Sheath losses are current-dependent losses and are generated by the induced
currents when load current flows in cable conductors.
The sheath currents in single-core cables are induced by transformer effect; i.e.
by the magnetic field of alternating current flowing in cable conductor which
induces voltages in cable sheath or other parallel conductors.
The sheath induced electromotive forces (emf) generate two types of losses:
circulating current losses (
1
) and eddy current losses (
1
), so the total losses in
cable metallic sheath are:
1
=
1
+
1
The eddy currents circulating radially and longitudinally of cable sheaths are
generated on similar principles of skin and proximity effects mentioned in relation
to the conductor Rac resistance; i.e. they are induced by the conductor currents,
000086
sheath circulating currents and by currents circulating in close proximity current
carrying conductors.
Fig. 4: Magnetic field of a three-phase single-core cable circuit
They are generated in cable sheath irrespective of bonding system of single core
cables or of three-core cables
The eddy currents are generally of smaller magnitude when comparing with
circuit (circulating) currents of solidly bonded cable sheaths and may be neglects
except in the case of large segmental conductors and are calculated in
accordance with formulae given in the IEC60287, which for simplification of this
document is not presented.
Circulating currents are generated in cable sheath if the sheaths form a closed
loop when bonded together at the remote ends or intermediate points along the
cable route.
These losses are named sheath circulating current losses and they are
determined by the magnitude of current in cable conductor, frequency, mean
diameter, the resistance of cable sheath and the distance between single-core
cables; i.e. the mutual inductance, calculated with the following equation:
Cable
sheath
Eddy currents
in cable sheath
000087
I
s
= E
s
/ (R
s
2
+ X
m
2
)
1/2
E
s
= I X
m
X
m
= M x10
-3

M = 0.2 ln (2S/d
m
)
Where,
I = conductor current
X
m
= inductive reactance per phase including the self inductance of the conductor
and the mutual inductance with other conductors.
M = mutual inductance between conductor and sheath
s = Cable spacing
d
m
= sheath mean diameter (m)
I
s
= circulating current
R
s
= Sheath resistance
The actual calculation of circulating currents need to take into consideration the
magnetic influence of the conductor currents in all three single core cables
(conductors and sheaths), the mutual impedance between cable and sheath and
between all three cables.
In addition, for multiple cable circuits the aspect is further complicated by the
magnetic interference of circuits in close proximity. As a consequence the
calculation magnitude of induced voltages and circulating currents is done by
using specialised computer routines as indicated in the IEC60287. The cable
system and the interconnecting network represented by distributed parameters
(Impedances) and the hypothetical electrical occurrences (power frequency or
fast transients). The general model is quite complicated and requires some
computer programming and use of specialised software.
The impact of circulating currents is included in the cable rating equations as a
proportional quantity of sheath currents and sheath resistance to the conductor
current and conductor resistance in form of:
R
R
I
I
C
S
C
S
2
2
1
=
(Eddy currents not included), quantity which is defined as

[Sheath Loss factor =
1
] and is expressed as a proportional quantity of
the total conductor losses.
The general equation for calculation of current rating (100% load factor) is:
000088

By computing this equation it can be defined , the cable conductor maximum
permissible temperature rise above the ambient in the following form:
= (I
2
R + Wd) T
1
+ [I
2
R (1 +
1
) + Wd] nT2 + [I
2
R (1+
1
+
2
) + Wd) n (T
3
+
T
4
)
However in the case of a simplified cable circuit consisting of three single-core
cables provided with metallic sheath and no metallic armour (
2
= 0 and T
3
=0)
and ignoring the environmental thermal resistance (T
4
) the temperature rise
between conductor and cable outer surface is given with the following equation:
= I
2
R [T
1
+ T
2
(1 +
1
)] + W
d
(T
1/2
+T
2
)
Where: = temperature rise above ambient temperature
I = conductor current
R = A.C conductor resistance
Wd = dielectric losses
T
1
, T
2
= thermal resistances of cable insulation and anticorrosion jacket of cable.
It is seen that the Loss Factor or power loss factor
1
as generated by the
circulating currents in cable metallic sheath is impacting on the heat crossing the
anticorrosion jacket and soil thermal resistance before being dissipated in air.

2.4 Special Bonding Systems
Single core distribution power cables are normally installed with cable metallic
sheaths or metallic copper screens solidly bonded to earth at both ends.
However, in cases of high and extra high voltage single-core cables installed in
flat formation the circulating currents could be as high as the current in cable
conductors, i.e. several hundred Amps especially if the cable sheaths would be
solidly bonded to earth at both ends.
In order to minimise the sheath circulating currents the single-core cables are
very often laid in close touching trefoil formation. However, as the three cables
000089
have a considerable heating effect upon one another the heat dissipation is very
poor.
In order to increase the rate of heat dissipation the obvious solution would be to
increase the spacing between cables, regardless if installed in trefoil or flat
formations, aspect which in return would have a direct effect of an increased
magnitude of circulating currents. A proper balance of cable spacing must be
identified to optimise the two effects; circulating currents and heat dissipation.
The solid bonding system does not have a limitation impact on cable systems of
MV of up to 33kV but with larger conductor sizes and higher voltages the impact
is significant and alternative sheath bondedind systems need to be used.
For particular cases of short HV cable circuits (few hundred metres) the
technique of sheath special bonding systems involves earthing the single-core
cable sheaths at one point only and insulating all other points of the sheath from
earth, so that the circulating sheath losses are eliminated and the single-core
cables can be spaced apart to reduce their mutual heating effect without
increasing sheath losses.
Some of the most common Single-point Bonding arrangements are as shown in
Fig. 5
Fig. 5: Diagrammatic representation of single-point bonding systems of
cable metallic sheaths or screens and of induced voltages
V V V
0
0
0
1
1 1
a) Sheaths earthed at
one end only
b) Sheaths earthed at the
immediate point
c) Sheaths earthed at both ends
and sectionalised at the
immediate point

000090
For long cable connections, where the cable circuits consist of a series of
individual cable sections sequentially jointed, the cable sheaths are connected in
different configurations including the so called cross bonding system (Fig.6)
In this system the corresponding route length is divided in multiples of three
length of ca Each major transposition section is formed of three individual
sections of equal length and installed at equal and uniform spacing.
This solution is expected to provide balanced induced voltages at a vectorial
angle of 120of no resultant circulating current when phasorial summation was
applied.
Fig. 6: Cross-bonding system without cable transposition at each joint bay
However, this is not the case, because when single-core cables are installed in
flat formation the voltages induced in the cable sheaths of outer cables are
higher than the induced voltage in the middle cable and the vectorial (phasor)
summation is not zero. As a consequence it is not possible to eliminate the
circulating currents in a cable circuit where only the cable sheaths are cross-
bonded. The imbalanced phasorial voltage (Fig.7) is generating a residual
voltage which, in return would generate circulating currents.
A C
B
B A
C
C
B
A
000091
Fig. 7: Imbalanced induced voltages in a major transposition section with
un-transposed minor cable sections
When the cable sheaths of transposed cables occupying the same position in
circuit configuration are straight connected the vectorial summation of induced
voltage would be zero if the system would be of balanced parameters: currents,
spacing and length (Fig.8).
So, it is obvious that in order to significantly reduce or to eliminate the circulating
current losses the cable and cable sheaths must be transposed at every joint bay
position and the sheaths cross-connected with phase rotation in opposition to
that of cable transposition (Fig.8). This would facilitate a direct serial connection
of the cable sheaths of the three cable sections occupying the same position in
cable trench along a major transposition section.
Smaller induced voltage
than in the 1
st
or 3
rd
minor section
Imbalanced
difference
000092
Fig. 8: Typical diagram of cross-bonding system with cable transposition
By connecting in series the cable sheath of the three phases (120 phasor
displacement) the circulating currents could be eliminated; the phasor sum of
induced voltages could be zero if the geometrical data of cable circuit is uniform
along the three cable sections.
However, it is evident that in practice the circulating currents can not be totally
eliminated. There would be all sorts of site limiting conditions to install the cable
sections at equal spacing and equal length and as consequence a loss factor -
1
in range of 3% for direct buried cable circuits and 5% for cable in ducts are
considered realistic figures (IEC 60287). Even larger losses may be tolerated
based on client acceptance of higher losses balanced against capital expenditure.
A B
O = C
U
B
U
C
U
A
Fig. 9: Balanced induced voltage along three consecutive
cable sheaths occupying the same position in cable trench

O C
A
B
U
AB
U
BC
U
OA
A
B
C
R
Y
B
R
Y
B
000093
The sheath currents and the induced voltages vary as a function of bonding
system, as follows:
i. Solid-bonded cable sheaths (earthing at both ends)
The circulating currents consume the induced voltages and as a
consequence the entire cable sheath is at ground potential. The generated
heat reduces the cable rating
ii. Single-point bonding
The cable sheaths are subjected to a standing voltage varying between
earth potential at grounding point and maximum induced magnitude at
isolated (remote or mid-point) end of cable section
iii. Cross-bonding
The maximum induced voltage in respect to earth depends on the position
of each minor transposition section within the major transposition section.
At the ends of major transposition sections the cable sheaths are at earth
potential while at all other points along the cable the voltage is
proportional to cable length in respect to earthing points or, for the median
(2
nd
) minor section, of measuring point in respect to the other two minor
sections.
The maximum induced voltage amplitude is generally accepted as 150V.
In special circumstances it could be as high as 250V provided that the
bonding system of cable circuit is properly designed to satisfy the
insulation coordination and safety requirements. Nevertheless there are
examples of cable installations where the induced standing voltage could
be as high as 400V.
The special bonding system requires that the metallic sheaths and cable
accessories (joints, terminations and connections to CMS condition monitoring
system) are electrically insulated with respect to earth (radial direction) and
between two adjacent cable sections (longitudinal direction).
000094
The cross-bonding of cable sheaths is made in specially designed boxes,
generically denominated Link Boxes where the incoming bonding leads (single-
core or concentric conductor cables) are cross-connected.
Concentric bonding leads between link boxes and power cable joints are
designed to minimise the surge impedance between cable sheaths and SVL
protecting the bonding system.
The link boxes are equipped with sheath voltage limiters (SVL) designed to
protect the cable outer sheath (anticorrosion jacket), insulating flanges and
barriers in cable accessories and all other insulating components of bonding
system, against transient voltages propagated along the cable system.
The effect of specially bonding systems is visible when comparing the cable
rating of cables installed in solid and cross-bonded systems.
The current rating of cable system of 132kV and above could be up to 50%
higher for specially bonded cable circuits. The rating is influenced by the
following three factors:
Reduction of circulation currents
Increased spacing between single-core cables with direct response of
improved heat dissipation
Reduction of eddy current losses with the increase of cable spacing
However it is recognised that the specially bonding system increases the capital
and running (maintenance) costs of the cable system. The cost of the bonding
system for an average 220kV cable system could be in range of 1 to 1.5% of
material cost for cable and accessories.
Nevertheless these costs are compensated by savings in cable size and the
number of accessories dependent of the length of cable sections (bigger cable =
shorter length) installed in the system and the maintenance costs could be
reduced by acquisition of reliable cable bonding system including cable outer
jacket, joints (insulating barriers), bonding leads, link boxes and sheath voltage
limiters (SVL).
000095

Fig.10: Cross Bonding Link Box (LB)
The periodical maintenance of a reliable bonding system may be performed on a
three-year basis and even longer periods, depending on local environment and
statistical evaluation of accumulated maintenance data.
3 Conclusions and Observations
The basic factors influencing the current rating capacity of underground (U/G)
power cable systems is govern by three major factors:
a) Cable construction: conductor size, physical dimensions and quality of
materials
b) Installation particulars: single-core cable configuration and spacing,
bonding of cable metallic sheaths, proximity to other utilities, thermal
influencing factors and burial depth
c) Environmental parameters: air and soil temperature and thermal
characteristics of soil and of bedding and backfilling materials
Sheath
Voltage
Limiters
(SVL)
Post
insulators
000096
Note:
The a) and b) factors are responsible for the magnitude of electrical losses
which, in return, are impacting on current rating of cable system
The calculation of losses and current carrying capacity are based on well
established international standards (IEC 60287 and IEC 60853) or national
standards.
However, as the fine details of cable construction are very specific to each cable
type produced by each manufacturer, an accurate calculation of losses and of
current rating are performed exclusively by cable suppliers using personalised
computer programs and softwares
In order to verify the accuracy of cable rating and magnitude of losses the cable
manufacturers carry out full scale trial experiments simulating hypothetical
installation and loading conditions.
4 Bibliograpfy
i. Rating of Electric Power Cables Ampacity Computation for Transmission,
Distribution and Industrial Applications. IEEE Press Power Engineering by
GEORGE J. ANDERS
ii. Electric Cables Handbook BICC Cables, by G.F. MOORE
iii. Underground Transmission Systems Power Technologies Inc. (J.A.
Williams) & EPRI (RW Samm).
iv. IEC 60287 Electric cables Calculation Part 1: Continuous rating
equations (100% load factor)and calculation of losses
000097
APPENDIX 7
Reactive power compensation - Critical
Length of Cable Circuit
An underground (U/G) power cable has the capability to store and release
electrical energy with the voltage variation; it works as a shunt capacitance
generating a capacitive current which is in quadrature with the resistive or
load current
The capacitive or charging current has a limiting effect on cable rating
capacity (MW).
This effect is quantified by the fact that when intended to supply energy to a
resistive receptor (active load consumer) in a radial network, via a power
cable circuit, it is needed to inject a higher current at the source to
compensate for cable capacitance.
The charging current is calculated with the following equation:
10 CU I
6 _
C
=

where:
Ic = charging current (A/km)
= 2f ; f = System frequency
C = capacitance per unit length (F/km)
U = Applied voltage (V)
The charging current generates heat losses in cable which are of a
significant magnitude in very long high and extra high A.C. underground
power cable connections.
As the capacitance and the charging current increase linearly with the
length of the cable circuits the generated heat losses by the charging
current could be as high as its entire thermal rating capacity. In other words,
it could be said that for long and uncompensated cable circuits the entire
000098
cable rating capacity could be consumed by the circulation of charging
current; i.e. no real power transmitted without overheating the cable.
The length of a cable at which its thermal capacity was consumed by the
charging current is called critical length and it is calculated with the
following formula:
( )
km
U
3
C
I
=
10 L
3
C

where:
U = Line (phase to phase) voltage (kV)
I = phase current (A)
(CIGRE WGB1-19/2004)
The maximum transmitting power of a radial cable circuit is given by:
( )
10
.
U . L .
C . S P
3 _ 2
2
2
G L
_ =

[MW]
Where
P
L
= Active power at load receptor (MW)
S
G
= Apparent power at injecting point (MVA)
U = Line (phase to phase) voltage (kV)
L = Length of cable (km)
(CIGRE WGB1-19/2004)
It could be seen that the critical length L
C
is determined by the system
voltage and frequency and by cable rating which is determined by the
conductor size, environmental and installation conditions and cable
capacitance.
The larger active current transmitted on cable the longer the critical length;
i.e. the charging current is of a lesser importance.
000099
The calculated values of critical length and the loss of transmitted power, of
a 40km 220kV cable system, by using the above equations, are of some
significance for smaller cable sizes (300MVA rating) but for larger cables (
600MVA carrying capacity) the impact is small.
In Fig 1 is shown the typical critical length and the length at which the
current rating is reduced by 20% for major high voltage cables (138 to
500kV voltage steps) based on North American experience.
In addition to the heating effect of charging current the cable capacitance
may have an impact on steady-state voltages across the power system to
which the cable is connected.
The voltage may rise, especially at low loads, due to charging current
flowing through cable series inductances (material polarisation) and through
system inductances (transmission lines and transformers); phenomenon
known as Ferranti effect.
The Ferranti effect is significant with long cables energised from one end.
In this kind of situations the network voltage stabilisation is carried out by
adjusting the voltage magnitude at generator by reducing the field excitation
or by lowering the voltage taps on transformers.
Figure 1 Critical length of 1000mm
2
U/G power cables (Power
Technologies, Inc)
000100
However in case of long cable circuits, the compensation of charging
current requires installation of shunt reactors connected at one end or both
end of cable circuits which are selected based on specialised system
studies by taking into consideration cable specific data and system
parameters.
In case of overhead transmission lines (O/H TL) the rating capacity is
influenced by the line inductance which is compensated by installation of
series capacitors. Power cable, which is a capacitor, improves the O/H TL
transmission capacity but, it presents the disadvantage of being of constant
capacitance at constant voltage while the system requires variable
adjustments
000101
Appendix 8
Curriculum Vitae
NAME: Henry Kent
NATIONALITY: Australian (born in Switzerland)
ADDRESS: 22 Avoca Street
GLENBROOK, NSW 2773, AUSTRALIA
Tel. +61 (2) 47 393352
Mobile (Preferred) +61 418 652 860
Email: henrykent@energyaction.com.au
QUALIFICATIONS:
Diploma in Electrical Engineering, NSW University of Technology
Post Graduate Studies in Protection Engineering.
Management and business training in various Institutions including
Australian Graduate School of Management.
Extensive experience in planning, design, asset management,
construction and maintenance of transmission and distribution voltage
underground cables and other network infrastructure.
MEMBERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Accepted to Institution of Engineers, Australia
Convener of Australian Panel & member of CIGRE international Study
Committee SC 21 HV Insulated Cables - 1984 to 1990
Current member of CIGRE Australian Panel B1 Insulated Cables
Former member ESAA Technical Advisory Committee Electro-magnetic
Fields
Current Secretary, ENA Power Poles & Crossarms Forum.
LANGUAGES:
English
German some capacity
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
1963 1990: Electricity Commission of NSW [Generation &Transmission]
1990 2000: Prospect Electricity / Integral Energy [Distribution]
000102
2000 Present: Consulting services to Utilities & Industry [Cable Design;
Condition Assessment & Monitoring; Project Management
and Training]
COUNTRIES OF WORK EXPERIENCE:
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia and United Arab Emirates
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS:
During some 40 years in the electricity supply industry responsibilities included:
Design, construction, maintenance & refurbishment of transmission and
distribution assets specialising in high voltage underground power
cables.
Development of specifications for cable infrastructure projects
[some under J oint Venture] and tender evaluation.
Implementation of network asset life extension strategies.
Management of a stand alone Contracting Services Business within
Integral Energy with an annual turn-over exceeding $A150 million [
derived from external business].
Community consultation prior to construction of controversial overhead
powerlines and underground cables.
Development of industry guidelines for example, Electricity Supply
Association of Australia document D(b)26 -1995 Work On Cables Under
Induced Voltages and Transferred Earth Potential
Six year term, 1984 1990, as Convenor of CIGRE Australian Panel 21 &
member of CIGRE international Study Committee SC-21 HV Insulated
Cables [representing the Australian & New Zealand cable industry
internationally]
Staff training and accreditation
Specific highlights:
Responsibility for the construction, maintenance & refurbishment of the
extra high voltage cable network in the Sydney CBD and inner suburbs
(comprising 500 kilometres of 132kV & 330kV oil-filled, gas-filled &
polymeric cables) including project management of cable tunnel
construction and cable installation.
Introduction to Australia of innovative optical fibre technology Distributed
Temperature Sensing and contribution (together with Tyree Optec &
University of Sydney) in the commercial development of an application
package.
Engagement by the Inquiry into the Auckland CBD Power Supply Failure
as chief technical consultant to determine the cause of failure of the 110kV
oil filled & gas filled power cables in 1998.
000103
Engagement by Rail Services Australia [now RailCorp NSW] to investigate
condition of 33kV gas-filled cables
Engagement by United Energy [now Alinta Vic] to report on in-house
management practices related to underground cables
Engagement as technical investigator to determine the cause of failure of
J ava-Madura 150kV submarine cable
Project manager for the installation of 220kV XLPE cables, Taranki, NZ,
being one of a number of cable projects won competitively by Integral
Energy Contracting.
Introduction of diagnostic methodologies associated with oil filled cables
Presentation of technical papers at CIGRE, Paris Sessions; CIGRE
symposium on diagnostics, Zermatt, Switzerland; CEPSI conference, New
Zealand and to a number of Supply Industry forums in Australia
Regular lecturer on cable technology at ESAA summer schools for
engineers
Co-ordinator of four international cable technology seminars in Sydney
Establishment of apprentice training school & cable jointer training facility
Change management of an organisation transitioning from a monopoly to
a commercially competitive construction business
Overseeing Corporations performance to customer service level
obligations, monitoring customer complaints and liaison with the industry
ombudsman
CONSULTING SERVICES TO UTILITIES & INDUSTRY, SINCE AUGUST 2000
2000/01: Consult to Electricity Supply Companies across Australia on
supply chain management strategies - including e-procurement of
equipment and services via live internet based auctions.
2001/02: Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Authority, ACT, Australia:-
Develop options for the installation of a spare 330kV cable at Tumut No.2
Power Station
2002: HMAS Success, Garden Island Sydney: Investigate damaged
power & control cables on board while vessel under re-fit.
20002: TransGrid, NSW, Australia:- Assist TransGrid in tender
assessment for the 330kV Sydney CBD cable reinforcement project
2002: TransGrid, NSW, Australia:- Assist TransGrid [and J PS] in a field
trial to establish electromagnetic field (EMF) mitigating measures
2002: Ergon Energy, Queensland, Australia:- Assess condition of 66Kv
gas-filled cables in Townsville and recommend maintenance &
replacement strategies
2002: Abu Dhabi Distribution Company, UAE:- Provide lectures (over a 5
month period) to professional staff & field operatives on life cycle issues
related to power cables
2003: Promis Group, Dubai, UAE:- Present training course Power
Cables Operation, Maintenance, Location & Fault Detection
000104
2003: Mallesons Stephen J aques, National Environment & Planning
Group, Sydney, NSW, Australia:- Provide design & estimate for
undergrounding 132kV overhead transmission line (to release land for
development purposes)
2003: TransGrid, NSW, Australia:- Appointed Project Manager to retrofit a
dynamic rating system to 330kV oil-filled cable [incl. assistance to
Parsons Brinckerhoff in preparation of REF].
2003: Blue Circle Southern Cement, Berrima, NSW: Investigate condition
of recently installed, suspect, 33kV XLPE cables
2004: RailCorp NSW: Review and update in-house cable standards and
procurement specifications advise on cable installation on railway bridge
2005: RailCorp, NSW: Assist in technical evaluation of tenders for cable
supply
2006: TransGrid, NSW: Appointed Project Manager Replacement of
330kV Cable J oints involvement in preparation of estimates, REF &
community consultation; co-ordination of many parties incl. J PS (J apan};
Energy Australia, Civil Works Contractor, Traffic Management, Cable
Freezing Service.
2007: Engaged by Snowy Hydro to assist in preparation of Business Case
to replace 330kV cables at T1 & T2 power stations
2007: Engaged by ElectraNet SA as Team Leader/Cables to assist in
route selection & procurement of 275kV cable installation, Adelaide.
2000-2006: Electricity Supply Association of Australia - in
conjunction with various Universities:- Present Professional Development
Course lectures on power cables & overhead line supports.
2000 to present: Secretary ESAA [now ENA] Power Poles & Crossarms
Forum
000105
Name George Bucea
Education
Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Bucharest Polytechnic Institute
(1967).
Other Training
Special Training:
Specialist training in extra high voltage polymeric and oil filled
cable systems and high voltage apparatus.
A total of over 24 months were spent working at cable and
apparatus manufacturers in England, Italy, Germany, J apan
and Finland during the years of 1973 to 2003. Training and
specialising courses were attended at BICC, Pirelli, F&G
Cables, Siemens, Alfa Cavi, CEAT, Nokia and Sumitomo.
Membership of
Professional
Societies:
Member CIGRE AP-B1 High Voltage Cables
Member CIGRE WG-B9 Life Expectancy and Diagnostics
Member Institution of Engineers, Australia (1986 to 2006)
Countries of
Work
Experience
Australia, Romania, Thailand, Singapore, J apan and New
Zealand
Experience
1994 Present
(06/07/2007)
Principal Engineer/HV Underground Power Cable Projects,
TransGrid, Sydney - Australia
TransGrid became the registered business name of the Electricity
Transmission Authority of NSW/Australia as from
30 May 1995.
Responsible for the design, route selection, specification and
contract administration of High Voltage cable installations up to
and including 330 kV, throughout TransGrids transmission
system.
Responsible for material inspection and testing carried out by
cable manufacturers and contractors during manufacture,
installation and commissioning to ensure that all is in compliance
with the contract.
Responsible for the investigation and development of new
technologies in relation to high voltage cable systems and cable
accessories in conjunction with cable manufacturers to achieve
more reliable and cost effective products.
Responsible for the investigation, testing and evaluation of the
condition of TransGrid HV power cable systems and provide
consultancy assistance to HV and EHV cable users from
Australia and overseas.
000106
Experience
(contd)
Some of the most significant cable projects and investigations
were as follows:
1. Since 1999 to 1995 I was responsible for design activity in
relation to a 330 kV 750MVA 28km U/G power cable
system for Sydney Central Business District. The work
included:
Route investigations and feasibility studies
Evaluation of cable technology and setting a strategy
for best tendering processes and technology selection
Preparation of pre-qualification documentation for pre-
selection of most reliable and cost-effective cable
technology and of most competitive cable
manufacturers. The investigated technology
alternatives included XLPE, SCFF-paper and SCFF-
PPL insulated cable types and GIL (gas insulated
lines).
Preparation of tendering documentation
Evaluation of tenders
The design for this cable circuit includes provision for on-line
SCADA and condition monitoring system (CMS) in relation to the
supervision of oil pressure, temperature/rating limitations and
other supervisory systems.
2. Investigate the cable failure and specify/design remedial
works of a 330 kV cable circuit as a result of cable-core
movement (Sydney /1992 - 1996).
3. Investigations of cable network failure in Auckland, New
Zealand (1998). Assist in preparation of the Report of the
Ministerial Enquiry into the Auckland Power Supply Failure.
4. Member of the expert investigation teams employed to
investigate and assess the performance of cable insulation of
aged or faulty 132kV to 400 kV of cable systems in Sydney
Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.
5. Organiser of the Cable Technology Seminars in Sydney,
Australia in 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998 (session dedicated
to Auckland Power Failure). Presentation of technical papers.
6. Investigations of cable network failure in Singapore (2000 to
000107
2006) and the on going diagnostic and technical advise to
Singapore Power. Assist in preparation of technical
documentation related to U/G Cable System Failure (66 to
400kV).
1986 - 1994 Principal Engineer/HV Underground Power Cable Projects,
Pacific Power Transmission Engineering Group, Sydney,
Australia
Same as above.
Experience
(contd)
1974 1985
Head of Extra High Voltage Cable Department,
Electricity Ministry of Romania, Romania
Responsible for design, procurement, installation, commissioning
and maintenance testing of cable systems up to 400 kV. During
this time I implemented development and training programmes to
reduce the dependence of the Romanian Ministry on overseas
technical assistance related range of works associated with HV &
EHV cable systems.
Within that period the total volume of HV underground cable
network in Romania increased 10 fold, i.e. from about 45 km to
more than 500 km by 1985.
SCOF (Self-contained Oil-filled), XLPE (cross-linked
polyethylene) and EPR (ethylene propylene rubber) were the
most common cable systems used.
The installation methods included all possible site conditions such
as direct buried, tunnels, ducts, bridges, troughs, submarine
(River Danube crossing) and buildings.
1967 1974
Professional Engineer/High Voltage Network and
Substations,
Minister of Electricity Romania, Romania
Responsible for maintenance and operation of distribution cable
network and substations.
000108
Publications
1. "110 kV Oil-filled Cable Handbook" Bucea, G, Editura Technica Bucharest,
1979.
2. "J ointing Systems of H.V. Oil-filled Cable Systems" Constructii - Montaj, 1980.
3. High Voltage Cables: Present and Future" - Electroenergetica 1982.
4. "Techniques to Increasing the Current Carrying Capacity of H.V. Cables" Editura
Technica MEE 1983 (Training Manual), 1983.
5. "Management of High Voltage Cable Networks" Editura
Technica MEE 1983 (Training Manual) 1984.
6. "New Types of Insulations for HV Power Cables: PE, XLPE,
EPR" Editura Technica MEE 1983 (Training Manual) 1984.
7. "Repair the Damaged Submarine H.V. Cables Circuits at
Danube Crossing /Romania", Bucea, G Energetica 1985.
8. "Distributed Temperature Sensing of High Voltage Cables -
Case Study from Sydney, Australia" H Kent and G Bucea, CIGRE 21-304/1992
Session.
9. Presentation of technical papers at Cable Technology
Seminars Sydney, Australia 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998
10. Shielding Techniques to Reduce Magnetic Fields Associated
with Underground Power Cables - Case Study from Sydney,Australia G. Bucea
and H. Kent. CIGRE 21-201/1998 Session
11. Preselection of cable type and cable manufacturers for the MetroGrid project in
Sydney Australia. 2003 J icable, Conference/Paper A.1.3.
12. 330 kV Cable System for the MetroGrid Project in Sydney ,Australia - 2004
CIGRE Conference/Paper 302
14. Condition Monitoring Systems for 330kV Cables Supplying, Sydney CBD -
TechCon 2004 Conference Sydney
15. Condition Monitoring System for TransGrid 330kV Cable - Powercon 2004
Singapore
16. Selection and Design of Cable System for HV & EHV
000109
Underground Networks ESAA Summer School, 2005
17 Electrical Losses in Power cables Current dependent and voltage dependent
losses. Cable Technology Seminar, Sydney 2006
18 Performance of XLPE-insulated HV & EHV Cable Systems. Comparative evaluation
of IEC and North American related standards
000110
HAUURU M RAKI
WAIKATO WIND FARM
Overhead Transmission Line
Evaluation
ATTACHMENT No.2 OF THE CONSOLIDATED REPORT
Prepared for
Contact Energy Ltd
Name Date
Written by Jeff Carew 13/03/08
Reviewed by Michael Prance 13/03/08
Reviewed by Vanessa Ranjith 13/03/08
Approved By Joe Warren 13/03/08

Document Name Revision
Waikato Wind Farm Underground Study Rev 5
000111
Waikato Wind Farm Project Overhead Transmission Line Evaluation
Page 3 of 23 13 March 2008
Rev 5

C O N T E N T S

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................4

2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY..........................................................................................6

3. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................5

4. OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSAL ...................................................5

5. EVALUATION OF COSTS (LIFE CYCLE COSTS) ..................................................6

5.1 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE OPTION

6. PERFORMANCE DATA RELATED TO OVERHEAD LINES ..................................9

6.1 RELIABILITY
6.2 EFFICIENCY
6.3 MAINTENANCE
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
6.5 TIMING AND CONSTRUCTABILITY
6.6 FUTURE PLANNING - UPGRADING THE TRANSMISSION CAPACITY

7. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................12

000112
Rev 5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Electrix has formed a relationship with Energy Action Pty Ltd for the purposes of
undertaking consulting work for the Contact Energy Waikato Windfarm. In this
relationship, Electrix has undertaken specific consulting services in relation to the
proposed overhead transmission line(s) which forms part of the overall consulting report to
be submitted by Energy Action Pty Ltd.

This report covers the section of works comprising the 220kV external transmission line
running between the substations located at Limestone Downs and Orton (Appendix A).
The transmission line will connect into the Transpower grid via a substation located at
Orton.

The most relevant aspects related to the design of overhead transmission lines include:

Design Criteria (inter alia, number of circuits, route length, line rating, maximum
operating temp, nominal voltage, conductor type, earthwire system, structure
types, maximum electric field strength, maximum magnetic flux density, audible
noise level, radio frequency interference and easement width etc
Line security status
Reliability
Terrain conditions through which the line passes
Environmental impact of construction and final solution
Rural nature of the project, aesthetic and visual impact
Life cycle costs which include capital costs, cost of losses and maintenance costs
Constructability and timing, including impact on local community during
construction
Current technology and future upgrading

A comparison between overhead & underground alternatives is provided in the
consolidated report together with a comparative discussion as well as a life cycle cost, net
present value (NPV) and break even cost analysis. Factors such as calculations of
expected losses and cost thereof are also included.

2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY

The scope of this study is to evaluate the construction options and cost of a proposed
double circuit overhead line along a proposed corridor

000113
Rev 5

3. INTRODUCTION

Contact Energy (CEN) plans to construct a purpose-built transmission line to transport
electricity output from a new wind farm on the west coast of the Waikato region to the
main grid connection. The detail of this project is contained in the final Project Description
document prepared for the purposes of applying for Resource Consents under the
Resource Management Act.

The main transmission link to the Grid is proposed to be 220 kV. Current plans are for the
link to be a double circuit overhead line on lattice tower construction.

CEN has engaged Energy Action Pty Ltd to provide expert advice on the practicability of
undergrounding and together with Electrix to provide comparisons (including advantages
and disadvantages) between overhead lines and underground cables.

4.0 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSAL

The overhead line proposal comprises a line length of approximately 25 km and 84 towers
carrying a dual circuit configuration. The route has been selected with the following criteria
in mind:

To follow the most direct route and to minimise the visual impact by utilising the
terrain. For example towers are located in valleys and below ridge lines where
possible.
To minimise the impact on areas of environmental, ecological or archaeological
significance
To consider property boundaries, access routes and dwellings.
To consider the constructability of the line and to minimise the impact on the local
community during construction.

In order to evaluate the possibility of undergrounding the overhead transmission line it is
important the design criteria are understood.

The design criteria for this particular line are as follows

Number of circuits 2
Route Length 25km
Line Rating approx 518MVA
Maximum Operating Temp 75 deg
Nominal System Voltage 220kV
Conductors Twin Goat ACSR @ 460mm spacing (initial design
basis)
Earthwire System Single overhead earthwire (probably SC/AC Skunk)
Possible OPGW
Structure Types Double circuit lattice steel tower, Standard
Suspension, Light Strain, Angle/Heavy Suspension,
Heavy Strain/Deadend
Maximum Electric Field Strength As per ICNIRP Guidelines
Maximum Magnetic Flux As per ICNIRP Guidelines
000114
Rev 5

Audible Noise Level 35dBA Franklin district Plan (may require
dispensation to 45dBA in rural areas)
Radio Frequency Interference Compliance with NZS 6869:2004
Easement Width Based upon criteria of conductor swing, audible
noise EMF, RFI Average width 42 m

The route chosen at this stage of the analysis appears to meet all the criteria listed above.
A desktop analysis combined with site visits did not highlight any significant alignment
issues and therefore at this stage, the proposed alignment is the most effective. There
may be some lower level improvements to be made once final design commences.

5. EVALUATION OF COSTS (LIFE CYCLE COSTS)

The life cycle cost analysis for this study includes the following:
Design costs
Planning and consent costs
Initial capital cost of project
Operational costs including maintenance, and energy losses
Fault costs

The Net Present Value is calculated over a 40 year period as this is the typical life cycle of
an underground cable. This cost analysis is relative (i.e. costs that are expected to be
similar for each option are not included in the study).

5.1 TRANSMISSION LINE LIFE CYCLE COST

Design Costs

It is anticipated that the design costs of the overhead line will be similar to the design cost
of the underground cable and are thus not examined.

Planning and Consent Costs

The planning and consent costs of the overhead line option will obviously have the
additional involvement of negotiations with stakeholders, in particular landowners with
towers on their properties. Public forums and notifications are expected to be more time
consuming, with more objections being raised. It is expected that an additional 2 people
for a period of 4 months will be required as compared to the underground option. This
equates to an additional 1300 man hours and a cost of $ 200K. This does not include the
opportunity cost of the lost time.

Additional Planning and consent costs $ 200k

Initial Capital Cost

000115
Rev 5

A comprehensive costing of the proposed overhead line has been performed. Based
upon Electrixs experience in the construction of transmission lines, the following cost
breakdown will apply. Appendix B shows a more detailed breakdown of the costs.
These costs have been developed from actual construction cost as experienced by
Electrix over the past 5 years. Please note these prices are based upon a preliminary
design, typical foundation types and typical tower types as shown in Appendix E.
Detailed design and geotechnical information may have a significant effect on the final
pricing. All costs are at current prices and subject to final design.

Preliminary and General Items $ 187k
Tower Foundations suspension towers $ 5,565k
Tower Foundations strain towers $ 1,412k
Tower Fabrication $ 8,646k
Tower Erection $ 8,143k
Hardware & insulators $ 1,438k
Conductor and Earthwire $ 3,225k
Conductor Stringing $ 3,515k
Commissioning and testing $ 357k

Total Initial Capital cost $31,961k

Future Capital Costs

Foundation interface refurbishment @30 years $ 830k
Tower Painting @30 years $ 2,500k
Insulator Replacement @30 years $ 2,500K
Reconductoring at 40 Years incl materials $ 7,000k

Total future capital costs $12,800k (2008 dollars)

Maintenance costs

An overhead transmission line requires a certain amount of maintenance throughout its
life. Electrix has been involved in the construction and maintenance of overhead
transmission lines since 1988. Based upon this experience an expected maintenance
regime can be developed for the transmission line in question. The costs shown are for
annual maintenance which includes patrols, vegetation control, minor steel replacements,
climbing deterrents and access work. These figures are conservative since depending on
the environment, corrosion zone, pollution, prevailing winds and temperature ranges, the
life span may vary significantly.

Annual unscheduled maintenance costs per annum $ 50k

Cost due to Losses

Appendix D shows the calculation of losses for the transmission line based upon the
design criteria. If we assume the average generation will be 300MVA then the following
losses apply

000116
Rev 5

Total losses for transmission line 4,154 kW
Cost /kWh $ 0.03 per kWh
Total cost of losses per hour $125 per hr
Total cost per annum $ 1,095 k per annum

Cost due to Outages and Faults

Overhead transmission lines are subject to planned and forced outages. It is reasonable
to assume that a new transmission line should operate better than the current existing
lines in the grid which are nearly all 40 to 50 years old. The failures rates over the past 10
years are shown below

Actual sustained recorded forced outage rate for all Transpower 220kV lines
1

Forced outage rate 0.34 per 100km/annum taking 1.808 hrs to repair
Planned outage rate 0.92 per 100km/annum taking 17.45 hrs to repair

By assuming that the rate for this particular case is similar to that of the aging Transpower
grid, then the costs would not be any worse.

Assuming each outage requires a 10 man team to repair, the costs associated with
outages are:

Forced outages 0.34 /4 x 1.808 hrs x 10 men x $100/hr =$154 /annum
Planned Outages .92 /4 x 17.45 hrs x 10 men X 100/hr =$ 4014/annum
Total outage costs per annum =$ 4168/annum

Net Present Value

The net present value is based upon the planning costs, the initial capital cost, the annual
maintenance costs and the fault costs. A capitalisation index of 5% is used with a term of
40 years. Appendix C has the detailed calculations

As can be seen from the above the overhead transmission line has a Net Present Value
of:

1
Transpower-Asset Development group-Comparison of the reliability of a 400kV Underground
Cable with an overhead line for a 200km Circuit.-2005
Net Present Value for Overhead Line
NPV
oh
C
i.oh
C
fut.oh
+
1
n
j
C
o.oh
C
f.oh
+
( )
1
1 i +
=
+ :=
NPV
oh
65.990 10
6
=
C
i.oh
31.961 10
6
:= Initial Investment for overhead line ($ NZ)
C
fut.oh
12.8 10
6
:= Future capital replacement costs ($ NZ)
000117
Rev 5

NPV for overhead transmission line option =$65,990,000.00

6. PERFORMANCE DATA RELATED TO OVERHEAD LINES

6.1 Reliability

A measure of underground and overhead transmission line reliability is the rate at which
they fail or are subjected to outages. Outages can be forced (due to a problem on the
network), or planned. Overhead transmission lines are often subjected to transient faults
which are normally cleared via an auto reclose. These faults are not considered in this
analysis as they are normally cleared within a few seconds.

Outage rates are measured by considering the number of outages per 100 circuit
kilometres. Transpower prepared a report which highlighted the outage rates for forced
and planned outages
2
.
Since these figures are a record of the 10 year period between J uly 1992 and J une 2004,
they are considered appropriate for this analysis. The results are as follows:

Forced Outage Rate 0.34 per 100km per annum
Planned outage rate 0.92 per 100km per annum

Due to the lack of data for New Zealand, figures from the report Commission of European
communities - Background Paper- Undergrounding of Electricity Lines in Europe Brussels
10 December 2005 are used for this analysis and, indicate the following:

Average Failure Rate 0.072 per 100km per annum
Planned Failure Rate 2.5 per 100km per annum

This figure was confirmed by a DISCAB Group on figures over the past 12 years and was
presented at the ICF Congress in Barcelona. Other reports including CIGRE and various
American studies show varying rates from 1.4 to 4.1 faults per circuit kilometre.

2
Transpower-Asset Development group-Comparison of the reliability of a 400kV Underground
Cable with an overhead line for a 200km Circuit.-2005
C
o.oh
1.233 10
6
:= Operational costs for overhead line including losses and
Maintenance per annum ($ NZ)
C
f.oh
4.171 10
3
:=
Fault costs for overhead line per annum ($ NZ)
i 5% := Capitalisation Index
n 40 := Evaluation period 40 years - effective life of the system
000118
Rev 5

For this analysis the rate of .072 has been used which equates to the following expected
outages for a 25 km long overhead line and a 38 km long underground cable.

Outage Rate-forced 0.34 /100km 0.072/100km -4.7
No. expected outages/annum 0.085 per annum 0.027 per annum -3.1
Total no. outages 40 years 3.4 outages 1.08 -3.1

Outage Rate-Planned 0.92 /100km 2.5/100km 2.6
No. expected outages/annum 0.23 per annum 0.95 per annum 4.1
Total no. outages 40 years 9.2 outages 38 outages 4.1

From the above it is evident that underground cables have a better reliability rate based
upon forced outages (European figures), but require more planned outages. In addition
there are reports which indicate the reverse, depending on the sample size, type of cable
analysed etc. However for the purposes of this report and based upon recent
developments in cable technology, the figures used are believed to be representative.

Repair Times

Repair time is another factor to be considered under reliability. The repair of overhead
lines is significantly shorter than that of underground cables. In addition, live-line
maintenance can be performed on overhead lines, thus reducing the duration of the
outages.

Results for the last 10 years from Transpowers records for overhead lines show the
following

Average repair time for forced outages 1.808 hrs
Planned maintenance average 17.45 hrs

Studies conducted by consultants Meritec show the following repair times for underground
cables.
3
This is indicative for New Zealand conditions.

Average Underground (XLPE) Cable repair time 200hrs to 300 hrs

Based upon the failure rate and the repair times, availability per unit can be calculated.
This is based upon the outage rate and the total number of hours per year. Using the
figures above, the following availability per unit is expected.

Availability per unit 0.9962 p.u. 0.9802 p.u. 1.01

3
Meritec Report, Repair Scenarios for 220kV and 110kV Cable Installations November 2001
000119
Rev 5

6.2 Efficiency

The efficiency of a transmission system is dependent upon the losses. For overhead
transmission lines, aluminium conductors are used mainly for weight purposes. Using a
dual transmission system greatly reduces the impedance of the circuit and hence the
losses.

In underground cables copper conductor is often used which has a lower electrical
resistance than aluminium. However, due to the fact that cables are buried, the heat
generated needs to pass through the soil to reach the surface where heat is dissipated.
Soil thermal resistivity plays an important part in heat dissipation and cable rating.

Appendix D shows the calculations of the losses associated with the overhead
transmission line.

Overhead Line (25km) Underground Cable (38km)
Ratio

Losses kW 4154 kW 4125 kW (600MVA) 1:1

6.3 Maintenance

As discussed above, repair time for overhead lines is measured in hours whereas repair
times for underground cables is measured in days. Overhead lines require a significant
amount of long term routine maintenance as well as ongoing unscheduled maintenance
which includes vegetation management, patrols, access maintenance, fault patrols,
climbing deterrent maintenance, minor steel replacement etc. The maintenance schedule
for an overhead line is typically as follows:

Routine patrols every six months
Vegetation management monthly
Access maintenance six monthly
Minor steel replacements annually
Climbing deterrent maintenance after each patrol

The total cost of the above work is estimated at $50k per annum

6.4 Environmental Impact

Overhead transmission lines are large structures and create a visual impact. This is
known as visual pollution and may form the basis of discontent for landowners and the
public. However, in this particular design every measure has been taken to minimise the
visual impact by keeping structures below ridgelines and out of sight where possible. The
route has been selected to minimise the impact on any natural bush, areas of
environmental, ecological or archaeological significance.

000120
Rev 5

6.5 Timing and Constructability

The terrain in the region is fairly remote, undulating and rural. Construction of a
transmission line through this terrain is constricted by access to the tower sites. In some
cases access will be only by helicopter due to the restrictions resulting from native bush
and the terrain.

The construction of the overhead transmission line is dependent on the quantum of
resources allocated. With 4 foundation crews, 4 tower erection crews and 2 large
conductoring crews, the line could be constructed within 12 months. However due to the
nature of the terrain, winter work would be significantly more difficult and hazardous,
particularly in the Limestone Downs area. It is therefore proposed that an 18 month
construction period be allowed to ensure that optimum productivity is achieved during the
summer months.

6.6 Future planning - Upgrading the Transmission Capacity

The wind farm has the potential to increase generation capacity by 110MW from the initial
540MW. If this generation capacity is achieved, the transmission circuits will need to be
upgraded or catered for at the initial design stage.

The thermal ratings of existing overhead transmission lines can be increased (provided
that the static components of the line are appropriately rated) by re-tensioning the line to
allow a higher operating temperature.

Underground cables do not offer the same flexibility and any increase in thermal capacity
will have to be catered for during the initial design stage.

7. APPENDICES

000121
Rev 5

Appendix A

Map showing Overhead Transmission Line Route

000122
Rev 5

0
0
0
1
2
3
Rev 5

0
0
0
1
2
4

Rev 5

Appendix B

Initial Capital Cost Breakdown
Of Overhead Line

000125

Rev 5

0
0
0
1
2
6

Rev 5

Appendix C

Net Present Value Calculations
and Break Even Cost Calculations
for Overhead and Underground Options

000127

Rev 5

Breakeven investment cost Underground Cable vs. Overhead line
C
i.oh
31.961 10
6
:= Initial Investment for overhead line ($ NZ)
C
fut.oh
12.8 10
6
:= Future capital replacement costs ($ NZ)
C
o.oh
1.233 10
6
:= Operational costs for overhead line including losses and
Maintenance per annum ($ NZ)
C
f.oh
4.171 10
3
:= Fault costs for overhead line per annum ($ NZ)
C
i.ug
367 10
6
:= Initial Investment for Underground Cable ($ NZ)
C
o.ug
1.137 10
6
:= Operational costs for underground Cable including losses and maintenance per
annum ($ NZ)
C
f.ug
20 10
3
:= Fault costs for underground Cable per annum ($ NZ)
i 5% := Capitalisation Index
n 40 := Evaluation period 40 years -effective life of the system
C
be
C
i.oh
C
fut.oh
+
1
n
j
C
o.oh
C
f.oh
+ C
o.ug
C
f.ug
( )
1
1 i +
=
+ :=
C
be
46.137 10
6
=
Net Present Value for Overhead Line
NPV
oh
C
i.oh
C
fut.oh
+
1
n
j
C
o.oh
C
f.oh
+
( )
1
1 i +
=
+ :=
NPV
oh
65.990 10
6
=
Net Present Value for Underground Cable
NPV
ug
C
i.ug
1
n
j
C
o.ug
C
f.ug
+
( )
1
1 i +
=
+ :=
NPV
ug
386.853 10
6
=
000128

Rev 5

Appendix D

Calculations of Losses for Overhead Transmission
lines

000129

Rev 5

Calculation of Losses for Transmission Line
Power 518 := MVA
Voltage 220 := kV
CircuitCurrent
Power
Voltage 3
:=
CircuitCurrent 1.359 = kA
PhaseCurrent
CircuitCurrent 10
3
2
:=
Amps
PhaseCurrent 679.699 =
SubconductorCurrent
PhaseCurrent
2
:=
SubconductorCurrent 339.849 = Amps
ACResistanceGoat 0.109 :=
Ohms per km per Phase
PowerLoss ACResistanceGoat SubconductorCurrent
2
2 3 :=
PowerLoss 75.535 10
3
= KW /km /circuit
TotalLoss PowerLoss 25 2 ( )
1.1
1000
10% + := For corona losses and conductor length
TotalLoss 4154.548 = Kw
000130

Rev 5

Appendix E

Typical Tower Configuration
And Foundation Configuration

000131

Rev 5

0
0
0
1
3
2

Rev 5

0
0
0
1
3
3

12 Kent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Kent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Counsel Instructed:

(Eddy currents not included), quantity which is defined as

You might also like