Congestion Management Ensuring Voltage Stability
Congestion Management Ensuring Voltage Stability
Congestion Management Ensuring Voltage Stability
1, FEBRUARY 2006
357
C. Constants
Maximum current magnitude in line .
Active power consumed by demand as determined
by the market-clearing procedure.
Active power produced by generator as determined
by the market-clearing procedure.
Maximum power to be supplied to demand .
Minimum power to be supplied to demand .
Maximum power output of generator .
Minimum power output of generator .
Ofine stability capacity limit of line
(active
power).
Thermal capacity limit of line (active power).
Reactive power capacity of generator .
Minimum reactive power production of generator .
Price offered by demand to decrease its pool power
schedule for congestion management purposes.
Price offered by demand to increase its pool power
schedule for congestion management purposes.
Price offered by generator to decrease its pool
power schedule for congestion management
purposes.
Price offered by generator to increase its pool
power schedule for congestion management
purposes.
Power factor of demand .
Maximum voltage magnitude in node .
Minimum voltage magnitude in node .
Minimum value for .
NOTATION
The notation used throughout the paper is stated below for
quick reference. Note that indicates security loading condition.
A. Functions
Active power ow through line
as a function of
voltage angles.
Current magnitude through line as a function of
voltage magnitudes and angles.
Active power injection in node as a function of
voltage angles.
Active power injection in node as a function of
voltage magnitudes and angles.
Reactive power injection in node as a function of
voltage magnitudes and angles.
B. Variables
Scalar variable used to represent system losses associated with the security loading condition.
Final active power consumption of demand .
Total active nal consumption in node .
Final active power production of generator .
Total nal active production in node .
Final reactive power consumption of demand .
Final reactive power production of generator .
Vector of node voltage magnitudes.
Active power decrement in demand due to congestion management.
2008 IEEE.
D. Sets
Set of indices of demands.
Set of indices of demands located in node .
Set of indices of online generators.
Set of indices of online generators for the security
loading condition.
Set of indices of online generators located in node
.
Set of indices of all nodes.
Set of indices of transmission lines.
358
I. INTRODUCTION
subject to
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
and
359
(7)
Minimize
(8)
(12)
and
subject to
(9)
(14)
(15)
and
(16)
(17)
(18)
(10)
(11)
Notice that
and
are obtained from market-clearing
mechanism and are thus constant powers in (7) and (8). In
(1)(11), the network is represented by means of a dc model, as
it is common practice for the congestion management problem
[7]. Thus, voltages are supposed to be equal to 1 p.u. in all
buses, and reactive powers are not considered in this formulation.
Equation (1), the objective function, is the cost incurred in
up/down power adjustments by the ISO to ensure a secure operation. We consider that any change from the market-clearing conditions implies a payment to the agent involved. Note that other
settlement arrangements are possible, as for instance, the ones
used in [9]. Equations (2) represent power balances in all nodes
is the active power inof the considered network. Function
jection in node as a function of voltage angles. That is,
, where
and
are, respectively, the real and imaginary part of the element of
the nodal admittance matrix. Equations (3) and (4) enforce maximum and minimum production/consumption bounds for generators/demands. Equations (5) are thermal capacity limits of the
transmission lines, while (6) are ofine stability capacity limits
is the power ow through line
of the lines. Function
connecting nodes and as a function of voltage angles. That is,
. Equations
(7) and (8) express nal powers are a function of market results and power increments/decrements to achieve a secure operation. Equations (9) transfer generator or demand values to
node values. Equations (10) and (11) declare that power increments/decrements are positive.
In this paper, we propose to substitute ofine constraints (6)
for other physically based constraints, which are directly related
with the current operating conditions of the system. Additionally, we do not consider voltage magnitudes equal to one, and
we do take into account reactive power ows. The resulting formulation is stated in the next subsection.
C. No Limits on Lines Other Than Physical Ones
The proposed congestion-relieving problem is formulated in
the following. We would like to point out that we do compare
(13)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
and
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
and
(30)
(31)
(32)
and constraints (7)(11).
The objective function (12) is similar to the objective function (1). Constraints (13) and (14) are active power balances in
all nodes for the current and security loading conditions, respectively. Constraints (15) and (16) are reactive power balances in all nodes for the current and security loading conditions, respectively. Constraints (17) relate reactive and active
power demands considering a constant power factor. Constraints
(18) enforce bounds on the active power productions of generators, while constraints (19) enforce bounds on the consumptions of demands. As it is customary in voltage stability analysis, bounds (19) are not considered for the security loading
condition, as these conditions are not actual operating conditions. Constraints (20) and (21) enforce bounds on the reac-
360
361
demands. Alternatively, it might be allocated to those generators and demands that do not contribute to the actual congestion
relieving by changing their productions or consumptions.
IV. CASE STUDY
A case study based on the IEEE RTS, depicted in Fig. 1, is
presented in this section. Topology, line, and generator data can
be found in [17, Fig. 1 and Tables IX and XII]. Ofine stability
capacity limits and thermal capacity limits of the lines are also
given in [17, Table XII]. The ofine stability capacity limit of
line 14-16 is reduced to 300 MVA in this paper (instead of 500
MVA) so that congestion occurs. Generator and demand data
are given in the Appendix.
Note that functions
and
represent active power
ow through any line and active power injection in any node,
respectively (considering voltages magnitudes equal to one).
Then, both congestion management methods include transmission losses.
Price bids by generators and demands to alter their scheduled
productions and consumptions (as determined in the day-ahead
market) are reported in Tables II and III, respectively (in the Appendix). These values have been selected arbitrarily close to the
corresponding marginal cost values and considering adjusting
up slightly more expensive than adjusting down for generators
and the opposite for demands.
All simulations have been obtained using CONOPT under
GAMS [16]. On a Pentium IV 2.66-GHz computer, the classical
congestion management method takes about 0.1 s, while the
proposed congestion management method converges in three
iterations (three solutions of the OPF problem (12)(32) and
(7)(11) are needed) and takes about 1.5 s of CPU time.
=01
Fig. 2 depicts the solution of the classical congestion-relieving problem (1)(11) for the IEEE RTS using as initial
, and
(provalues the market-clearing results
vided in Tables II and III). This solution shows changes in the
power outputs of some generators and in the consumption of
one demand to relieve an stability overloading in line 1416
of line 1416 is binding).
(constraint
On the other hand, Fig. 3 depicts the solution of the proposed
congestion-relieving problem (12)(32), (7)(11) for
and for the same initial market-clearing results
and
as the ones used for the classical congestion problem.
is nonzero because transmission
In this case, only one
losses have to be supplied. This solution ensures a reasonable
means that the system can stand
security margin, as
at least a 10% load increase. However, no load adjustment is required, thus resulting in a cheaper solution than the one achieved
solving the classical congestion management problem (1)(11),
as illustrated in Table I.
362
TABLE I
PAYMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
for the
363
TABLE II
GENERATOR DATA
TABLE III
DEMAND DATA
= 02
:
for line 78
364
REFERENCES
[1] A. L. Motto, F. D. Galiana, A. J. Conejo, and J. M. Arroyo, Networkconstrained multiperiod auction for a pool-based electricity market,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 646653, Aug. 2002.
[2] J. M. Arroyo and A. J. Conejo, Multiperiod auction for a pool-based
electricity market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
12251231, Nov. 2002.
[3] W. D. Rosehart, C. A. Caizares, and V. H. Quintana, Multiobjective
optimal power ows to evaluate voltage security costs in power networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 578587, May 2003.
[4] F. Milano, C. A. Caizares, and M. Invernizzi, Multiobjective optimization for pricing system security in electricity markets, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 596604, May 2003.
[5] T. W. Gedra, On transmission congestion and pricing, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 241248, Feb. 1999.
[6] H. Singh, S. Hao, and A. Papalexopoulos, Transmission congestion
management in competitive electricity markets, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 672680, May 1998.
[7] P. Gribik, G. A. Angelidis, and R. R. Kovacs, Transmission access and
pricing with multiple separate energy forward markets, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 865876, Aug. 1999.
[8] T. Shu and G. Gross, A congestion-management allocation mechanism
for multiple transaction networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no.
3, pp. 826833, Aug. 2002.
[9] E. Bompard, P. Correia, G. Gross, and M. Amelin, Congestion-management schemes: A comparative analysis under a unied framework,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 346352, Feb. 2003.
[10] M. Ilic, F. Galiana, and L. Fink, Power Systems Restructuring: Engineering and Economics. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1998.
[11] G. B. Shebl, Computational Auction Mechanisms for Restructured
Power Industry Operation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1999.
[12] M. Shahidehpour and M. Alomoush, Restructured Electric Power Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001.
[13] M. Shahidehpour, H. Yamin, and Z. Li, Market Operations in Electric
Power Systems: Forecasting, Scheduling and Risk Management. New
York: Wiley, 2002.
[14] M. Shahidehpour and Y. Wang, Communication and Control in Electric
Power Systems. New York: Wiley, 2003.
[15] C. A. Caizares, Ed., (2002, Aug.) Voltage stability assessment: Concepts, practices and tools. IEEE-PES Power System Stability Subcommittee Special Publication. [Online]. Available: http://www.power.uwaterloo.ca.
[16] A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, R. Raman, and R. E. Rosenthal,
GAMS, a Users Guide. Washington, DC: GAMS Development Corporation, 1998.
[17] Reliability Test System Task Force, The IEEE reliability test system
1996, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 10101020, Aug.
1999.
Antonio J. Conejo (F04) received the M.S. degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, in 1987 and the Ph.D. degree from the
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,
in 1990.
He is currently a Full Professor at the Universidad
de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain. His research interests include control, operations, planning,
and economics of electric energy systems, as well as
statistics and optimization theory and its applications.
Federico Milano (M03) received the Electrical Engineering and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
Genoa, Genoa, Italy, in 1999 and 2003, respectively.
From September 2001 to December 2002, he
was with the Electrical and Computer Engineering
Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON,
Canada, as a Visiting Scholar. He is currently an
Assistant Professor of electrical engineering at the
Universidad de CastillaLa Mancha, Ciudad Real,
Spain. His research interests are voltage stability,
electricity market, and computer-based power
system analysis and control.