1

Reactive Power Performance Requirements for

Wind and Solar Plants
A. Ellis, Senior Member, IEEE, R. Nelson, Member, IEEE, E. Von Engeln, R. Walling, Fellow, IEEE, J.
MacDowell, Member, IEEE, L. Casey, Member, IEEE, E. Seymour, Senior Member, IEEE, W. Peter,
Member, IEEE, C. Barker, Member, IEEE, B. Kirby, Senior Member, IEEE, J. R. Williams, Member, IEEE
AbstractA current challenge faced by the electric utility
industry is to determine how variable generation plants (wind
and solar) should contribute to the reliable operation of the
electric grid, especially as penetration of these resources
continues its upward trend. Traditionally, bulk system voltage
regulation has predominately been supplied by synchronous
generators, and this is reflected in the language of industry
requirements. Where variable generation is concerned the
requirements are vague and unclear. The technology used in
variable generation plants are capable of providing voltage
support, but will require a shift from how these plants are
traditionally operated.
This paper discusses the capability of wind and solar plants to
provide voltage regulation. It also examines the deficiencies in
existing standards and provides recommendations to improve
upon existing requirements in order to clearly define the role of
variable generation in providing voltage support to the bulk
electric grid.
Index Terms interconnection requirements, reactive power,
solar, variable generation, voltage regulation, wind.

I. INTRODUCTION

oltage on the North American bulk system is normally

regulated by Generator Operators, which typically are
provided with voltage schedules by Transmission System
operators. In the past, variable generation plants were
considered very small relative to conventional generating
units, and were characteristically either induction generator
(wind) or line-commutated inverters (PV) that have no
inherent voltage regulation capability. Bulk system voltage
regulation was provided almost exclusively by synchronous
generators. However, the growing level of penetration of nontraditional renewable generation especially wind and solar
has led to the need for renewable generation to contribute
more significantly to power system voltage and reactive

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energys

National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC0494AL85000.
Abraham Ellis and Joseph Williams are with Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque.
Robert Nelson is with Siemens Wind, Orlando, FL.
Edi Von Engeln is with NV Energy, Reno, NV.
Reigh Walling and Jason MacDowell are with GE Energy, Schenectady,
NY.
Leo Casey is with Satcon Technology Corporation, Boston, MA.
Eric Seymour is with Advanced Energy Industries, Fort Collins, CO.
William Peter is with SunPower Corporation, Richmond, CA.
Christopher Barker is with BEW Engineering, San Ramon, CA.
Brendan Kirby is a private consultant, Palm City, FL.

regulation. For the most part, new wind plants use doubly-fed
asynchronous generators or full-conversion machines with
self-commutated
electronic
interfaces,
which
have
considerable dynamic reactive and voltage capability. If
needed to meet interconnection requirements, the reactive
power capability of solar and wind plants can be further
enhanced by the adding of SVC, STATCOMS and other
reactive support equipment at the plant level. Currently,
inverter-based reactive capability is more costly compared to
the same capability supplied by synchronous machines. Partly
for this reason, FERC stipulated in Order 661-A (applicable to
wind generators) that a site-specific study must be conducted
by the transmission operator to justify the reactive capability
requirement up to 0.95 lag to lead at the point of
interconnection [1]. For solar PV, it is expected that similar
interconnection requirements for power factor range and lowvoltage ride through will be formulated in the near future.
Inverters used for solar PV and wind plants can provide
reactive capability at partial output, but any inverter-based
reactive capability at full power implies that the converter
need to be sized larger to handle full active and reactive
current.
Nonetheless, variable generation resources such as wind
and solar PV are often located in remote locations, with weak
transmission connections. It is not uncommon for wind parks
and solar PV sites to have short circuit ratios (i.e., ratios of
three-phase short circuit mega volt-amperes (MVA) divided
by nominal MVA rating of the plant) of 5 or less. Voltage
support in systems like this is a vital ancillary service to
prevent voltage instability and ensure good power transfer.
Voltage regulation in distribution systems is normally
performed at the distribution substation level and distribution
voltage regulation by distributed resources is not allowed by
IEEE 1547 [2]. Normally, distributed resources operate with
fixed power factor with respect to the local system. Currently,
the IEEE 1547 working group is addressing issues of high
penetration of variable generators on distribution systems.
The main focus of this paper is the interconnection of variable
generators on the bulk transmission system. Section II
discusses the reactive capability of synchronous generators, as
reactive power requirements where historically tailored to
these type of machines. Section III and IV discusses the
reactive ability of wind and solar generators, as these
machines and the power plants they are employed in have
different topologies than conventional plants their ability to
provide reactive power support will be different than a
synchronous machine. Section V discusses the difference

between fast acting dynamic and slower static reactive

capability and the difference in equipment needed to supply
one or the other. Section VI discusses different modes of
reactive power support that can be employed depending on
operational considerations. Sections VII, VIII, and IX provide
recommendations to clarify and or change reactive power
requirements that would assist industry in standardization the
reactive capability of variable generation plants.
II. REACTIVE CAPABILITY OF SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS
Customarily, when reactive capability of variable
generation resources is specified for transmission
interconnections, it is done at the Point of Interconnection
(POI), which is the point at which power is delivered to the
transmission system. This is often (but not always) at the high
side of the main facility transformer. A typical requirement
would be 0.95 power factor lag to lead at the POI, meaning
that the machine should be capable of providing (lagging pf)
or absorbing (leading) approximately 1/3 of its active power
rating (MW) in reactive power (MVAr). This lag to lead
specification originated from FERC Order 2000 (Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement) and was suggested by
NERC as a representative synchronous generator capability
[3]. In reality, synchronous generators are almost always
applied with power factor measured at the terminals, not at the
POI. Conventional synchronous generator reactive power
capability is typically described by a D curve that covers the
range from zero to rated output. However, it should be noted
that synchronous generators are limited by the minimum load
capability of the generating plant. Some conventional
generators are designed to operate as synchronous condensers,
allowing them to provide reactive power at zero load, but they
still cannot operate between zero and minimum load. The
ability to provide reactive power at zero load must be
designed into the plant and it is not possible with many larger
plant designs. The significance of the discussion above is that
the practical reactive power capability of a typical
synchronous generator is more limited than the typical D
curve shows (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Example of reactive power capability of a synchronous generator

considering plant minimum load.

Assuming negligible auxiliary load, the corresponding

power factor at the transmission interface can be easily
calculated given the generator power factor at the terminals

and the reactance of the generator step-up transformer.

Generally, a generator with a reactive capability of 0.9 lag,
0.983 lead (measured at the generator terminals) connected to
the transmission system through a transformer with a leakage
reactance of 14% on the generator MVA base can provide
0.95 lag to lead at the transmission interface if the
transmission system is at nominal (i.e., 100%) voltage.
Typical specifications for synchronous generators require
0.90 lagging and 0.95 leading at the machine terminals in
order to allow voltage regulation at a transmission voltage
range of 90% to 110%. Synchronous generators have
maximum continuous voltages of 105%, and minimum
voltage of 95%. Depending on the system voltage and
generator output level, these limits may come into play, in
which case the reactive power capability would be reduced.
A specification of 0.95 lead to lag at full power is
commonly stipulated for variable generation. However,
terminal voltage limitations also affect reactive power
capability of variable generators; therefore, to capture this
effect, the reactive power versus voltage characteristic should
be specified separately from the reactive range. For example,
in addition to a 0.95 lead to lag reactive range requirement,
the chart shown in Figure 2 could be used to specify the
reactive power capability versus voltage characteristic.

Fig. 2. Illustration of reactive power requirements as a function of POI

voltage.

III. REACTIVE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR WIND AND

SOLAR PV GENERATORS
PV plants and some types of wind generators use power
converters. The reactive capability of power electronic
converters differ from those of synchronous machines because
they are normally not power-limited, as synchronous
machines are, but limited by internal voltage, temperature, and
current constraints. The sections below discuss reactive
power capability of individual wind turbine generators and
solar PV inverters. Customarily, when reactive capability of
variable generation resources is specified for transmission
interconnections, it is done at the Point of Interconnection
(POI), which is the point at which power is delivered to the
transmission.
A. Wind Generators
Wind generators with converter interface are often
designed for operation from 90% to 110% of rated terminal

voltage. Lagging capability may diminish as terminal voltage

increases because of internal voltage constraints and may
diminish as terminal voltage decreases because of converter
current constraints. Leading capability normally increases
with increasing terminal voltage. Doubly fed and fullconverter wind generators are often sold with a triangular,
rectangular, or D shape reactive capability characteristic,
shown in Figure 3. This represents the reactive power
capability of individual wind generators or PV inverters.
Reactive power capability at the plant level is discussed in
Section IV.

inverters have the capability to absorb or inject reactive

power, if needed, provided that current and terminal voltage
ratings are not exceeded. Considering that inverter cost is
related to current rating, provision of reactive power at full
output means that the inverter needs to be larger for the same
plant MW rating, which comes at a higher cost compared to
existing industry practice. In principle, inverters could
provide reactive power support at zero power, similar to a
STATCOM. However, this functionality is not standard in the
industry. PV inverters are typically disconnected from the
grid at night, in which case the inverter-based reactive power
capability is not available. This practice could, of course, be
modified, if site conditions dictate the use of reactive
capability during periods when generation is normally offline.
IV. REACTIVE CAPABILITY OF VARIABLE GENERATION
PLANTS

Fig. 3. Various reactive power capability curves for wind generators at

nominal voltage.

Machines with a rectangular or D-shaped reactive

capability characteristic may be employed to provide voltage
regulation service when they are not producing active power
(e.g., a low-wind-speed condition for a wind resource or at
night for a PV resource, or during a curtailment) by operation
in a STATCOM mode. However, this capability may not be
available or may not be enabled by default. Unlike doubly fed
or full-converter wind turbine generators, induction-based
wind generators without converters are unable to control
reactive power. Under steady-state conditions, they absorb
reactive power just like any other induction machine.
Typically, mechanically switched capacitors are applied at the
wind generator terminals to correct the power factor to unity.
Several capacitor stages are used to maintain power factor
near unity over the range of output.
B. PV Inverters
PV inverters have a similar technological design to fullconverter wind generators, and are increasingly being sold
with similar reactive power capability. Historically, however,
PV inverters have been designed for deployment in the
distribution system, where applicable interconnection
standards (IEEE 1547) do not currently allow for voltage
regulation. Inverters for that application are designed to
operate at unity power factor, and are sold with a kilowatt
(kW) rating, as opposed to a kilovolt-ampere (kVA) rating.
Furthermore, at low DC Voltages (MPP voltage) many PV
inverters cannot provide full reactive power support
(overexcited). With the increased use of PV inverters on the
transmission network, the industry is moving towards the
ability to provide reactive power capability. Some PV

Reactive power requirements for interconnection are

specified at the POI. Between the POI and the generator
terminals is a series of collection feeders designed to collect
the output power of each generator. Given the spatial
dispersion of the generators for a given system, the added
impedance will impact the reactive power delivered at the POI
relative to the generators reactive power contribution. This is
an important consideration for wind and solar plants. First of
all, it means that several technical options can be considered
in the plant design to meet interconnection requirements.
Technically, a plant with inverter-based wind or solar
generators could rely on the inverters to provide part or all the
necessary reactive power range at the POI. It may be more
economical to use external static and dynamic devices such as
a STATCOM, an SVC, or mechanically switched capacitors
(MSCs). The additional amount of reactive support required
depends on the reactive capability of individual wind
generators of PV inverters and how it is utilized. Sometimes,
external dynamic reactive support is required to assist with
voltage ride-through compliance.
During periods of low wind or solar resource, some
generators in the plant may be disconnected from the grid, and
the DC voltage for solar PV inverters may limit the reactive
power capability of the inverters. This should be taken into
consideration when specifying reactive power capability for
variable generation plants. Below a certain output level, it
makes sense for the specification to show a reduced power
factor range, or a permissive MVAr range. Figure 4 shows
several possible reactive power capability specifications for
variable generation, applicable at the POI.

Fig. 4. Example of reactive capability specifications at the POI. At low

output levels, as indicated by the shaded area, a permissive reactive range may
be considered.

The interconnection requirements such as those shown in

Figure 4 are often applied to transmission-connected wind
power plants. In the case of PV, a requirement to maintain
reactive power range at full output represents a change with
respect to historical industry practice. This cost impact could
be substantial if the PV plant relies on the PV inverters to
provide a portion or all of the required plant-level reactive
power capability. In order to achieve a power factor range of
0.95 lead or lag at the POI at rated plant output using only the
inverters, the total inverter rating would have to increase by as
much as 10%, considering reactive losses. It should be noted
that both PV plants and inverter-based wind plants are
technically capable of providing reactive capability at full
kVA output. The difference is that such a requirement is new
to the solar industry compared to the wind industry. In order
to keep pace with the needs of the industry more inverter
manufactures have de-rated their inverters and now provide
both a kW and kVA rating.
In addition to the reactive capability versus output level
discussed above, a complete specification should address the
expected reactive capability during off-nominal voltage
conditions, as illustrated in Figure 2.
V. STATIC VS. DYNAMIC REACTIVE CAPABILITY
Transmission Operators may specify both a dynamic range
and a total range of reactive operation. Some Transmission
Operators, for example, may specify a dynamic range of 0.95
lead to lag and a total range of 0.95 lead, 0.90 lag, indicating a
need for smooth and rapid operation between 0.95 lead and
lag, but allowing for some time delay for lagging power
factors below 0.95.
Dynamic reactive capability from
converters can be provided almost instantaneously in a
manner similar to that of synchronous machines, responding
almost instantly (i.e., within a cycle) to system voltage
variations, to support the system during transient events, such
as short circuits, switching surges, etc. Fixed capacitors or
reactors can be used to shift the dynamic reactive capability
toward the lagging or leading side, respectively, as needed. If
there is inadequate dynamic reactive capability available from
the variable generation resources, it may be necessary to
supplement the variable generation resources with an SVC or

a STATCOM.
Non-dynamic reactive sources, such as supplemental
mechanically switchable capacitors or reactors, can be
installed to increase total (but not dynamic) reactive
capability. Breaker times are in the range of cycles, not
seconds. However, once disconnected, capacitors cannot be
re-inserted without first being discharged (unless synchronous
switching is used). Normally, discharge takes five minutes.
Rapid discharge transformers can be applied to execute
discharge in a few seconds. Good engineering practice
requires that consideration be given to operation of switched
reactive resources. For example, it is sometimes required that
lagging reactive capability be placed in service as a function
of variable generation output, irrespective of system voltage
conditions. A Transmission Operator may require, for
example, that capacitors be placed in service to compensate
for transmission reactive losses whenever the output of a wind
park exceeds 90% of rated capability. If the system voltage is
high and the turbines are already operating at the leading
power factor limit, placing capacitors in service may cause a
high transient and steady-state overvoltage that can result in
turbine tripping and other operational difficulties. It may be
necessary to adjust transformer taps to bias turbine voltages in
a safe direction if such operation is necessary.
VI. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Reactive capability on transmission systems is typically
deployed in voltage regulation mode. The transmission
system operator provides a voltage schedule and the generator
(conventional or variable generation) is expected to adjust
reactive output to keep the voltage close to the set point level.
Normally this is done by either regulating the resources
terminal voltage on the low side of the resources main
transformer. Another emerging practice is to adjust reactive
output per a reactive droop characteristic, using the
transmission voltage. Reactive droop in the range of 2% to
10% is typically employed. A typical droop of 4% simply
means that the resource will adjust reactive output linearly
with deviation from scheduled voltage so that full reactive
capability is deployed when the measured voltage deviates
from the scheduled voltage by more than 4%. A 1% deviation
results in 25% of available reactive capability being deployed,
etc. A voltage deviation less than the deadband limit would
not require the resource to change reactive power output.
The specifications of the reactive droop requirement (e.g.,
the deadband of the droop response, together with the
response time to voltage changes) may lead to requirements
for dynamic reactive power support as well as potentially fastacting plant controller behavior. Reactive droop capability
has yet to be demonstrated in the field for solar PV plants,
although there are no technical impediments to the
implementation of such a control scheme. Individual wind
generators and solar PV inverters typically follow a power
factor, or reactive power, set point. The power factor set point
can be adjusted by a plant-level volt/var regulator, thus
allowing the generators to participate in voltage control. In

some cases, the relatively slow communication interface (on

the order of several seconds) of inverters limits the reactive
power response time.

Fig. 5. Example of Reactive Droop control with Deadband

Reactive droops of less than 2% for voltage regulation on

the transmission system are essentially bang-bang voltage
controls that may introduce oscillations, cause excessively
rapid voltage fluctuations, and deplete reactive reserves for
contingencies. They may be necessary in some weak systems,
but they should generally be avoided, if possible. For large
plants connected to the transmission system, reactive power
control (fixed Q) and power factor control (fixed ratio of Q to
P) is not generally used because they can result in
inappropriate response to system voltage fluctuations and they
generally detract from local system voltage stability.
However, it should be noted that reactive or power factor
control may be desirable when connected to a very stiff bus
relative to the plant size. Moreover, power factor control is
generally required for distribution-connected systems.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING
NERC STANDARDS
NERC should consider revisions to its Facility Design,
Connections, and Maintenance (FAC) and Voltage and
Reactive (VAR) standards to ensure that reactive power
requirements for all generators are addressed in a technically
clear and technology-neutral manner. As with all new or
changing requirements, appropriate consideration should be
given to the applicability to existing generators. Suggested
updates are as follows:
Consider adding a clarification to FAC-001 expanding
R.2.1.3 or as an appendix, stating that interconnection
standards for reactive power must cover specifications for
minimum static and dynamic reactive power requirements at
full power and at partial power, and how terminal voltage
should affect the power factor or reactive range requirement
(see Section IX for technical guidelines) [4].
Consider modifying VAR-001 to include the term plantlevel volt/var controller (in addition to AVR), which is
more appropriate for variable generation. Specific

recommended changes are underlined below [5]:

VAR-001 R4. Each Transmission Operator shall specify a
voltage or Reactive Power schedule at the interconnection
between the generator facility and the Transmission Owner's
facilities to be maintained by each generator. The
Transmission Operator shall provide the voltage or Reactive
Power schedule to the associated Generator Operator and
direct the Generator Operator to comply with the schedule in
automatic voltage control mode (AVR or plant-level volt/var
regulator in service and controlling voltage).
A large amount of variable generation, including most of
the solar PV deployment, will be relatively small plants with
capacity below the threshold specified in the existing NERC
Registry Criteria, and connected at voltages below 100 kV.
This includes residential and commercial systems, as well as
larger plants connected to the distribution or sub-transmission
system. To the extent that these systems, in aggregate, can
affect the reliability of the bulk grid, the FAC and VAR
standards should be extended or revised to accommodate
them. A prospective NERC standard addressing reactive
requirements for smaller plants should recognize that
distribution-connected variable generation plants have
traditionally been operated in power factor control mode.
VIII. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT AND RECONCILIATION
For the most part, existing NERC and FERC
interconnection standards were developed with a class of
equipment in mind (synchronous generators), and do not fully
define performance requirements for reactive power support.
This has resulted in unclear, inconsistent, and sometimes
inappropriate interconnection reactive power requirements for
generators, especially variable generation. Specific
recommendations are as follows:
NERC should promote greater uniformity and clarity of
reactive power requirements contained in connection
standards that Transmission Operators have issued pursuant to
FAC-001. NERC, FERC, and other applicable regional
standards should be reconciled.
NERC should consider initiating a Standards
Authorization Request (SAR) to establish minimum reactive
power capability standards for interconnection of all
generators, and provide clear definitions of acceptable control
performance (see Section IX below for technical guidelines).
IX. TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFICATION OF REACTIVE
POWER REQUIREMENTS
Variable generation technologies are technically capable of
providing steady-state and dynamic reactive power support to
the grid. Based on a review of best practices and operating
experience, we offer the following technical guidelines for
specification of reactive power capability and control

requirements for interconnection of generating plants to the

transmission system:
A. Applicability
Generator interconnection requirement for reactive power
should be clearly established for all generator technologies.
NERC adheres to the notion of technology neutrality when it
comes to reliability standards; however, certain unique
characteristics of variable generation may justify different
applicability criteria or appropriate variances. Technology
differences were considered in nearly all international
interconnection standards for wind generation [6]. A key
consideration is whether reactive power capability should be a
baseline requirement for all variable generation plants, or if it
should evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The later approach
was adopted in FERCs Order 661-A. A thorough analysis to
establish the need for reactive power support necessitates the
establishment and application of clear and consistent criteria
for reactive planning that takes into account system needs
such as steady-state voltage regulation, voltage stability, and
local line compensation requirements under normal and
contingency conditions. Without consistent application of a
set of planning criteria, establishing the need for reactive
power can become a complicated process considering that
multiple transmission expansion plans and generator
interconnection requests that may be under evaluation.
Application of a baseline requirement for reactive power to all
generators would address this concern to a large extent.
However, in some situations, additional reactive power from
variable generation plants may not contribute appreciably to
system reliability. NERC should consider giving transmission
planners some discretion to establish variance based on the
characteristics of their transmission system.
B. Specification of Reactive Range
The reactive range requirement should be defined over the
full output range. A Q versus P chart should be used for
clarity. A baseline capability of 0.95 lead/lag at full output
and nominal voltage should be considered. Unlike most
conventional generators, variable generation plants routinely
operate at low output levels, where it is difficult and
unnecessary to operate within a power factor envelope. All or
a portion of the generators in a wind or solar plant may be
disconnected during periods of low wind or solar resource,
which means that reactive power capability may be
considerably reduced. For these reasons, it makes technical
sense to allow variable generation to operate within a
permissive reactive power range (as opposed to a power factor
envelope) when the active power level is below a reasonable
threshold such as 20% of plant rating.
C. Impact of System Voltage on Reactive Power Capability
It should be recognized that system voltage level affects a
generating plants ability to deliver reactive power to the grid
and the power systems requirement for reactive support. A Q
versus V chart could be used to describe the relationship

between system voltage and reactive power. A reduced

requirement to inject vars into the power system when the POI
voltage is significantly above nominal and a reduced
requirement to absorb vars when the POI voltage is
significantly below nominal should be considered.
D. Specification of Dynamic Reactive Capability
The standard should clearly define what is meant by
Dynamic Reactive Capability. The standard could specify
the portion of the reactive power capability that is expected to
be dynamic. For example, the baseline requirement could be
that at least 50% of the reactive power range be dynamic.
Alternatively, the definition of control performance (e.g., time
response) can be used to specify the desired behavior.
E. Definition of Control Performance
Expected volt/var control performance should be specified,
including minimum control response time for voltage control,
power factor control, and reactive power control. For
example, a reasonable minimum response time constant for
voltage, power factor, or reactive power control may be 10
seconds or comparable to a synchronous generator under
similar grid conditions. Consistent with existing VAR-002
[7], voltage control should be expected for transmissionconnected plants; however, as previously discussed, power
factor control is a technically reasonable alternative for plants
that are relatively small. An interim period for the application
of precisely defined control capabilities should be considered.
F. Effect of Generator Synchronization on System Voltage
Synchronization of generators to the grid should not cause
excessive dynamic or steady-state voltage change at the point
of connection. A 2% limit may be considered as a baseline.
G. Special Considerations
NERC should investigate whether transmission operators
can, under some conditions, allow variable generating plants
to operate normally or temporarily at an active power level
where dynamic reactive capability is limited or zero. If needed
for reliability and upon command from the system operator,
these plants could temporarily reduce active power output to
maintain a reactive range. Such an approach could make
sense depending on the size of the plant and its location on the
system. The possibility of operating in this manner could be
considered as part of the interconnection study.
H. Technical Alternatives for Meeting Reactive Power
Capability
The reactive power requirements should be applicable at
the point of interconnection. Technical options to meet the
interconnection requirements should not be restricted. For
example, reactive power support at the point of
interconnection need not be provided by inverters themselves;
they could be provided by other plant-level reactive support
equipment.
I. Commissioning Test
Commissioning tests, which are part of the interconnection

process, often include a test to demonstrate plant compliance

with reactive power capability requirements. Commissioning
tests often include verification of reactive power capability at
rated power as a condition to allow operation at that level of
output. An alternative approach should be used for variable
generation plants, considering that the output cannot be
controlled. For example, PV plants may be designed such that
maximum output is reached only during certain months of the
year, and it may not be possible to conduct a commissioning
test at rated power output for several months.
X. CONCLUSION
As variable generation continues to grow in capacity on the
electric utility grid it is necessary to transition from the
operational practice of reactive support being solely provided
by synchronous generators. Advances in the technology used
for variable generation has now provided them with the ability
for voltage regulation and reactive support, compared to the
older induction generators and line commutated devices. This
paper presented an overview of the existing practices for
reactive power support in the electric grid and provided a set
of recommendations to changes in these practices that can be
used by industry in order to transition variable generation
from being a non-entity in reactive power support to being a
contributor to enhanced grid reliability.
XI. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]

FERC Order No. 661-A, December 12, 2005. [Online]. Available:

www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20051212171744-RM05-4-001.pdf
Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power
Systems, IEEE 1547-2003, June 2003.
FERC Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA),
June
16,
2005.
[Online].
Available:
www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/gi/stnd-gen/2003-CLGIA.doc
NERC Standard FAC-001-0 Facility Connection Requirements,
February 8, 2005. [Online]. Available: www.nerc.com/files/FAC-0010.pdf
NERC Standard VAR-001-2 Voltage and Reactive Control, August 5,
2010. [Online]. Available: www.nerc.com/files/VAR-001-2.pdf
EWEA Generic Grid Code Format for Wind power Plants, November
29,
2009.
[Online].
Available:
www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/091
127_GGCF_Final_Draft.pdf
NERC Standard VAR-002-1.1b Generator Operation for Maintaining
Network Voltage Schedules, February 10, 2009. [Online]. Available:
www.nerc.com/files/VAR-002-1_1b.pdf

XII. BIOGRAPHIES
Abraham Ellis (SM02) is a Principal Member of Technical Staff at Sandia
National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where he leads the PV
grid integration program area. Prior to joining Sandia, he worked in the
Transmission Planning and Operations at Public Service Company of New
Mexico, where he was responsible for transmission expansion and generation
interconnection studies. He has served as Chairman of the IEEE Dynamic
Performance of Wind Power Generation Working Group, and currently chairs
the WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force (REMTF). Abraham
received a MSEE and Ph.D. degrees in Power Systems from New Mexico
State University in 1995 and 2000, respectively. Abraham is a registered
Professional Engineer in New Mexico.

Robert Nelson (M84) received his Master of Engineering in Electric Power

Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He has been with Siemens
since 1999 when Siemens purchased Westinghouse Power Generation; prior
to that he was with Westinghouse, starting in 1989. Prior to joining
Westinghouse, Mr. Nelson worked as a bulk system planning engineer for
Boston Edison, an operations engineer for the Florida Municipal Power Pool,
and as a consulting engineer for RW Beck. Mr. Nelson has over 30 years of
experience in transmission and generation operations and design. He has
over 20 patents in various aspects of power generation and flexible ac
transmission and he is the author of over 25 technical papers on power
generation and transmission.
Edi Von Engeln received a BSEE from Colorado Tech in 1992. He has
worked in various sectors of the power industry from electrical testing to
commercial and light industrial design. Mr. von Engeln was involved in the
design and commissioning of several combined cycle power plants and
protective relaying systems while at Utility Engineering, a former subsidiary
of Xcel Energy. Mr. von Engeln completed a Masters in Engineering, with a
Power Systems emphasis in 2005 at the University of Colorado at Denver. He
is now a Staff Engineer in Transmission Planning with NV Energy in Reno
NV. Mr. von Engeln is a registered Professional Engineer in Colorado,
California and Nevada.
Reigh Walling (F05) is a Director of Energy Consulting for GE Energy and
provides his recognized expertise to solve a range of power system issues as a
consultant to electric power industry clients. Mr. Wallings consulting
practice includes utility distribution and transmission systems, as well as grid
integration of solar and wind generation systems. Mr. Walling received his
Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Electric Power Engineering from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and is a registered Professional Engineer in
Minnesota. He is a Fellow of the IEEE, has published over seventy technical
papers and articles, and has been awarded twelve patents. In 2009, Mr.
Walling was awarded the IEEE Power and Energy Societys Excellence in
Power Distribution Award.
Jason MacDowell is a Principal Engineer for GE Energy Consulting in NY.
His current focus is on performance and interconnection of wind generation
into the bulk transmission system, modeling and model validation of wind
plants and power system protection, and has authored many technical papers
on these subjects. He was chairman of IEEE std. 551-2006 (the Violet Book)
and is a balloting member of NERC Generator Verification Standards Drafting
Team (GVSDT). He has lectured and provided consultation on Wind Power
interconnection to governments, grid companies and generation owners in
North America and Asia.
Leo Casey (M81) received his Doctorate from MIT and Bachelors of
Engineering from the University of Auckland, coming to the US as a Fulbright
Scholar. He is the EVP of Engineering & CTO of Satcon Corporation, a
provider of utility-scale, grid-connected renewable energy solutions for
distributed power markets. He is Chairman of the High-Megawatt Power
Conversion Program organized by Industry, DOE and NIST. He is an editor
of the IEEE PESs Energy Conversion Transactions, and serves on NRELs
Solar Advisory Panel.
Eric Seymour is responsible for corporate technology research in the areas of
high power energy conversion and renewable energy. He is also Advanced
Energys lead designer for photovoltaic inverters above 250kW. Prior to
joining Advanced Energy in 1997, he worked as an engineer for Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation. Eric holds a masters degree from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and bachelors degree from Clarkson University, both
in electrical engineering.
William Peter (M10) received his Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from
Stanford University and his Bachelors of Engineering from Dartmouth
College. He is a Systems Engineer for SunPower Corporation, providing
support on interconnection and grid integration issues for solar PV generators.
Prior to working for SunPower, William worked for Australias electricity
market operator and regulator, and later for Senergy Econnect, a UK based
renewable energy consultancy.

8
Chris Barker received his Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering
from Northeastern University in 2003 and received his professional
engineering license in California in 2007. He currently works for BEW/DNV
as a Power Systems Engineer providing consultant work for utilities and
project developers. Prior to joining BEW, Christopher worked for SunPower
for seven years first as a Project Engineer responsible for the execution of
utility scale interconnected solar power plants and later manager of System
Engineering.
Brendan Kirby (M76, SM98) is a private consultant with numerous clients
including National Renewable Energy Laboratory, AWEA, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, EPRI, Hawaii PUC and others. He served on the NERC
Standards Committee. He recently retired from the Oak Ridge National
Laboratorys Power Systems Research Program. He has 36 years of electric
utility experience and has published over 150 papers, articles, and reports on
ancillary services, wind integration, restructuring, the use of responsive load
as a bulk system reliability resource, and power system reliability. He has a
patent for responsive loads providing real-power regulation and is the author
of a NERC certified course on Introduction to Bulk Power Systems: Physics /
Economics / Regulatory Policy. Brendan is a licensed Professional Engineer
with a M.S degree in Electrical Engineering (Power Option) from CarnegieMellon University and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh
University. Publications are available at www.consultkirby.com, e-mail
[email protected]
Joseph Williams (M05) received his Master of Engineering (in Electrical
Engineering) from the University of Idaho. He currently works as a
renewable integration engineer for Sandia National Laboratories. Prior to
joining Sandia Labs Mr. Williams has worked as a transmission planning
engineer for Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, and an Engineer for
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. Mr. Williams is a registered Professional
Engineer in the state of Oklahoma.