axioms

Article
Optimal Congestion Management with FACTS Devices for
Optimal Power Dispatch in the Deregulated Electricity Market
Abhilipsa Sahoo 1 , Prakash Kumar Hota 1 , Preeti Ranjan Sahu 2 , Faisal Alsaif 3 , Sager Alsulamy 4
and Taha Selim Ustun 5, *

1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla 768018, India;
pkhota_ee@vssut.ac.in (P.K.H.)
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Science and Technology, Berhampur 761008, India
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
4 Energy and Climate Change Division, Sustainable Energy Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and
Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7QF, UK
5 Fukushima Renewable Energy Institute, AIST (FREA), Koriyama 963-0298, Japan
* Correspondence: selim.ustun@aist.go.jp

Abstract: A deregulated electricity market provides open access to all market players. In an open-
access power market, the system operator is responsible for ensuring that all contracted power is
dispatched. However, if this results in line flows that exceed their acceptable range, then it could
threaten the system’s security. Therefore, the system operator checks for congestion as the line flow
exceeds its limit. For congestion management, the system operator applies different curtailment
strategies to limit the requested transaction. Therefore, in this work, an optimal power dispatch model
has been presented in order to reduce the curtailment of requested power. A modified moth flame
optimization technique has been implemented to frame this OPD model. The impact of congestion
management on power dispatch has been analyzed, considering bilateral and multilateral dispatch in
an electricity market. In addition, the effect of FACTS devices on reducing congestion and curtailing
power is studied. Verification studies showed that the proposed solution reduces congestion costs
by 27.14% and 29.4% in 14- and 30-bus systems, respectively. It has been verified that the MMFO
Citation: Sahoo, A.; Hota, P.K.; Sahu,
approach with the FACTS device improves transaction deviations and ensures that the deregulated
P.R.; Alsaif, F.; Alsulamy, S.; Ustun,
system provides secure energy with less cost reflected on the customers.
T.S. Optimal Congestion
Management with FACTS Devices for
Keywords: deregulated power market; optimal power dispatch; modified moth flame optimization
Optimal Power Dispatch in the
algorithm; FACTS; congestion management; load curtailment
Deregulated Electricity Market.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614. https://
doi.org/10.3390/axioms12070614

Academic Editor: Giovanni Mascali 1. Introduction

Received: 10 May 2023 Around the globe, electric power utilities are apparently going through restructuring
Revised: 13 June 2023 and adopting a deregulated market strategy. This deregulation structure makes the electri-
Accepted: 20 June 2023 cal system more competitive. This competitiveness among the market players eases the
Published: 21 June 2023 way for power trading. It will enhance industrial sector productivity and minimize the
cost of electrical energy for all customers [1]. Market participants such as power producers,
consumers, and system operators will benefit from a deregulated energy market. However,
the energy market has a lot of issues like generation loss, line outages, etc. [2,3]. The
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
restructuration of the electric market has led to extensive use of transmission systems
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
for power trading. To obtain an incorporated operation in a deregulated system, there
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
has to be relevant formulation between regulating agencies, such as pool operators or
conditions of the Creative Commons
system operators.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The main aim of a system operator is to provide reliable service and maintain system
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ security [4]. However, there are numerous obstacles to executing the deregulation plans due
4.0/). to the increased number of market participants. The system operators are now confronted

Axioms 2023, 12, 614. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12070614 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/axioms

Axioms 2023, 12, 614 2 of 24

with an additional problem, termed as congestion, as a result of the increased participants.

In this deregulated energy market, the generating companies sell energy to customers under
an energy contract [5]. For energy transfer, the transmission lines used by these GENCOs
are the existing ones. As a result, there may be a chance of overloading the transmission line
due to bad weather, bilateral transactions, etc., and GENCOs are unable to send contracted
energy to customers. This situation becomes congested, and the main reason behind this is
overloading conditions, mismatches between demand and generation, and unexpected rises
in demand [6]. Congestion management is a cost-effective alternative to network expansion,
which is the only way to keep up with rising demand. It is nothing but the reduction of
extra electricity flowing via overloaded transmission lines [7–9]. By managing congestion
in a proper way, contracted energy can be transmitted without violating system constraints.
In this paper, congestion is managed by applying three different curtailment strategies,
namely group curtailment, separate curtailment, and point-by-point curtailment, and the
OPD problem has been formulated in order to reduce the curtailment of requested power.
In a deregulated electricity market, so many participants take part in power trading,
which increases the number of power contracts made between GENCOs and customers.
This leads to transmission network congestion as the GENCOs need to send contracted
energy to customers using the same transmission line. Therefore, to minimize congestion in
the transmission network, congestion management has to be done by the system operators
in the present era. This congestion can be relieved in the process of rescheduling and
dispatching either by including line constraints or by redirecting the power flow with
FACTS devices or energy routers [10–13]. The authors in [14,15] proposed two method-
ologies based on optimal power flow and available transfer capability using locational
marginal prices and congestion rent contributions for mitigation of congestion in a bilat-
eral dispatch-deregulated environment. In [16], Verma et al. suggested an algorithm for
teaching learning-based optimization techniques in a pool-structured power market for
minimizing the deviation in generation and its corresponding congestion cost, considering
various operational constraints.
Congestion management is done by curtailing requested power transactions [17,18],
where the authors provide an approach for power dispatch applying different curtailment
strategies in a competitive electricity market. To minimize the transaction deviation, the
authors in [19] made an optimal power flow model for a restructured power market with
different contracts like bilateral, multilateral, and firm contracts. The strategy for congestion
management has been developed by authors [20,21] considering transmission dispatch
methodology in an open market environment where pool dispatch, bilateral dispatch, and
multilateral dispatch were done. For mitigating congestion, authors in [22,23] provide two
methods: LMPD and congestion rent based on pricing. The authors in [24,25] analyze the
impact of congestion management in a deregulated electricity market.
The above-mentioned literature has not focused on FACTS devices, which play a vital
role in maintaining the voltage profile and power flow and hence controlling congestion
in transmission lines. The congestion can be managed by employing different series and
shunt FACTS devices in the transmission network. For controlling congestion, the optimal
location of different FACTS devices in different bus systems, considering constraints [26–28],
has been analyzed by the authors. These papers mostly focus on FACTS devices like SVC,
TCSC, etc. In general, series and shunt FACTS devices are utilized to manage power flow
and improve voltage profiles. Whereas the combination of both series and shunt devices
like UPFC allows for continuous control of all these factors. Some work has been done by
the authors to reduce congestion by employing UPFC [29–31]. From the literature [24–31],
which utilized different FACTS devices, it is observed that the UPFC FACTS device plays
a vital role in controlling congestion. Additionally, Table A1 summarizes and compares
the relevant studies in order to categorize the research conducted and works evaluated in
the literature.
As the power system consists of non-linear equations, to tackle congestion manage-
ment, optimization approaches have been used to make it simpler. Various optimization
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 3 of 24

approaches, such as the Firefly algorithm [32], the adaptive particle swarm optimization
algorithm [33], the satin bowerbird optimization algorithm [34], and particle swarm opti-
mization [35], were utilized for managing congestion situations in different systems. To
reduce transmission line overloading, congestion management has been carried out using
gray-wolf optimization techniques [36].
From the literature study, it is observed that many optimization techniques as well as
many congestion control techniques have been proposed for mitigating congestion in the
transmission network, which yields reductions in congestion cost and loss. Still, there is
scope for amplifying the quality of the solution in terms of reducing transaction curtailment,
loss, and rescheduling costs. Therefore, in this work, UPFC is utilized for the first time
with the Modified Moth Flame Optimization (MMFO) technique to control the congestion
occurring in the transmission network.

Paper Contribution
• This paper implements the MMFO technique for reducing the curtailment in power
transactions to provide contract power dispatch requested by market participants.
• Congestion management is performed by employing three different curtailment strate-
gies: group curtailment, separate curtailment, and point-to-point curtailment.
• Effectively reduces the overload in the transmission line by employing UPFC.
• The use of FACTS devices reduces the total cost of rescheduling by 27.14% and 29.4%
in 14-bus and 30-bus systems, respectively.

2. Problem Formulation
2.1. Mathematical Modeling of Optimal Power Dispatch
In the deregulated electricity market, the optimal power dispatch model has been for-
mulated to minimize the deviation from the contract power transaction required by market
utilities. At the same time, the different operational equality and inequality constraints
have to be satisfied for making all the transaction without curtailment.
The mathematical formulation for this optimal power dispatch model [6] can be
written as:
u
min f = ∑ A.wi [( Pi − Pi0 )2 ] (1)
i =1

And the constraints for the problem formulation are:

PGi − PDi − Pi (v, δ) = 0 (2)

QGi − Q Di − Qi (v, δ) = 0 (3)

min max
PGi ≤ PGi ≤ PGi (4)

Qmin max
Gi ≤ Q Gi ≤ Q Gi (5)

Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax (6)

Equations (2) and (3) represent the equality constraints, and Equations (4)–(6) are the
inequality constraints, respectively.

2.2. Power Transactions in a Deregulated Environment

In the case study, different types of transactions are analyzed. These are (a) bilateral
transactions and (b) multilateral transactions.
Bilateral Transaction: here the power dispatch is made between a particular GENCO
and a particular DISCO without the interference of a third party.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 4 of 24

Multilateral Transaction: It is an extension of bilateral dispatching. Here, the dispatch

is done by energy brokerage operators to reduce the risk and involves more than two
market utilities.
Consider a power system having n number of buses among them, where the first m
buses are considered generator buses and the remaining (n-m) buses are considered load
buses. For simplicity, bus-1 is chosen as the slack bus, which is taken into account for
compensating transmission loss.
In the case of a bilateral contract, a particular GENCO injects a certain amount of
power at one generating bus, and a particular DISCO takes this power at another load
bus. Whereas in a multilateral contract, the total power injection by a set of GENCOs at a
set of generating buses equals the total power taken by a set of DISCOs at another set of
load buses.
Thus, for the individual and group contracts, the active power injection at bus-i and
extraction at bus-j can be given as follows:
n G
Pi = ∑ j=m+1 Pbij + ∑g=1 Pmig , ∀i = 2, 3, . . . , m (7)

m G
Lj = ∑ Lb ji + ∑ Lm jg , ∀ j = m + 1, . . . , n (8)
i =2 g =1

For the bilateral and multilateral contracts, the power balance equations are:

Pbij = Lb ji , ∀i = 2, 3, . . . , m; j = m + 1, . . . . . . , n (9)

Pmig = Lm jg , ∀ g = 1, 2, . . . , G (10)

2.3. Congestion Management by Using Curtailment Strategies

There are different curtailment strategies [10], which are put into operation by the
system operator in alliance with the market utilities for optimal power dispatch. The
curtailment strategy used for bilateral contracts is point-to-point curtailment. The cur-
tailment strategies used for multilateral contracts are group curtailment and separate
curtailment strategies.
In a point-to-point curtailment strategy, the curtailment of requested power injected
at a GENCO must be the same as the curtailment of requested power extracted at a DISCO.
In this case, the objective function becomes
m n  2 
min f 1 ( P, x ) = ∑ ∑ w1ij Pbij − Pb 0ij (11)
i =1 j = m +1

where, w1ij is the willingness-to-pay price factor used in bilateral contracts between

( Pbij and Lb ji for avoiding curtailment.
In a group curtailment strategy, the main aim is to provide the requested power
without any curtailment, although individual generators inside that group have to be
rescheduled, and when curtailment is needed, it must spread among the participants of
that group. So the objective function for the optimal dispatch problem becomes
 ! 
G m m 2
min f 2 ( P, x ) = ∑ w2g  ∑ Pmig − ∑ Pm 0ig  (12)
g =1 i =2 i =2

where, w2g is the willingness-to-pay price factor used in gth group transfer for avoiding curtailment.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 5 of 24

In a separate curtailment strategy, the concern is to minimize the change at every

GENCO and DISCO of the concerned group based upon the willingness-to-pay factor,
considering the group power balance constraint. For this objective function becomes

G m  2 
min f 3 ( P, x ) = ∑ ∑ w2ig Pmig − Pm 0ig (13)
g =1 i =2

where, w2ig is willingness-to-pay price factor of power injection Pmig for avoiding curtailment.

3. Facts Devices for Modeling of Optimal Power Dispatch

FACTS devices are inherently capable of operating the power systems in a safe, eco-
nomical, flexible, and advanced way. Generating systems, which tend to have a bulk flow
of power, are having subsequently higher losses and a decrease in safety and stability
factors. In addition, there are many constraints arising because of potential outages. Under
these circumstances, FACTS devices are efficient in making necessary improvements to
the system’s performance by regulating the power flow in the system. In general, series
and shunt FACTS devices are utilized to manage power flow and improve voltage pro-
files [26–28]. Whereas the combination of both series and shunt devices like UPFC [37]
allows for continuous control of all these factors.
In this work, the optimal power-dispatch problem is formulated, including FACTS
devices in the system. In the present scenario of a deregulated system, as the number
of independent GENCOs increases, the power system requires a more advanced version
of power control. So, here, UPFC [37] has been used for controlling the power flow
and improving the line loading in comparison to the other FACTS devices like SVC and
TCSC [28]. The optimal location of UPFC is found optimally in different bus systems [29],
where it improves line loading by minimizing transmission congestion.

Modeling of UPFC
The circuit of UPFC consists of two voltage sources, as shown in Figure 1. The UPFC
voltage sources are:
EVR = VVR (cos θVR + j sin θVR ) (14)

ECR = VCR (cos θCR + j sin θCR ) (15)

where, VVR is the controllable magnitude of the voltage source of the shunt converter, which
must lie in the range (VVRmin ≤ VVR ≤ VVRmax ) and θVR is the controllable phase angle of
the voltage source of the shunt converter, which lies in the range ( 0 ≤ θVR ≤ 2π ). Likewise
VCR and θCR are the voltage magnitude and phase angle of the series converter, and their
corresponding controllable limits are (VCR min ≤ VCR ≤ VCR max ) and (0 ≤ θCR ≤ 2π),
respectively. The phase angle of the series injected voltage determines the mode of power
flow control.
Axioms 2023, 12,
Axioms 2023, 12, 614
x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6of
of 25
24

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Equivalent
Equivalent circuit
circuit of
of UPFC.
UPFC.

Based on the equivalent

equivalent circuit
circuit as shown
shown in Figure 1, the active and reactive power
equations are given as follows:
At bus-k:
Pk = Vk 2 Gkk + Vk Vm [ Gkm cos(θk − θm ) + Bkm sin(θk − θm )]
𝑃 = 𝑉 𝐺 + 𝑉 𝑉+[𝐺 Vk VcRcos (𝜃cos−(θ𝜃k −)θ+
[ Gkm cR𝐵) + Bsin (𝜃 (θ−
km sin k− )])]
𝜃 θcR (16)
+ 𝑉 +𝑉Vk[𝐺
VvR [ Gcos (𝜃(θ−
vR cos k− sin((θ𝜃k −−θvR
𝜃θvR) )++𝐵BvR sin 𝜃 )])] (16)
2 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺
Qk = −Vk+Gkk + Vk Vm [ Gcos (𝜃 − 𝜃 ) + 𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 )]
km cos( θk − θm ) − Bkm sin .( θk − θm )]
+Vk VcR [ Gkm cos(θk − θcR ) − Bkm sin(θk − θcR )] (17)
𝑄 = −𝑉 𝐺 + 𝑉 𝑉 V[𝐺
+ k VvR [ G vR(cos
cos θk 𝜃− θ)vR
𝜃 (− −) 𝐵 sin
− BvR (𝜃
sin − 𝜃θvR))]]
(θk −
At bus-m: + 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 cos(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) − 𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 )] (17)
2+ 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 cos(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) − 𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 )]
Pm = Vm Gmm + Vm Vk [ Gmk cos(θm − θk ) + Bmk sin(θm − θk )]
(18)
At bus-m: +Vk VcR [ Gmm cos(θk − θcR ) + Bmm sin(θk − θcR )]

𝑃 = 𝑉Qm 𝐺= −V+m 2𝑉 𝑉+[𝐺Vm Vcos (𝜃 − 𝜃 ) + 𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) ]

Gmm k [ Gmk sin( θm − θk ) − Bmk cos( θm − θk )] (18)
(19)
+ 𝑉 𝑉 +[𝐺Vm VcRcos (𝜃 sin
[ Gmm −(𝜃 )+
θm − mm(cos
θcR𝐵) − Bsin 𝜃 (−θm𝜃− θ)cR
] )]
Series Converter:
𝑄 = −𝑉 𝐺 + 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) − 𝐵 cos(𝜃 − 𝜃 )]
PcR = VcR 2 Gmm + VcR Vk [ Gkm cos(θcR − θk ) + Bkm sin(θcR − θk )] (19)
+ 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) − 𝐵 cos(𝜃 − 𝜃 )] (20)
+VcR Vm [ Gmm cos(θcR − θm ) + Bmm sin(θcR − θm )]
Series Converter:
QcR = −VcR 2 Bmm + VcR Vk [ Gkm sin(θcR − θK ) − Bkm cos(θcR − θk )]
𝑃 =𝑉 𝐺 + 𝑉 𝑉+V [𝐺 V cos (𝜃 − 𝜃 ) + 𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 )] (21)
cR m [ Gmm cos( θcR − θm ) + Bmm sin( θcR − θm )] (20)
+ 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 cos(𝜃 −𝜃 )+𝐵 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 )]
Shunt Converter:

𝑄 =P−𝑉 𝐵VvR 2+
vR = − 𝑉 +𝑉VvR
GvR vR (
[𝐺Vk [ Gsin 𝜃 (θ−
cos − θ)k−
vR 𝜃 sin ((𝜃
) +𝐵BvRcos − θ𝜃k )])]
θvR − (22)
(21)
+ 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 (
cos 𝜃 − 𝜃 + 𝐵 sin 𝜃 − 𝜃 )]
) (
QvR = VvR 2 BvR + VvR Vk [ GvR sin(θvR − θk ) − BvR cos (θvR − θk )]
Shunt Converter: (23)
( P(iF , QiF and


After inserting UPFC, it injects real and
𝑃 = −𝑉 𝐺 + 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 cos(𝜃 reactive − 𝜃 ) +power
𝐵 sin 𝜃 − 𝜃 )] the equality
(22)
constraints become
PGi − PDi − Pi (v, δ) + PiF = 0 (24)
𝑄 = 𝑉 𝐵 + 𝑉 𝑉 [𝐺 sin(𝜃 − 𝜃 ) − 𝐵 cos(𝜃 − 𝜃 )] (23)

QGi − real
After inserting UPFC, it injects − Qreactive
Q Di and QiF = 0(𝑃 , 𝑄 ) and the equality con-
i ( v, δ ) +power (25)
straints become
4. MFO Algorithm
𝑃 is
The MFO technique [38] −an − 𝑃 (𝑣, 𝛿 )creative
𝑃 absolutely + 𝑃 =and 0 inspirational technique based
(24)
on natural instinct. This technique is growing day by day because of its better convergent
 The MFO technique [38] is an absolutely creative and inspirational techniqu
4. MFO Algorithm
on natural instinct. This technique is growing day by day because of its better con
The MFO technique [38] is an absolutely creative and inspirational technique based
results. The MFO algorithm is quite efficient at solving optimization problems and
on natural instinct. This technique is growing day by day because of its better convergent
ing the global best solution. Its application in different problem formulations like
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 results. The MFO algorithm is quite efficient at solving optimization problems7 and of 24 explor-
power
ing flow, best
the global reactive power,
solution. and economic
Its application powerproblem
in different dispatch has been studied
formulations like optimalin
Due toflow,
power the better
reactive results
power, obtained in the literature,
and economic power dispatchthe MFO has technique
been studied is more appr
in [39–42].
for
Due obtaining
results.
to the MFOthe
Thebetter required
algorithm
results outcome
is quite
obtained efficient than other
at solving
in the literature, algorithms
optimization
the MFO technique and is
problems has
and
morebeen
explor- adopted
appropriate
ing the
same.
for global best solution. Its application in different problem
obtaining the required outcome than other algorithms and has been adopted for the formulations like optimal
power flow, reactive power, and economic power dispatch has been studied in [39–42]. Due
same. The real inspiration that is derived from nature in order to achieve the op
to the better results obtained in the literature, the MFO technique is more appropriate for
The real
solution inspiration the
is nothing that is derivedorientation-based
from nature in order to achieve the optimized
obtaining the required butoutcome transverse
than other algorithms and has beenmoth’s adoptednavigation
for the same.method
solution
darkness, is nothing
The realduring but the
the that
inspiration transverse
night, orientation-based
with respect
is derived from nature to the moth’s
in direction navigation
of flight,
order to achieve moths flyUnder
method.
the optimized in a
darkness, during
solution is nothing
direction by keeping the night, with
but theatransverse
fixed angle, respect to
orientation-based the direction
as shown inmoth’s Figure of flight,
navigation moths
2. This method. fly in a specific
Under techn
is an efficient
direction
darkness, by keeping
during the a fixed
night, withangle,
respectas shown
to the in Figure
direction
moths to move long distances in a straight line. While moving long distances, of 2. This
flight, is
moths an efficient
fly in a technique
specific for
these
moths to by
direction move long adistances
keeping fixed angle, in aasstraight
shownline. While2.moving
in Figure This is anlong distances,
efficient these insects
technique
face trouble
for moths
following
to move long the
the artificial
distances in alights.
lights.
straightThey
They usually get
line. usually
While moving
trapped in these
long distances,
a spiral pat
face trouble following artificial get trapped in a spiral path while
traveling under
insects faceunder
trouble artificial
following lights,
the as depicted
artificial lights.inThey in usually
Figureget 3. The
trapped moths, which
in a spiral pathact as the
traveling artificial lights, as depicted Figure 3. The moths, which act as the search
agents, move
while traveling close
under to search
artificial lights,space,
as depictedand the
in flame’s
Figure 3. Thebest
agents, move close to search space, and the flame’s best position is updated using the moths, position
which act is updated
as the us
search agents,
moth’sbest move
bestposition
position close to search
obtained space,
in search and the flame’s
space. best position is updated using
moth’s obtained in search space.
the moth’s best position obtained in search space.

Figure 2. Movement of the moth fly, keeping a fixed angle.

Figure 2. Movement of the moth fly, keeping a fixed angle.
Figure 2. Movement of the moth fly, keeping a fixed angle.

3.Movement
Figure 3.
Figure Movementofof
the moth
the fly fly
moth in ain
spiral path.path.
a spiral
Mathematical Formulation for Updating Moths’ Spiral Path and Distance
For3.this
Figure algorithm,
Movement ofthe
thecandidate
moth flysolutions represent
in a spiral path. moths, and the problem’s vari-
ables represent their corresponding positions. The moths can fly in one-dimensional,
two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or hyper-dimensional space by changing their posi-
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 8 of 24

tions. As this algorithm is based on population, the first foremost component, i.e., a set of
moths, represents the population that is symbolized in the form of a matrix as follows:
 
mt11 mt12 ... ... mt1d
 mt21 mt22 ... ... mt2d 
 
Mt = 
 ... ... ... ... ... 
 (26)
 ... ... ... ... ... 
mtn1 mtn2 ... ... mtnd

where n and d represent the number of moths and variables, respectively.

Taking all moths into consideration, an array can be formulated for storing the corre-
sponding fitness values, as represented below:

mtO1

 mtO2 
 .. 
 
MtO =  . 

 (27)
 . 
 .. 
mtOn

In this proposed algorithm, other important entities are said to be flames. Here, one
can analyze the matrix shown below as similar to the moth matrix.
 
f l11 f l12 ... ... f l 1d
fl f l22 ... ... f l 2d 
 21 
Fl = 
 ... ... ... ... ...   (28)
 ... ... ... ... ... 
f l n1 f l n2 ... ... f l nd

Here, n and d represent the number of moths and variables, respectively.

And, in the case of flames, an array is taken into account to keep the corresponding
fitness values as described below:

f O1
 
 f O2 
 .. 
 
FlO =   . 
 (29)
 . 
 .. 
f On

The entire concept explained before in this section describes the whole inspiration of
the algorithm, and that is called a transverse orientation. All the behavioral studies of a
moth for finding its best solution during search can be mathematically modeled, which
explains that the update of position with respect to a flame for each moth is expressed by
the following equation:

Mi = S Mi , Fj (30)
where, Mi indicates ith moth, Fj indicates jth flame, and S is a spiral function.
S is given as follows:

S Mi , Fj = Di .ebt .cos(2πt) + Fj


(31)

where b is a constant used for the shape of the logarithmic spiral, and t is a random number
in [1, 1].
Di is the distance of the ith moth from the jth flame, and D is calculated as follows:
 
Di = Fj − Mi  (32)
Axioms 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

Axioms 2023, 12, 614 𝐷 = |𝐹 − 𝑀 | 9 of 24

(32)

where, 𝑀 is ith moth, 𝐹 is jth flame

D is the distance of the ith moth from the jth flame.
where, Mi is ith moth, Fj is jth flame.
A moth flies around a flame in a spiral path, seeking its best solution. The exploration
D is the distance of the ith moth from the jth flame.
process is said to take place only when the mechanism for updating positions between the
A moth flies around a flame in a spiral path, seeking its best solution. The exploration
moth and
process is flame
said tolies in the
take next
place outside
only whenposition. However,
the mechanism forthe exploitation
updating is said
positions to hap-
between
pen when position updating happens between the moth and flame. Eventually,
the moth and flame lies in the next outside position. However, the exploitation is said during
to
the iterations of search and updating, the best solution is obtained to get
happen when position updating happens between the moth and flame. Eventually, duringthe best position
of the
the moth around
iterations of searchthe
andflame in a spiral
updating, path.
the best The is
solution following
obtained equation
to get the is used
best for this
position of
concern:
the moth around the flame in a spiral path. The following equation is used for this concern:
 𝑁N
−−1 1
𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜.
f lameno. = round N − l ∗ 𝑇 )
= 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑(𝑁 − 𝑙 ∗ (33)
(33)
T
where ‘l
where ‘l ’identifies
’identifies the
thepresent
presentiteration;
iteration;‘N’
‘N’identifies the
identifies maximum
the number
maximum of flames;
number ‘T’
of flames;
identifies the maximum number of iterations.
‘T’ identifies the maximum number of iterations.

5. Modified
5. Modified MFO
MFO (MMFO)
(MMFO) Technique
Technique
Exploitation and exploration
Exploitation explorationare aretwo
twomain
mainpartspartsofofanan
optimization
optimization algorithm. In ad-
algorithm. In
dition, randomization
addition, randomizationplaysplaysa adynamic
dynamicroleroleininthe
thealgorithm.
algorithm. InIn aa normal
normal scenario, MFOMFO
updates its
updates its search
search agents
agents towards
towards candidate
candidate solutions.
solutions. The effectiveness of the MFO MFO [38]
[38]
technique
technique is is indubitable,
indubitable, concerning
concerning the period of computation where it converges converges toto the
the
optimum
optimum values.
values. Yet
Yet the
the process
process of
of searching
searching maymay bebe lethargic.
lethargic. So,
So, for
for improving
improving thethe rate
rate
of
of convergence
convergence of of the
the MFO
MFO technique
technique asas well
well asas finding
finding thethe global
global optimum
optimum solution,
solution, an
an
enhanced searching process is depicted here [43], like the adaptive cuckoo
enhanced searching process is depicted here [43], like the adaptive cuckoo search tech- search technique.
Figure
nique. 4Figure
shows4 the pseudocode
shows of the modified
the pseudocode MFO approach,
of the modified i.e., MMFO.
MFO approach, i.e., MMFO.

Initialize the position of moths, flame number, maximum number of iteration

while (iter < max_iter)
Evaluate the fitness value of moths
Update flame number using equation (33)
Sort the moths according to the fitness value
Update the flames by considering sorted moths
for i =1:n % n =no. of moths
for j = 1:d % d=no. of dimension
Update r, t
Evaluate D using equation (32)
Update the position of moth using equation (35)
end
for each search agent
Update the position of current search agent using step size (34)
end
iter = iter + 1
end
end

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Pseudocode
Pseudocode of
of the
the modified
modified MFO
MFO approach.
approach.

In
In the
the standard
standard MFO MFO technique,
technique, thethe position
position of
of the
the moth
moth isis updated
updated using
using Equation
Equation
(26).
(26). In this paper,
paper, step
step size is included considering
considering the current
current position,
position, best
best position,
position, and
and
worst
worst position
position ofof moths,
moths, which
which determines
determines thethe distance
distance between
between the
the new
new moth’s
moth’s positions
positions
and
and the
the current
current moth’s
moth’s position.
position. As shown in Equation
Equation (34),
(34), step
step size
size changes
changes inversely
inversely
with respect to iteration,
with respect to iteration, i.e., the step size eases with increasing the number of iterations.
The
The new
new position
position of of the
the moth
moth isis achieved
achieved byby adding
adding thethe intended
intended step
step size
size to
to the
the current
current
position
position ofof the
the moth,
moth, asas shown
shown by by Equation
Equation(35).
(35).
  best f (t)− fi (t)
1 best f (t)−worst f (t)
x i ( t + 1) = (34)
t
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 10 of 24

where, t = current iteration

f i (t) = current position of moth
best f (t) = best position of moth
worst f (t) = worst position of moth

M ( t + 1) = M ( t ) + k ∗ x i ( t + 1) (35)

5.1. Mathematical Formulation for Updating Moths’ Spiral Path and Distance
To evaluate the performance of the proposed MMFO technique, optimization is carried
out on standard benchmark functions. Two types of benchmark functions, i.e., unimodal
(F1-F7) and multimodal (F8-F13), were used. Unimodal functions are those that have only
one local minimum, while multimodal ones have multiple local minima. For the study
of analysis, the expressions, dimensions (Dim), ranges, and optimum solutions (fmin) of
the corresponding benchmark functions were adopted from [38]. The consequences of
the suggested technique are compared with different metaheuristic algorithms such as
MFO, PSO, and GA. Tables 1 and 2 show the comparison of statistical parameters like
averages and standard deviations for unimodal and multimodal functions, respectively.
The performance is tested by preferring search agents and a maximum number of iterations
of 30 and 1000, respectively. The outcomes are obtained by doing 30 independent runs.

Table 1. Average and standard deviation values of MMFO in comparison with other techniques for
unimodal benchmark functions.

MMFO MFO PSO GSA GA

F
Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev.
F1 5.1296 × 10−28 9.581 × 10−28 0.000117 0.00015 1.321152 1.153887 608.2328 464.6545 21886.03 2879.58
F2 1.9844 × 10−17 3.017 × 10−17 0.000639 0.000877 7.715564 4.132128 22.75268 3.365135 56.51757 5.660857
F3 333.333 1268.5 696.7309 188.5279 736.3931 361.7818 135760.8 48652.63 37010.29 5572.212
F4 0.0056 0.0140 70.68646 5.275051 12.97281 2.634432 78.78198 2.814108 59.14331 4.648526
F5 3066 16421 139.1487 120.2607 77360.83 51156.15 741.003 781.2393 31321418 5264496
F6 1.6528 × 10−27 4.777 × 10−27 0.000113 9.87 × 10−5 286.6518 107.0796 3080.964 898.6345 20964.83 3868.109
F7 0.0056 0.0048 0.091155 0.04642 1.037316 0.310315 0.112975 0.037607 13.37504 3.08149

Table 2. Average and standard deviation values of MMFO in comparison with other techniques for
multimodal benchmark functions.

MMFO MFO PSO GSA GA

F
Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev. Average Std. dev.
F8 −8775.10 795.4405 −8496.78 725.8737 −3571 430.7989 −2352.32 382.167 −6331.19 332.5668
F9 20.2687 11.1062 84.60009 16.16658 124.2973 14.25096 31.00014 13.66054 236.8264 19.03359
F10 1.0125 × 10−14 1.435 × 10−14 1.260383 0.72956 9.167938 1.568982 3.740988 0.171265 17.84619 0.531147
F11 0.00284 0.00258 0.01908 0.021732 12.41865 4.165835 0.486826 0.049785 179.9046 32.43956
F12 0.0622 0.1506 0.894006 0.88127 13.87378 5.85373 0.46344 0.137598 34131682 1893429
F13 0.0029 0.0049 0.115824 0.193042 11813.5 30701.9 7.617114 1.22532 1.08 × 108 3849748

From the observation, it is perceived that the MMFO technique provides significantly
better outcomes in comparison to the MFO, PSO, GSA, and GA algorithms for six out of
seven unimodal test functions except F3. Additionally, the MMFO outperformed all the
algorithms for (F1, F2, F4, F6, and F7) unimodal functions. For the F5 unimodal function,
MMFO outperformed the PSO and GA algorithms. For any new technique, unimodal
functions are suitable candidates for analyzing the capability of exploitation. From Table 1,
it is obtained that the capability of exploitation is high for the MMFO technique.
Likewise, Table 2 shows the ability to widely explore the search space by recognizing
the favorable areas of MMFO. The MMFO technique yields better performance in compari-
son to the above-mentioned algorithms for the multimodal functions (F8-F13). The evasion
of local optima by MMFO draws attention to various applications.
 1, it is obtained that the capability of exploitation is high for the MMFO technique.
Likewise, Table 2 shows the ability to widely explore the search space by recognizing
the favorable areas of MMFO. The MMFO technique yields better performance in com-
parison to the above-mentioned algorithms for the multimodal functions (F8-F13). The
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 11 of 24
evasion of local optima by MMFO draws attention to various applications.

5.2. Optimal Power Dispatch Using MMFO

5.2. Optimal Power Dispatch Using MMFO
Modified Moth Flame Optimization technique exhibits itself to be the most efficient
Modified Moth Flame Optimization technique exhibits itself to be the most efficient
technique for dispatching power in a restructured power market using load curtailment
technique for dispatching power in a restructured power market using load curtailment
strategies and minimizing the deviation in transactions. Figure 5 represents the imple-
strategies and minimizing the deviation in transactions. Figure 5 represents the implemen-
mentation flowchart
tation flowchart of of
thethe suggested
suggested MMFO
MMFO algorithm.
algorithm.

Start
Initialize the position of
Read the bus data and line data moths, flame number,
maximum number of iteration
Introduce bilateral and multilateral
Set Iter = 1
transaction to ISO
Evaluate the fitness value of moths
Run OPF without and with FACTS devices Update limit
Is moth boundary within limits
No
Is the line flow within limits & iter=iter+1
Yes
Constraints satisfied No Update position of flame moth

Yes No iter ≥ itermax

Dispatch the original or rescheduled value of
contracted power Yes
Obtain best solution

End

Figure
Figure 5. Flowchart
5. Flowchart of implementingoptimal
of implementing optimal power
power dispatch
dispatchusing
usingMMFO.
MMFO.
6. Case Studies and Discussions
6. Case Studies
6.1. Case and Discussions
Studies
6.1. Case The
Studies
execution of the proposed algorithm is performed under different market trans-
actions like bilateral
The execution dispatch
of the and multilateral
proposed algorithm is dispatch correspondingly,
performed considering
under different marketthetrans-
modified IEEE 14-bus system, which consists of 5-generator buses,
actions like bilateral dispatch and multilateral dispatch correspondingly, considering 9-load buses, and the
20 transmission lines, and the IEEE 30-bus system, which consists of 6-generator buses,
modified IEEE 14-bus system, which consists of 5-generator buses, 9-load buses, and 20
24-load buses, and 41-transmission lines. For simplicity, bus-1 is chosen as the slack bus
transmission lines,
in each case, whichandisthe IEEE 30-bus
responsible system,
for loss which
calculation inconsists
each busof 6-generator
system. The bus buses,
data 24-
loadand
buses, and for
line data 41-transmission
14-bus and 30-buslines.
areFor
takensimplicity,
from [5,16], bus-1 is chosen
respectively. Theasgenerator
the slackdata
bus in
eachforcase,
14-bus and 30-bus are given in Tables A2 and A3, respectively. The corresponding and
which is responsible for loss calculation in each bus system. The bus data
line single-line
data for 14-bus
diagram and 30-bus
is given inare taken
Figure from
6 for [5,16],
a 14-bus respectively.
system. The generator
The complete data for
relative studies
are and
14-bus performed
30-businare
thegiven
MATLAB R2018a, 64-bit
in Appendix version
Tables A2 environment. The modified
and A3, respectively. Thealgorithm
correspond-
ing is tested, preferring
single-line diagramsearch agents
is given in and a maximum
Figure number
6 for a 14-bus of iterations
system. of 30 and relative
The complete 300,
respectively. The outcomes were obtained for 30 independent runs.
studies are performed in the MATLAB R2018a, 64-bit version environment. The modified
 algorithm is tested, preferring search agents a
Axioms 2023, 12, 614
and 300, respectively. The outcomes were obta 12 of 24

Figure 6. Single-line diagram of the 14-Bus system.

Figure 6. Single-line diagram of the 14-Bus system.

6.1.1. Case 1: IEEE 14-Bus System
In this case, two groups are considered for the dispatch of power between market
participants. Group-1 consists of two GENCOs (bus-2 and bus-4) and five DISCOs (buses-7,
9, 11, 12, and 14). Similarly, group-2 consists of one GENCO (bus-3) and three DISCOs
6.1.1. Case 1: IEEE 14-Bus System
(buses-6, 10, and 13). The desired generation and load of both groups are given in Table 3.
Initially, when the dispatch is done for the desired transaction without curtailment, then,
line limit exceeds in line 4–11 as given in Table 4. So, UPFC [37] is optimally placed at line
In this case, two groups are considered f
4–13, which decreases congestion by reducing the line flow to 0.2580 pu from 0.3222 pu
that are obtained without FACTS devices. The effect of UPFC on improving line loading
participants. Group-1 consists of two GENCOs
is shown in Figure 7. Even after placing the UPFC, the system operator has to curtail
the contracted power to bring the line flow within limits. So for congestion management,
the system operator follows four curtailment strategies taken from [10] and depicted in
7, 9, 11, 12, and 14). Similarly, group-2 consist
Figure 8, which are mentioned below:
A. The group curtailment strategy is applied to both groups, and the curtailment follows
(buses-6, 10, and
a linear relationship among the13).
loads The desired
of each group. generation
The willingness to pay price a
factor is chosen as 1 $/MWh ($ signifies an arbitrary unit of currency) for all the
3. Initially,
participants in thewhen
groups. the dispatch is done for the
B. The curtailment strategy is the same as in A, but the willingness to pay price factor
then, line
for group-1 islimit exceeds
chosen three times as often asin line 4–11 as given in
in group-2.
C. Here, the GENCOs of group-1 follow a separate curtailment strategy, and the will-
at line 4–13, which decreases congestion by red
ingness to pay price factor for bus-4 is three times that of bus-2. Others follow the
same strategy as A.

puD. that
Here, group-2 follows a point-to-point curtailment strategy for dispatching bilateral
contractsare
betweenobtained without
buses 3–6, 3–10, and FACTS
3–13. Others follow devices.
the same strategy as A. T
ing is shown in Figure 7. Even after placing th
the contracted power to bring the line flow wi
the system operator follows four curtailment
 Axioms 2023, 12, 614 13 of 24

Table 3. Optimal power dispatch without FACTS devices.

Desired Generation
Gr. No. Bus No. Case 2A Case 2B Case 2C Case 2D
and Load (MW)
2 157.7 157.7 157.7 150.9 157.7
Gene.
4 98.0 77.8 78.04 81.26 79.709
7 102.9 94.771 94.87 93.43 95.53
1 9 57.8 53.234 53.289 52.482 53.66
Load 11 53.5 49.274 49.325 48.57 49.67
12 16.1 14.274 14.844 14.61 14.94
14 25.4 23.394 23.118 23.06 23.58
Gene. 3 214.1 209.96 201.83 203.81 202.85

2 6 167.8 164.55 158.18 159.71 164.05

Load 10 19.0 18.633 17.912 18.082 15.25
13 27.3 26.772 26.772 25.98 23.551
Loss 1 29.78 27.896 26.73 26.24 26.77
Total Transaction byGene. (2 + 3 + 4) 469.8 445.46 437.58 435.98 440.25
Deviation in Power Transaction (MW) 24.34 32.22 33.82 29.55
Rescheduling Cost of generation ($/h) 913 1229.08 1309.78 1126.76

Table 4. Line loading of an IEEE 14-bus system with and without FACTS Devices.

Line Loading (p.u.)

Tr. Line No. Line Designation Line Rating (p.u.)
REVIEW without FACTS with TCSC [10] with UPFC
13 of 25
8 4–11 0.2500 0.3222 0.2933 0.2580

Figure 7. Line loading with and

Figure without
7. Line FACTS
loading with devices
and without ofdevices
FACTS the IEEE
of the14-bus system.
IEEE 14-bus system.

Table 3. Optimal power dispatch without FACTS devices.

Desired Generation
us No. Case 2A Case 2B Case 2C Case 2D
and Load (MW)
2 157.7 157.7 157.7 150.9 157.7
4 98.0 77.8 78.04 81.26 79.709
7 102.9 94.771 94.87 93.43 95.53
Axioms 2023,12,
Axioms 2023, 12,614
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
14 of 24
25

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Information utilized for
for load
load curtailment.
curtailment.

After
After applying
applying the
the above
above curtailment
curtailment strategies,
strategies, congestion becomes eliminated and and
line
line flow in 4–11 reduces to 0.2460 pu, as shown in
flow in 4–11 reduces to 0.2460 pu, as shown in Table
Table 5,
5, and
and the
the outcomes
outcomes ofof this
this case
case
obtained
obtainedfrom
fromoptimal
optimaldispatch
dispatchforfor
allall
cases without
cases withoutFACTS devices
FACTS havehave
devices beenbeen
summarized
summa-
in Table
rized 5. This
in Table optimal
5. This optimaldispatch model
dispatch is also
model solved
is also inin
solved the
thepresence
presenceofofUPFC
UPFC using
using
aa genetic
genetic algorithm
algorithm[29],
[29],a particle
a particle swarm optimization technique (PSO) [35],
swarm optimization technique (PSO) [35], a moth flame a moth
flame optimization
optimization technique
technique (MFO)(MFO) [38],
[38], and and a proposed
a proposed MMFOMMFO technique
technique considering
considering curtail-
curtailment strategies
ment strategies A. A.

Table5.5. Congested
Table Congestedline
lineflow
flowbefore
beforeand
andafter
aftercongestion.
congestion.
Congested Line
Congested Line Line Rating
Line Rating (p.u.)
(p.u.) Congestion Situation
Congestion Situation with UPFC
with UPFC
Before
Before 0.2580
0.2580
4–11
4–11 0.2500
0.2500
After 0.2460
After 0.2460

In this case
case study,
study,three
threedifferent
differentcurtailment
curtailmentstrategies
strategies were
were applied
applied to manage
to manage the
congestion
the situation.
congestion These
situation. curtailment
These curtailmentstrategies werewere
strategies implemented
implemented by using the will-
by using the
ingness-to-pay price
willingness-to-pay factor.
price The The
factor. optimal dispatch
optimal of generating
dispatch of generating unitsunits
and load unitsunits
and load after
implementing
after implementingthreethree
curtailment
curtailment strategies is presented
strategies is presented in Table
in Table5. From
5. From thisthis
table, it it
table, is
is observed
observed thatfor
that forcase
case2A,2A,which
whichfollowed
followedthe the group
group curtailment
curtailment strategy, contractedcontracted
power
power waswas curtailed
curtailed in in varying
varying amountsamounts for for all
all the
the groups.
groups. Here,
Here, thethe total
total transaction
transaction
deviates to 445.46 MW from the total desired transaction of
deviates to 445.46 MW from the total desired transaction of 469.8 MW. However, 469.8 MW. However, for for
casecase
2B,
where group-1 utilities are paying a higher value of willingness to pay,
2B, where group-1 utilities are paying a higher value of willingness to pay, it benefits only it benefits only the
group-1 utilities
the group-1 by 0.24
utilities by MW0.24 MW from fromcase 2A.
caseHowever,
2A. However, the curtailment
the curtailmentof 8.13ofMW 8.13badly
MW
affects group-2
badly affects utilities.utilities.
group-2 In case In 2C,case
which2C,followed a separate
which followed curtailment
a separate strategy,strategy,
curtailment group-1
paid a higher
group-1 paid awillingness to pay price,
higher willingness to pay due to which
price, due tobus-4
which got an increase
bus-4 in its output
got an increase in its
by 81.26 MW from 77.8 MW obtained by case 2A, whereas
output by 81.26 MW from 77.8 MW obtained by case 2A, whereas at the same time the at the same time the output
of bus-2ofdecreased
output to 150.9to
bus-2 decreased MW 150.9 fromMW 157.7
fromMW attained
157.7 by caseby
MW attained 2A.case
For2A.caseFor
2Dcase
which 2D
follows point-to-point curtailment strategy, the loads in group-2
which follows point-to-point curtailment strategy, the loads in group-2 at bus-10 affect at bus-10 affect badly by
3.38 MW from case 2A even after paying same willingness price
badly by 3.38 MW from case 2A even after paying same willingness price as of case 2A. as of case 2A.
From
From the
the comparative
comparative analysisanalysis of of different
different curtailment
curtailment strategies
strategies implemented
implemented for for
congestion management, it is seen that group curtailment strategies
congestion management, it is seen that group curtailment strategies are most suitable for are most suitable for
the
the control
control of
of congestion
congestion due due to to their
their lower
lower curtailment
curtailment of of power
power transactions. Therefore,
transactions. Therefore,
system operators mostly follow group curtailment strategies for
system operators mostly follow group curtailment strategies for congestion management. congestion management.
Now,
Now,using
usingthis
thisgroup
groupstrategy,
strategy, thethe
optimal
optimal power
power dispatch
dispatchis found
is foundfor the 14 bus
for the systems
14 bus sys-
in the electricity market.
tems in the electricity market.
The
The outcomes
outcomes referring
referring to to the
the group
group curtailment
curtailment strategy
strategy for for the
the 14-bus
14-bus system
system areare
given in Table 6. It gives the optimal dispatch of power with FACTS using the MMFO
given in Table 6. It gives the optimal dispatch of power with FACTS using the MMFO
technique. It is observed that outcomes obtained by the MMFO technique are better
technique. It is observed that outcomes obtained by the MMFO technique are better in
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 15 of 24

in comparison to other techniques. The total power transaction and individual power
transaction are increased to a large extent in comparison to GA, PSO, and MFO. From the
comparison study, it is obtained that the total transaction value has increased to 459.56 MW
by MMFO from transaction value of 445.46 MW, 452.52 MW, 453.9 MW, and 456.16 MW
obtained without FACTS, GA, PSO, and MFO techniques, respectively. The deviations in
power transactions attained without FACTS, GA, PSO, and MFO techniques are 24.34 MW,
17.28 MW, 15.9 MW, 13.64 MW, and 10.24 MW, respectively. However, the deviation
is very low for the proposed MMFO technique. It also shows that losses are reduced
significantly by transactions obtained without FACTS devices and other techniques. The
rescheduling cost of generation [32] is calculated for all the cases considering Equation
(36) which shows the cost reduces to 665.16 $/h by using the MMFO technique, which is
minimum in comparison to 913 $/h, 798.96 $/h, 749.01 $/h, and 699.42 $/h found by using
FACTS, GA, PSO, and MFO algorithms, respectively. Figure 9 shows transactions made
by generators 2, 3, and 4 following the group-curtailment strategy implemented by the
proposed MMFO and other aforementioned techniques without FACTS. Its convergence
characteristic is shown in Figure 10 without FACTS devices and with UPFC using different
techniques. Timing is reported in Table 7. It is seen that the proposed technique achieves
faster convergence with respect to others. The outcomes attained by the proposed technique
show its effectiveness in achieving optimized outputs.

Table 6. Optimal power dispatch with UPFC considering case 2A.

Desired Generation
Gr. No. Bus No. GA [29] PSO [35] MFO MMFO
and Load (MW)
2 157.7 157.7 157.7 157.7 157.7
Gene.
4 98.0 83.92 84.67 85.94 88.52
7 102.9 96.48 96.75 97.29 97.85
1 9 57.8 54.9 55.06 55.98 56.17
Load 11 53.5 50.43 50.81 51.34 51.45
12 16.1 15.41 15.48 15.64 15.81
14 25.4 23.94 24.27 24.39 24.94
Gene. 3 214.1 210.9 211.53 212.52 213.34

2 6 167.8 165.81 165.9 167.7 167.85

Load 10 19.0 18.62 18.74 17.87 18.54
13 27.3 26.5 26.8 26.95 26.95
Loss 1 30.349 28.834 28.834 25.346 24.226
Total Transaction by Gene. 469.8 452.52 453.9 456.16 459.56
Deviation in Power Transaction (MW) 17.28 15.9 13.64 10.24
Rescheduling Cost of gene. ($/h) 798.96 749.01 699.42 665.16

Subsequently, the efficacy of the proposed approach is being tested for an IEEE 30-
bus system.
ng
RescheduleCost = ∑ ( Ik ∆P+ + Dk ∆P− ) $/h (36)
i =2

where, Ik and Dk are the increment and decrement bid prices submitted by GENCOs.
∆P+ and ∆P− are the increase or decrease in real power from the scheduled transac-
tions of GENCOs.
n g shows the number of generators present in the system.
 Axioms
Axioms 2023,
2023,
Axioms 12,
12,
2023, xxFOR
12, FORPEER
614 PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 16 16
16 ofofof
2524
25

Figure
Figure 9.9.9.
Figure Optimal
Optimal power
power
Optimal dispatch
dispatch
power for
for
dispatch case
case
for 2A.
2A.
case 2A.

Figure
Figure
Figure 10.
10.
10. The
The
The convergence
convergence
convergence characteristic
characteristic
characteristic for
for
for case
case
case 2A.
2A.
2A.

Subsequently,
Subsequently,
Table the
the
7. Convergence efficacy
efficacy
time ofthe
of
required the
by proposed
proposed
different approach
approach
techniques isbeing
for is
casebeing testedfor
2A. tested foran
anIEEE
IEEE30-
30-
bussystem.
bus system.
Techniques without FACTS GA PSO MFO MMFO
𝑛𝑛𝑔𝑔
Time (S) 19.055 18.847 17.855 17.107 16.910
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡== ∑(𝐼
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∆𝑃++++𝐷𝐷𝑘𝑘∆𝑃
∑(𝐼𝑘𝑘∆𝑃 ∆𝑃−−)) $/ℎ
$/ℎ (36)
(36)
6.1.2. Case 2: IEEE 30-Bus System 𝑖=2
𝑖=2

where,In𝐼𝑘𝐼this
where, andcase,
𝑘and 𝐷𝐷𝑘𝑘 are
are
three thegroups
the increment
increment anddecrement
are and decrement
considered biddispatch
for bid
the pricessubmitted
prices submitted
of power by
by GENCOs.
between
GENCOs. market
∆𝑃++and
∆𝑃 and∆𝑃
participants. ∆𝑃−− are theconsists
Group-1 increaseof
are the increase orone
or decrease
GENCO
decrease ininreal
realpower
(bus-2)power from
andfrom
four thethescheduled
DISCOs scheduled
(buses-8,transac-
10, 13,
transac-
tions
and of
16). GENCOs.
Similarly,
tions of GENCOs. group-2 consists of one GENCO (bus-4) and six DISCOs (buses-7, 18, 19,
𝑛𝑔𝑔shows
20, 𝑛24, and
showsthe29). Group-3
thenumber
numberof consists of
ofgenerators three
generatorspresent GENCOs
presentin inthe (buses-3,
thesystem.
system. 5, and 6) and eight DISCOs
(buses-12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 30). The desired generation and load of all the groups
are given
Table
Table in Table 8.time
7.7.Convergence
Convergence When
time dispatch
required
required by is donetechniques
bydifferent
different for the desired
techniques for transaction
forcase
case 2A.
2A. without curtailment,
the line limit exceeds lines 1–2, 2–4, and 2–6, as shown in Table 9 Therefore, UPFC is
Techniques
Techniques withoutFACTS
without FACTS GA
GA PSO
PSO MFO
MFO MMFO
MMFO
optimally placed at lines 3–4 and 4–6, respectively, to reduce the line flow and eliminate
congestion. Even after placing the UPFC, the system operator has to curtail the16.910
Time
Time (S)
(S) 19.055
19.055 18.847
18.847 17.855
17.855 17.107
17.107 16.910
contracted
power to bring the line flow within limits. For curtailment of contracted power, the system
6.1.2.
6.1.2. Casefollows
Case
operator 2:2:IEEE
IEEE30-Bus
30-Bus
two System strategies as follows:
System
curtailment
A. InInThethisgroup
this case,three
case, three groupsare
groups
curtailment areconsidered
considered
strategy forthe
for
is applied the dispatch
to dispatch
all ofofpower
the groups, power and between
between market
market
the curtailment
participants.
participants.
follows Group-1
Group-1 consistsof
a linearconsists
relationshipofone
one GENCO
GENCO
among (bus-2)
(bus-2)
the loads ofandandfour
each four DISCOs
DISCOs
group. (buses-8,10,
(buses-8,
The willingness 10, 13,
to13,
pay
and16).
and 16). Similarly,
Similarly, group-2
group-2 consists
consists of
of one
one GENCO
GENCO (bus-4)
(bus-4) and
and six
six DISCOs
DISCOs
price factor is chosen as 1$/MWh ($ signifies an arbitrary unit of currency) for all the (buses-7,
(buses-7, 18,
18,
19,20,
19, 20,24,24,and
and29).
participants29).Group-3
Group-3 consistsof
consists
in the groups. ofthree
threeGENCOs
GENCOs(buses-3,
(buses-3,5,5,and and6)6)andandeight
eightDISCOs
DISCOs
(buses-12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 30). The desired generation and
(buses-12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 30). The desired generation and load of all the groups load of all the groups
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 17 of 24

B. Here, groups 1 and 2 follow a point-to-point curtailment strategy for dispatching

bilateral contracts. Others follow the same strategy as A.

Table 8. Optimal power dispatch without FACTS devices.

Gr. No. Bus No. Desired Gene. and Load (MW) Case 2A Case 2B
Gene. 2 67.65 63.84 58.24
8 11.4 10.94 9.25
1 10 34.2 33.26 31.14
Load
13 16.8 15.35 13.64
16 5.25 4.29 4.21
Gene. 4 40.6 36.84 31.33
7 3.6 3.14 2.51
18 3.8 3.28 2.68
2 19 13.25 12.74 11.23
Load
20 3.3 2.7 1.85
24 13.05 12.17 11.21
29 3.6 2.81 1.85
3 44.41 40.23 40.54
Gene. 5 24.15 20.27 20.71
6 28.03 23.96 23.98
12 8.7 7.1 7.3
14 9.4 8.12 8.31
15 12.5 11.24 11.32
3 17 13.6 11.68 11.7
Load
21 26.28 23.14 23.45
23 4.83 3.92 3.95
26 5.38 4.74 4.75
30 15.9 14.42 14.45
Loss 1 15.27 14.34 13.69
Total Transaction by Gene. (2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) 204.84 185.14 174.8
Deviation in Power transaction (MW) 19.7 30.04
Rescheduling Cost of generation ($/h) 664.88 947.19

Table 9. Line loading of the 30-bus system.

Line Loading (p.u.)

Line Designation Line Rating (p.u.)
without FACTS with UPFC
1–2 1.3 2.327 1.317
2–4 0.65 0.856 0.648
2–6 0.65 0.945 0.65

In this case study, two curtailment strategies were applied to mitigate congestion
that occurred during power dispatch. These curtailment strategies were implemented by
using the willingness-to-pay price factor. After applying the above curtailment strategies,
mitigation of congestion reduces the line flow of 1–2 lines to 1.294 pu, as shown in Table 10,
and the outcomes of this case obtained from optimal dispatch without FACTS devices
have been summarized in Table 10. From this table, it is obtained that for case 3A, where
a group curtailment strategy was followed and the contracted power of all utilities was
curtailed in varying amounts. Here, the transaction deviates to 185.14 MW from the
desired transaction of 204.84 MW. Whereas for case 3B, the point-to-point curtailment
strategy has been followed by groups 1 and 2, so the loads are badly affected badly with
respect to the loads of group 3, and the transaction reduces to 174.8 MW from the desired
transaction. From a comparative study, it is clear that the system operator mostly follows
 Axioms 2023, 12, 614 18 of 24

the group curtailment strategy due to its low power curtailment during power dispatch.
Now, using this group strategy, the optimal power dispatch is found for 30 bus systems in
the electricity market.

Table 10. Congested line flow before and after congestion.

Congested Line Line Rating (p.u.) Congestion Situation with UPFC

Before 1.317
1–2 1.30
After 1.294

The optimal power dispatch modeling with UPFC considering group curtailment strat-
egy using genetic algorithm (GA) [29], particle swarm optimization technique (PSO) [35],
and moth flame optimization (MFO) techniques is solved here, and the outcomes obtained
xioms 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWfrom all methods have been summarized in Table 11. From this table, it is observed that
MMFO provides better results in comparison to other techniques. The total power trans-
action and individual power transactions are increased to a large extent by the MMFO
technique in comparison to the aforementioned techniques. The total transaction occurring
by generators
12 using the MMFO technique
8.7 is 200.41 MW, which shows an 7.51
7.38 increase in total 8.12
transaction with respect to 185.14 MW, 187.09 MW, 189.924 MW, and 195.57 MW attained
14
by generators without FACTS, GA, 9.4PSO, and MFO techniques,
8.22 8.28 It is also 8.94
respectively.
15that transactions done by12.5
inferred 11.286
generators 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 using UPFC11.52
are greater than 12.1
those done without FACTS. Hence, the impact of UPFC increases the transaction amount.
17 13.6 11.69 11.89 12.59
Load Similarly, the deviation in transaction from the desired value attained by the suggested
MMFO 21using UPFC is reduced to26.28
4.43 MW from 19.723.744
MW attained without 23.92
FACTS, it was25.04
also reduced
23 from 17.75 MW, 14.9164.83MW, and 9.27 MW attained by GA, 4.19
3.98 PSO, and MFO, 4.68
respectively. The rescheduling cost obtained by the MMFO method is 469.12 $/h, whereas
26 5.38 4.78 4.83
it becomes 493.6 $/h, 546.48 $/h, and 601.14 $/h by MFO, PSO, and GA, respectively. The
5.02
30 of UPFC to the 30-bus system
addition 15.9 reduces the rescheduling
14.47 14.56
cost from 469.12 $/h to14.96
664.88 $/h, which is not achieved without FACTS devices. The loss [19] obtained by MMFO
Loss 1 15.27 14.17 13.65 11.31
is 10.94 MW, which is found to be the least when compared with 11.31 MW, 13.65 MW, and
Total Transaction by Gene. 14.17
(2 + 3MW + 4obtained
+ 5 + 6) 204.84Figure 11 shows
by other techniques. 187.09
optimal power 189.924
dispatch with and195.57
without
Deviation in Power UPFC using(MW)
Transaction different techniques, and its convergence
17.75 characteristic14.916 is shown in 9.27
Figure 12. From this convergence curve, it is obtained that MMFO convergence is faster
Rescheduling Cost
withof generation
fewer ($/h)
iterations and 601.14
with less time, as given in Table 12. 546.48 493.6

Figure 11. Optimal power dispatch for case 3A.

Figure 11. Optimal power dispatch for case 3A.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 19 of 24

Axioms 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25

Table 11. Optimal power dispatch with FACTS devices.

Desired Gene.
Gr. No. Bus No.12 8.7 7.38
GA [29] 7.51
PSO [35] MFO8.12 8.56
MMFO
and Load (MW)
14 9.4 8.22 8.28 8.94 9.24
Gene. 2 67.65 64.28 64.98 66.54 66.63
15 12.5 11.286 11.52 12.1 12.25
17 8 11.413.6 11.12
11.69 11.2111.89 11.3612.59 11.38
12.94
1 Load 10 34.2 33.46 33.57 33.98 34
Load 21 13 16.8
26.28 23.744
15.38 15.64
23.92 15.98
25.04 25.78
16.1
23 16 5.254.83 3.98
4.32 4.38 4.19 5.14 4.68 4.67
5.15
Gene.
26 4 40.6
5.38 4.78
37.26 38.24
4.83 39.58
5.02 5.24
39.86
30 15.9 14.47 14.56 14.96 15.24
7 3.6 3.23 3.345 3.36 3.45
Loss 1 18 3.815.27 14.17
3.31 3.37513.65 3.4511.31 10.94
3.69
Total2Transaction by Gene. (2 + 3 + 19
4 + 5 + 6) 204.84
13.25 187.09
12.84 189.924
12.935 195.57
13.18 200.41
13.2
Load
20
Deviation in Power Transaction (MW) 3.3 2.72
17.75 2.87514.916 3.12 9.27 3.2
4.43
24
Rescheduling Cost of generation ($/h) 13.05 12.24
601.14 12.485
546.48 12.96493.6 12.98
469.12
29 3.6 2.92 2.985 3.21 3.34
3 44.41 40.42 40.67 42.24 44.12
Gene. 5 24.15 20.89 21.054 22.27 23.28
6 28.03 24.24 24.98 26.94 26.52
12 8.7 7.38 7.51 8.12 8.56
14 9.4 8.22 8.28 8.94 9.24
15 12.5 11.286 11.52 12.1 12.25
3
17 13.6 11.69 11.89 12.59 12.94
Load
21 26.28 23.744 23.92 25.04 25.78
23 4.83 3.98 4.19 4.68 4.67
26 5.38 4.78 4.83 5.02 5.24
30 15.9 14.47 14.56 14.96 15.24
Loss 1 15.27 14.17 13.65 11.31 10.94
Total Transaction by Gene. (2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) 204.84 187.09 189.924 195.57 200.41
Deviation in Power Transaction (MW) 17.75 14.916 9.27 4.43
Rescheduling Cost of generation ($/h) 601.14 546.48 493.6 469.12
Figure 11. Optimal power dispatch for case 3A.

Figure 12.
Figure Optimal power
12. Optimal power dispatch
dispatch for
for case
case 3A.
3A.

Table
Table 12. Convergence time required by different techniques
techniques for
for case
case 3A.
3A.

Techniques
Techniques without
without FACTS
FACTS GA GA PSOPSO MFO
MFO MMFO
MMFO
Time (S)
Time (S) 25.72
25.72 24.8424.84 24.3224.32 23.625
23.625 23.10
23.10

6.2. Discussions: 14-Bus System and 30-Bus System

From the comparative analysis of the 14-bus system and the 30-bus system, it is found
that deviations in requested transactions are minimized by the proposed MMFO tech-
nique using UPFC. It is also observed that the impact of UPFC on both systems has
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 20 of 24

6.2. Discussions: 14-Bus System and 30-Bus System

From the comparative analysis of the 14-bus system and the 30-bus system, it is
found that deviations in requested transactions are minimized by the proposed MMFO
technique using UPFC. It is also observed that the impact of UPFC on both systems has
increased power dispatch. The loss attained by the proposed method is also very low
for both systems. From the convergence characteristics shown in Figures 10 and 12, it
is seen that MMFO convergence is faster as compared to other techniques such as GA,
PSO, and MFO, both with and without UPFC. The proposed technique provides optimized
outcomes by satisfying all operational constraints. The time required to converge by all the
aforementioned techniques is given in Tables 7 and 12. The suggested technique achieves
faster convergence with less time (16.91 s for a 14-bus system and 23.10 s for a 30-bus
system) in comparison to other techniques and obtains a global optima rather than a local
optima. Hence, from the relative studies, it can be inferred that the proposed approach is
more efficient and reliable. The accuracy of this technique is higher because it reduces the
deviation in power transactions.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, the MMFO technique is utilized with UPFC for the first time to reduce
the deviation in power transactions in the deregulated electric market. Modification of the
aforementioned optimization technique is achieved by suitably adapting its exploitation
and exploration stages. The performance assessment of the suggested MMFO is verified by
applying it to the standard test benchmark. The performance of MMFO when compared
with other algorithms shows superiority for the suggested modification in the present
context. In the proposed optimal power dispatch model, congestion management is done
by employing three different curtailment strategies, such as group, separate, and point-
to-point strategies. The deviation of power of each unit has been reduced considering
these curtailment strategies, and among them, the group-curtailment strategy imparts the
least curtailment. Furthermore, willingness-to-pay price factors are used to avoid power
curtailment, and this provides intuition into the nature of competition in the emerging
transmission market. In addition, the effect of UPFC has been analyzed for improving line
loading and reducing congestion. Transmission loss and rescheduling cost of generation
have been calculated for modified IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 30-bus systems. The impact of
congestion management reduces loss and rescheduling costs by 20% and 27.14%, respec-
tively, in a 14-bus system. And in a 30-bus system, these factors are reduced by 28% and
29.14%, respectively. From the comparative study, it is found that the proposed MMFO
technique converges faster and yields better results by satisfying all operational constraints
in terms of consistency and feasibility for minimizing transaction deviation and loss when
compared with MFO, PSO, and GA techniques. However, if a larger system is taken into
consideration along with renewable sources, then it will add more constraints to the system
and make the problem more complex. Hence, a proper constraint handling method must
be employed for the satisfaction of all operational constraints. Hence, the authors intend
to manage congestion in larger power systems and study the impact of renewable energy
generating units on power congestion.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S. and P.K.H.; methodology, A.S., F.A., P.K.H. and T.S.U.;
software, A.S.; validation, A.S.; formal analysis, A.S. and T.S.U.; investigation, A.S. and P.R.S.;
resources, A.S.; data curation, A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S., P.K.H. and P.R.S.;
writing—review and editing, F.A. and T.S.U.; visualization, A.S., S.A. and P.R.S.; supervision, P.K.H.
and T.S.U.; project administration, T.S.U.; funding acquisition, T.S.U. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not available.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 21 of 24

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Researchers Supporting Project Number
(RSPD2023R646), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

OPD optimal power dispatch

MFO moth flame optimization
MMFO modified moth flame optimization
GENCOs generating companies
DISCOs distribution companies
LMPD locational marginal-price dispatch
UPFC unified power flow controller
a constant matrix that shows curtailment strategies follows by market
A
utilities
w diagonal matrix having elements of willingness-to-pay price factor
actual and desired control variables respectively i.e., active power
Pi and Pi0
injection or extraction.
u number of market participants
PGi and Q Gi active and reactive power generation of GENCO-i
PDi and Q Di active and reactive power demand of DISCO-i
min , Pmax and Qmin , Qmax
PGi active and reactive power’s lower and upper limits of GENCO-i
Gi Gi Gi
Vimin and Vimax voltage limit of GENCO-i
G number of group transfers
power injection at GENCO-i in pursuance of bilateral contract with
Pbij
aDISCO-j.
power extraction by DISCO-j in pursuance of bilateral contract with
Lb ji
aGENCO-i.
Pm ig power injection at GENCO-i under multilateral contract
Lm jg power extraction by DISCO-j under multilateral contract

Appendix A

Table A1. Detailed report of Literature.

Ref. Problem’s Objective Methodology Techniques Used

optimal power flow and available Gravitational search assisted
[1] (2019) minimize congestion rent
transfer capability algorithm
minimizing fuel and emission penalty cost of Optimal Location of Hybrid Bacterial Foraging
[2] (2015)
generators and congestion management Series FACTS Devices and Nelder Mead Algorithm
Minimize transaction deviation for congestion Load curtailment using
[4] (1998) Optimal power flow
management curtailment strtageies
minimize the curtailment of the contracted powers in a
[10] (2000) Curtailment strategy Optimal power flow
power market
Voltagesecurity margin (λ) and
MultiObjective Dragonfly
[25] (2021) Minimize congestion cost corrected transient energy margin
Algorithm (MODA)
(CTEM)
Twin Extremity Chaotic Map
By Identifying the Participating
[33] (2019) Minimization of Active Power Rescheduling Cost Adaptive Particle Swarm
Rescheduling Generators
Optimization
Optimal placement and sizing of
[43] (2017) improving voltage profile and reducing the power loss Moth flame optimization
DGs
minimize the cost of rescheduling and the total change sensitivity based rescheduling of improved monarch butterfly
[44] (2023)
in power after rescheduling. generators optimization
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 22 of 24

Table A1. Cont.

Ref. Problem’s Objective Methodology Techniques Used

optimizes the generating power and manages the Hybridizing lion and moth search
[45] (2022) rescheduling of generators
congestion with minimized rescheduling cost. models
reduce the deviation of
lower the cost of active and reactive power of the Particle Swarm Optimization
[46] (2022) rescheduled active and reactive
generators Algorithm
power from scheduled values
active power rescheduling of
reduce transmission network congestion in a
[47] (2023) generators via Optimal DG Firefly algorithm
pool-based energy market
Capacity
[48] (2023) minimum congestion cost rescheduling of generators Hybrid Deep Neural Network
Particle Swarm Optimization with
minimizes the congestion with the smallest possible
[49] (2022) rescheduling of generators Distributed Acceleration
rescheduling price
Constants
optimum placement and sizing of
[50] (2023) Optimal location and sizing of DGs DGs to be integrated with a Load Flow Based Scheme
transmission line system
minimum voltage security margin (VSM) index to Transmission Switching (TS)
[51] (2022) Load Flow Based Scheme
eliminate the congestion of electrical lines based cost-effective approach
To Minimize Real Power Losses, Generation Cost and Improved Grey Wolf
[52] (2021) Optimal Location of TCSC
Voltage Deviations Optimization (IGWO)

Table A2. Generator data for the 14-Bus System.

Voltage Limits Reactive Power Limits

Generator Number
Vmin
i Vmax
i Qmin
i Qmax
i
1 0.95 1.08 0 40
2 0.95 1.08 0 60
3 0.95 1.08 −20 100
4 0.95 1.08 0 87
5 0.95 1.09 0 35

Table A3. Generator data for the 30-Bus System.

Voltage Limits Reactive Power Limits

Generator Number
Vmin
i Vmax
i Qmin
i Qmax
i
1 0.96 1.06 −30 100
2 0.96 1.043 −30 100
3 0.96 1.01 −30 100
4 0.96 1.01 −30 100
5 0.96 1.082 −30 100
6 0.96 1.071 −30 100

References
1. Shrestha, G.B.; Feng, W. Effects of series compensation on spot price power markets. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2005, 27,
428–436.
2. Basu, J.B.; Dawn, S.; Saha, P.K.; Chakraborty, M.R.; Alsaif, F.; Alsulamy, S.; Ustun, T.S. Risk Mitigation & Profit Improvement of a
Wind-Fuel Cell Hybrid System With TCSC Placement. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 39431–39447.
3. Sharma, A.; Jain, S.K. Gravitational search assisted algorithm for TCSC placement for congestion control in deregulated power
system. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 174, 105874.
4. David, A.K. Dispatch methodologies for open access transmission systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1998, 13, 46–53.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 23 of 24

5. Patil, G.S.; Mulla, A.; Dawn, S.; Ustun, T.S. Profit Maximization with Imbalance Cost Improvement by Solar PV-Battery Hybrid
System in Deregulated Power Market. Energies 2022, 15, 5290.
6. Vengadesan, A. Transmission Congestion Management through Optimal Placement and Sizing of TCSC Devices in a Deregulated
Power Network. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Ed. 2021, 12, 5390–5403.
7. Patil, G.S.; Mulla, A.; Ustun, T.S. Impact of Wind Farm Integration on LMP in Deregulated Energy Markets. Sustainability 2022,
14, 4354.
8. Pillay, A.; Karthikeyan, S.P.; Kothari, D.P. Congestion management in power systems—A review. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
2015, 70, 83–90.
9. Basu, J.B.; Dawn, S.; Saha, P.K.; Chakraborty, M.R.; Ustun, T.S. A Comparative Study on System Profit Maximization of a
Renewable Combined Deregulated Power System. Electronics 2022, 11, 2857.
10. Hussain, S.M.S.; Aftab, M.A.; Nadeem, F.; Ali, I.; Ustun, T.S. Optimal Energy Routing in Microgrids with IEC 61850 Based Energy
Routers. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electr. 2020, 67, 5161–5169.
11. Das, A.; Dawn, S.; Gope, S.; Ustun, T.S. A Strategy for System Risk Mitigation Using FACTS Devices in a Wind Incorporated
Competitive Power System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8069.
12. Pal, S.; Sen, S.; Sengupta, S. Power network reconfiguration for congestion management and loss minimization using Genetic
Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Michael Faraday IET International Summit 2015, Kolkata, India, 12–13 September 2015; pp.
291–296.
13. Houndjéga, M.; Muriithi, C.M.; Wekesa, C.W. Active power rescheduling for congestion management based on generator
sensitivity factor using ant lion optimization algorithm. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2018, 11, 1565–1582.
14. Gupta, D.; Jain, S.K. Available transfer capability enhancement by FACTS devices using metaheuristic evolutionary particle
swarm optimization (MEEPSO) technique. Energies 2021, 14, 869.
15. Gautam, A.; Sharma, G.; Bokoro, P.N.; Ahmer, M.F. Available transfer capability enhancement in deregulated power system
through tlbo optimised tcsc. Energies 2022, 15, 4448.
16. Verma, S.; Saha, S.; Mukherjee, V. Optimal rescheduling of real power generation for congestion management using teaching-
learning-based optimization algorithm. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2018, 5, 889–907.
17. Singh, J.G.; Qazi, H.W.; Ghandhari, M. Load curtailment minimization by optimal placement of Unified Power Flow Controller.
Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2016, 26, 2272–2284.
18. Fang, R.S.; David, A.K. Optimal dispatch under transmission contracts. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1999, 14, 732–737.
19. Srivastava, S.C.; Kumar, P. Optimal power dispatch in deregulated market considering congestion management. In Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies, London, UK,
4–7 April 2000; pp. 53–59.
20. Fang, R.S.; David, A.K. Transmission congestion management in an electricity market. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1999, 14, 877–883.
21. Agrawal, A.; Pandey, S.N.; Srivastava, L.; Walde, P.; Saket, R.K.; Khan, B. Multiobjective Salp Swarm Algorithm Approach for
Transmission Congestion Management. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2022, 2022, 8256908. [CrossRef]
22. Dashtdar, M.; Najafi, M.; Esmaeilbeig, M. Calculating the locational marginal price and solving optimal power flow problem
based on congestion management using GA-GSF algorithm. Electr. Eng. 2020, 102, 1549–1566.
23. Wang, Q.; Zhang, G.; McCalley, J.D.; Zheng, T.; Litvinov, E. Risk-based locational marginal pricing and congestion management.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 2518–2528.
24. Acharya, N.; Mithulananthan, N. Locating series FACTS devices for congestion management in deregulated electricity markets.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2007, 77, 352–360.
25. Saravanan, C.; Anbalagan, P. Multi objective dragonfly algorithm for congestion management in deregulated power systems. J.
Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 12, 7519–7528.
26. Esmaili, M.; Shayanfar, H.A.; Moslemi, R. Locating series FACTS devices for multi-objective congestion management improving
voltage and transient stability. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 236, 763–773.
27. Mishra, A. Congestion management of deregulated power systems by optimal setting of Interline Power Flow Controller using
Gravitational Search algorithm. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2017, 4, 198–212.
28. Jamnani, J.G.; Pandya, M. Coordination of SVC and TCSC for management of power flow by particle swarm optimization. Energy
Procedia 2019, 156, 321–326.
29. Kumar, S.V.; Sreenivasulu, J.; Kumar, K.V. Genetic Algorithm based Congestion Management by using Optimal Power Flow
Technique to Incorporate FACTS Devices in Deregulated Environment. Int. J. Innov. Res. Electr. Electron. Instrum. Control Eng.
2014, 2, 2220–2225.
30. Vijayakumar, K. Optimal location of FACTS devices for congestion management in deregulated power systems. Int. J. Comput.
Appl. 2011, 16, 29–37.
31. Bavithra, K.; Raja, S.C.; Venkatesh, P. Optimal setting of FACTS devices using particle swarm optimization for ATC enhancement
in deregulated power system. IFAC-Pap. Line 2016, 49, 450–455.
32. Verma, S.; Mukherjee, V. Firefly algorithm for congestion management in deregulated environment. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016,
19, 1254–1265.
33. Batra, I.; Ghosh, S. A novel approach of congestion management in deregulated power system using an advanced and intelligently
trained twin extremity chaotic map adaptive particle swarm optimization algorithm. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2019, 44, 6861–6886.
Axioms 2023, 12, 614 24 of 24

34. Chintam, J.R.; Daniel, M. Real-power rescheduling of generators for congestion management using a novel satin bowerbird
optimization algorithm. Energies 2018, 11, 183–198.
35. Dutta, S.; Singh, S.P. Optimal rescheduling of generators for congestion management based on particle swarm optimization. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2008, 23, 1560–1569.
36. Gautam, A.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, Y. Mitigating congestion in restructured power system using FACTS allocation by sensitivity
factors and parameter optimized by GWO. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2020, 5, 1–10.
37. Kumar, B.V.; Srikanth, N.V. Optimal location and sizing of Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) to improve dynamic stability:
A hybrid technique. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 64, 429–438.
38. Mirjalili, S. Moth-flame optimization algorithm: A novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2015, 89, 228–249.
39. Chauhan, A.; Upadhyay, S.; Khan, M.T.; Hussain, S.M.S.; Ustun, T.S. Performance Investigation of a Solar Photovoltaic/Diesel
Generator Based Hybrid System with Cycle Charging Strategy Using BBO Algorithm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8048.
40. Bentouati, B.; Chaib, L.; Chettih, S. Optimal power flow using the moth flam optimizer: A case study of the Algerian power
system. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2016, 1, 431–445.
41. Mei, R.N.S.; Sulaiman, M.H.; Mustaffa, Z.; Daniyal, H. Optimal reactive power dispatch solution by loss minimization using
moth-flame optimization technique. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 59, 210–222.
42. Sahoo, A.; Hota, P.K. Moth Flame optimization algorithm based optimal strategic bidding in deregulated electricity market. In
Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), Kochi, India, 17–20 October 2019; pp. 2105–2110.
43. Hussien, S.A.; Mahmoud, H. Optimal placement and sizing of DGs in distribution system for improving voltage profile and
reducing the power loss using moth flame optimization technique. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Technol. 2017, 6, 161–167.
44. Singh, V.; Fozdar, M.; Malik, H.; Márquez, F.P.G. Transmission congestion management through sensitivity based rescheduling of
generators using improved monarch butterfly optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2023, 145, 108729.
45. Srivastava, J.; Yadav, N.K. Rescheduling-based congestion management by metaheuristic algorithm: Hybridizing lion and moth
search models. Int. J. Numer. Model. Electron. Netw. Devices Fields 2022, 35, e2952.
46. Ogunwole, E.I.; Krishnamurthy, S. Transmission Congestion Management Using Generator Sensitivity Factors for Active and
Reactive Power Rescheduling Using Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 122882–122900.
47. Thiruvel, A.; Thiruppathi, S.; Chidambararaj, N.; Aravindhan, K. Modern Power System Operations in Effective Transmission
Congestion Management via Optimal DG Capacity Using Firefly Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International
Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), Chennai, India, 23–25 March 2023; pp. 360–365.
48. Agrawal, A.; Pandey, S.N.; Srivastava, L.; Walde, P.; Singh, S.; Khan, B.; Saket, R.K. Hybrid deep neural network-based generation
rescheduling for congestion mitigation in spot power market. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 29267–29276.
49. Yadav, N.K. A novel hybridized algorithm for rescheduling based congestion management. Wirel. Netw. 2023, 1–16. [CrossRef]
50. Varghese, J.P.; Sundaramoorthy, K.; Sankaran, A. Development and Validation of a Load Flow Based Scheme for Optimum
Placing and Quantifying of Distributed Generation for Alleviation of Congestion in Interconnected Power Systems. Energies 2023,
16, 2536.
51. Roustaei, M.; Letafat, A.; Sheikh, M.; Sadoughi, R.; Ardeshiri, M. A cost-effective voltage security constrained congestion
management approach for transmission system operation improvement. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2022, 203, 107674.
52. Behera, S.K.; Mohanty, N.K. Congestion management using thyristor controlled series compensator employing Improved Grey
Wolf Optimization technique. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 2021, 58, 179–199.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.