brainfiller wrote:
What does everyone think about this?
I think it is a great idea, but I wonder if the utilities would have an issue with it.
| Arc Flash Forum https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/ |
|
| PSE&G Utility Contact Information https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1724 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | wbd [ Tue May 24, 2011 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | PSE&G Utility Contact Information |
Hi Everyone, I am having a tough time finding a contact in PSE&G in New Jersey to get the utility fault data needed for a study. I have sent emails to the address on their website and unfortunately, phone contact has not worked as it is not an emergency and I do not need billing assistance. This client does not have a assigned Customer Service Rep, so I don't have a name to go directly to. Does anyone have a contact at PSE&G? would it be worth it for this forum to develop a list of utility contacts to obtain short circuit data from? |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Tue May 24, 2011 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wbd wrote: would it be worth it for this forum to develop a list of utility contacts to obtain short circuit data from?
What does everyone think about this? |
|
| Author: | Zog [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
brainfiller wrote: What does everyone think about this?
I think it is a great idea, but I wonder if the utilities would have an issue with it.
|
|
| Author: | wbd [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zog wrote: I think it is a great idea, but I wonder if the utilities would have an issue with it.
Hi Zog, that was my thought but if the utilities do have an issue, it might spur them to have some formalized or procedural way for someone to request that data. They may be able to train their Customer Service people to properly handle those requests. From my viewpoint, I have a client waiting for the study and I have the model completely built but am lacking the utility data. I have sent emails via the web contact that PSE&G has set up and a month later no responses. It is getting frustrating on my part and my clients. I do not want to take the step of filing a complaint with the NJ Public Utilities Commission without trying some more to get a response. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zog wrote: I think it is a great idea, but I wonder if the utilities would have an issue with it.
That's what I was thinking so I decided it might be good to get the input of others. Most utilities have an "official" point of contact (having worked at one for many years). I know some of the inside people there (at First Energy) that would have the info for their system, but they might take issue to have their office number posted. On the other hand, the forum is here to help every one so...
|
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wbd wrote: I have sent emails via the web contact that PSE&G has set up and a month later no responses. It is getting frustrating on my part and my clients.
I do not want to take the step of filing a complaint with the NJ Public Utilities Commission without trying some more to get a response. Perhaps it's time to inform them that you are running out of options and this may be your last resort?
|
|
| Author: | FEC2 [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
PSE&G is one of your snottier utilities to deal with but its a mixed bag across the country - some are great some not so much. As of 2008 they were only providing short circuit data at the secondary spades of the PSE&G transformer which was really just an infinite bus calc. I can send you a name/contact via private message since I don't think I would appreciate my email/phone being on a forum if I were in their shoes. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
FEC2 wrote: I can send you a name/contact via private message since I don't think I would appreciate my email/phone being on a forum if I were in their shoes.
Thanks FEC2 for confirming my thoughts. PM would be the best way to go if anyone else can help in the future. |
|
| Author: | wbd [ Tue May 24, 2011 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
FEC - thank you. Overall, my experience with utilities have been good but I have mainly been dealing with smaller utilities. A number of years ago, I did have an issue with a larger utility where the engineer kept insisting I should use an infinite bus. After some gentle education, he understood why infinite bus was not the option for AFH analysis. So he provided me a range with lots of caveats on transformer impedances, etc. The range - - 4.5 MVA to 100 MVA! On the plus side, I spent many years in utilities so was able to use some of those contacts. |
|
| Author: | Zog [ Tue May 24, 2011 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
FEC2 wrote: PSE&G is one of your snottier utilities to deal with
Snotty? In Jersey? Say it ain't so
|
|
| Author: | geh7752 [ Wed May 25, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've run across this situation many times in the northeast... either no responce or being told to use infinite bus SC. I started using 75% of infinite bus SC cal and noting on the final report. Unless the study facility is across the street from the substation or generation plant it will never be infinite bus SC level. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Wed May 25, 2011 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A variation of that method is to begin with an infinite bus calculation and compare it to the PPE arc rating, i.e. 8 cal/cm^2 or whatever is selected. Then slowly reduce the primary source in 10% increments to see if you reach a point where the PPE arc rating is no longer sufficient. This would indicate that the current fell below an instantaneous trip setting. If you can reduce the current to a low level and your PPE rating is still adequate, you may not have the perfect answer but you have built a range of confidence in your study in the absence of utility data. If you are barely able to reduce the fault current before the PPE rating becomes a problem, it's time to check the instantaneous settings and/or be more aggressive with the "uncooperative utility". << is that the opposite of an "Electric Cooperative"?
|
|
| Author: | geh7752 [ Fri May 27, 2011 5:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great Idea! |
|
| Author: | stevenal [ Tue May 31, 2011 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wouldn't it be nice if the software handled the incrementation? (or is there some that will do it now?) You could input a fuse or relay TCC and get an IE versus current graph and quickly see which current levels are most problematic. |
|
| Author: | SArni01 [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:35 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | |||
I found a paper which recommends running a 2nd study at 50% of max bolted fault current, which could at least be a quick way to determine if you really need the 10% stepped analysis mentioned above.
|
|||
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
