Uncategorized

Reader Comment:

Issue 1 and Volume 108.

Page 10 of your October 2003 issue included a quote by a representative of Doble Engineering stating General Electric is out of the large power transformer business (“Switchyard Transformers Overlooked in Power Equation”). This is not true. GE has a joint venture in Monterrey, Mexico that began in June 1995 for manufacturing transformers up to 550 MVA top rated and up to 550kV, 1550kV BIL.

The GE-Prolec joint venture was formed in 1995 between General Electric and AXA (later changed to Xignux). We feel this covers 90% of U.S. market requirements and we have shipped units to 24 different countries since 1995. We have shipped over 2100 units since the venture began. Over 200 of these transformers were self-cooled GSUs above 100 MVA. The vast majority of customers in North America are familiar with our factory manufacturing capabilities as well as our design technology.

We have hosted many customer visits and have presented our capabilities at many of the industry meetings such as the IEEE/PES T&D Exposition, AEIC Committee on Power Apparatus and EEI Transmission and Distribution Committee.

Mack Sigmon
Area Sales Manager
General Electric

Editor’s Note: In the article, Doble’s Rick Ladroga was referring to GE in the U.S.as opposed to the GE-Prolec joint venture in Mexico.

Uncategorized

Reader Comment:

Issue 1 and Volume 108.

Regarding your item “Major Benefits Predicted From DG Interconnect Standard” (page 50, Power Engineering, October 2003):

As a former member of the IEEE-1547 Working Group, I would like to express my opinion on this document. I believe the IEEE-1547 provided a good first step towards a national interconnection standard. But it did not meet its primary objective of providing a useful national standard because it excluded the coverage of system impact issues that are the basis of the interconnection requirements. Murray Davis is one of the most knowledgeable members on the IEEE-1547 WG but the 29 issues that Murray mentioned are all system impact issues and most of them are not being addressed in the current IEEE-1547. The intentional island application mentioned by Murray in the DG Update article is also not covered in IEEE-1547. I had proposed to cover it in the document but was turned down because it was too complicated and perhaps too costly.

It had been a major challenge to develop a technical interconnection standard while attempting to be politically correct at the same time. For example, to be politically correct, we cannot acknowledge that there are inherent incompatibilities between DG and the way the existing distribution system was designed, constructed, and operated. We also cannot mention that the existing distribution system may need to be modified at significant expense to accommodate the larger DG systems, or that the system reliability may be diminished, instead of enhanced. We had to ignore cost, size, technology, location, and system impact when developing the standard. By ignoring these key issues, we missed an excellent opportunity to develop a truly useful standard. The current IEEE-1547 only targeted half of the equation, the portion that is on the DG side of the Point of Common Coupling (PCC). The portion that is on the system side of the PCC is not covered for all practical purposes. So, the IEEE-1547 is incomplete and has to be supplemented by other standards/guidelines. In my opinion, it is not even possible to adequately cover the DG side of the PCC without considering the system impacts. In real life, we need to consider both sides of the equation in order to develop the most cost effective solution for any given DG interconnection project.

Chase Sun, PE