Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transmission Congestion Management
Transmission Congestion Management
Abstract: In a deregulated electricity market, it may always not be possible to dispatch all of the
contracted power transactions due to congestion of the transmission corridors. The ongoing power
system restructuring requires an opening of unused potentials of transmission system due to
environmental, right-of-way and cost problems which are major hurdles for power transmission
network expansion. Flexible ac transmission systems devices can be an alternative to reduce the flows
in heavily loaded lines, resulting in an increased loadability, low system loss, improved stability of the
network, reduced cost of production and fulfilled contractual requirement by controlling the power
flows in the network. A method to determine the optimal location of thyristor controlled series
compensators has been suggested in this paper based on real power performance index and reduction
of total system reactive power loss.
multilateral contracts it would be difficult to use this Q cji = −V j2 ( Bij' + Bsh ) + ViV j (Gij' sin δ ij + Bij' cos δ ij ) (8)
objective.
Congestion in a transmission system, whether
vertically organized or unbundled, cannot be permitted
except for very short duration, for fear of cascade Bus-i Y ij = G ij + jB ij
Bus-j
outages with uncontrolled loss of load. Some corrective
measures such as outage of congested branch, using
FACTS devices, operation of transformer taps, re-
dispatch of generation and curtailment of pool loads
and/or bilateral contracts can relieve congestion.
A method to determine the optimal location of jB sh jBsh
TCSC has been suggested in this paper. The approach is
based on the sensitivity of the reduction of total system
reactive power loss and real power performance index.
(a)
In section 2 static modeling of TCSC is obtained. In Bus-i Z ij = rij + jx ij Bus-j
section 3 the objective function for using in OPF
(Optimal Power Flow) is presented. The optimal
location is based on the minimizing the production and
device cost. The proposed method has been − jx c
demonstrated on two 5-bus power systems. The results
show that above algorithm is suitable for relieving jB sh jB sh
congestion and getting economical results.
Pjc = V j2 ∆Gij − ViV j [∆Gij cos δ ij − ∆Bij sin δ ij ] (12) PI will be small when all the lines are within their
limits and reach a high value when there are overloads.
Qic = −Vi2 ∆Bij − ViV j [∆Gij sin δ ij − ∆Bij cos δ ij ] (13) Thus, it provides a good measure of severity of the line
Q jc = −V j2 ∆Bij + ViV j [∆Gij sin δ ij + ∆Bij cos δ ij ] (14) overloads for given state of the power system. Most of
the works on contingency selection algorithms utilize
xc rij ( xc − 2 xij ) the second order performance indices which, in general,
where ∆Gij = and
(rij2 + xij2 )(rij2 + ( xij − xc ) 2 ) suffer from masking effects. The lack of discrimination,
− xc (rij2 − xij2 + xc xij ) in which the performance index for a case with many
∆Bij = . small violations may be comparable in value to the
(rij2 + xij2 )(rij2 + ( xij − xc ) 2 )
index for a case with one huge violation, is known as
masking effect. By most of the operational standards,
Due to high cost of FACTS devices, it is necessary the system with one huge violation is much more severe
to use cost-benefit analysis to analyze whether new than that with many small violations. Masking effect to
FACTS device is cost effective among several some extent can be avoided using higher order
candidate locations where they actually installed. The performance indices, that is n > 1. However, in this
TCSC cost in line-k is given by [16], study, the value of exponent has been taken as 2 and
CTCSC ( k ) = c.xc (k ).PL2 .Base _ power (15) wi =1.
where c is the unit investment cost of FACTS, xc (k ) is The real power flow PI sensitivity factors with
the series capacitive reactance and PL is the power respect to the parameters of TCSC can be defined as
∂PI
flow in line-k. bk = xck =0 (19)
∂xck
The objective function for placement of TCSC will
be The sensitivity of PI with respect to TCSC
min Ci ( Pi ) + CTCSC (16) parameter connected between bus-i and bus-j can be
Pi
i written as
4
OPTIMAL LOCATION OF TCSC ∂PI
NL
1 ∂PLm
= 3
wm PLm (20)
∂xck m =1
max
PLm ∂xck
Reduction of total system reactive power loss: The real power flow in a line-m can be represented
Here we look at a method based on the sensitivity of the in terms of real power injections using DC power flow
total system reactive power loss with respect to the equations [17] where s is slack bus, as
control variable of the TCSC. For TCSC placed N
between buses i and j we consider net line series S mn Pn for m ≠ k
reactance as a control parameter. Loss sensitivity with n =1
n≠ s
respect to control parameter of TCSC placed between PLm = N (21)
buses i and j can be written as S mn Pn + Pj for m = k
n =1
n≠ s
∂QL rij2 − xij2 Using equation (21), the following relationship can
aij = = [Vi2 + V j2 − 2ViV j cos δ ij ]. 2 (17) be derived,
∂xij (rij + xij2 ) 2
∂Pi ∂Pj
Real power flow performance index sensitivity S mi + S mj for m ≠ k
∂PLm ∂xck ∂xck
indices: The severity of the system loading under = (22)
normal and contingency cases can be described by a ∂xck ∂Pi ∂Pj ∂Pj
S mi + S mj + for m = k
real power line flow performance index [17], as given ∂xck ∂xck ∂xck
below. ∂Pj
∂Pi
NL
wm PLm
2n The terms xck = 0 , xck =0 can be derived as
PI = (18) ∂xck ∂xck
max
2n PLm
m =1
below
where PLm is the real power flow and PLmmax is the rated ∂Pi ∂Pic
=
capacity of line-m, n is the exponent and wm a real non- ∂xck
xck =0
∂xck
xck =0
(23)
negative weighting coefficient which may be used to rij xij ( xij2 − rij2 )
reflect the importance of lines. = −2(Vi − ViV j cos δ ij )
2
− ViV j sin δ ij
(rij2 + xij2 ) 2 ( rij2 + xij2 ) 2
244
Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (3): 242-247, 2008
SCI-PUBLICATION Author Manuscript
246
Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (3): 242-247, 2008
SCI-PUBLICATION Author Manuscript
TCSC cost could be effectively used for determining 9. Huang G., Hsieh S.C., 1998. Fast textured
optimal location of TCSC. algorithms for optimal delivery problems in
deregulated environments, IEEE Trans. on Power
REFERENCES Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2: 493-500.
10. Momoh J.A., Zhu J.Z., 1998. A new approach to
1. Kumar A., Srivastava S.C., Singh S.N., 2004. A optimal power flow with phase shifter, IEEE
Zonal Congestion Management Approach Using International Conference on Systems, Vol. 5: 4794-
Real and Reactive Power Rescheduling, IEEE 4799.
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1. 11. Wu G., Yokoyama A., He J., Yu Y., 1998.
2. Vries L.J., 2001. Capacity allocation in a Allocation and control of FACTS devices for
restructured electricity market: technical and steady state stability enhancement of large scale
economic evaluation of congestion management power system, IEEE International Conference on
Power System Technology, Vol. 1: 357-361.
methods on interconnectors, Proc. IEEE Porto
12. Liu J.Y., Song Y.H., 1999. Comparison studies of
Power Tech Conf.
unified power flow controller with static var
3. Lommerdal M., Soder L., 2003. Simulation of
compensators and phase shifters, Electric Machines
Congestion Management Methods, Proc. Bologna and Power Systems, Vol. 27: 237-251.
Power Tech. 13. Lie T.T., Deng W., 1999. Optimal flexible AC
4. Baldick R., Kahn E., 1997. Contract paths, phase transmission systems (FACTS) devices allocation,
shifters and efficient electricity trade, IEEE International Journal of Electrical Power and
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2: Energy Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2 : 125-134.
749-755. 14. De Oliveira E.J., Lima W.M., 1999 Allocation of
5. Bladow J., Montoya A., 1991. Experiences with FACTS devices in a competitive environment, 13th
parallel EHV phase shifting transformers, IEEE PSCC, 1184-1190.
Transactions on Power Delivery, 1096-1100. 15. Verma K.S., Singh S.N., Gupta H.O., 2001.
6. Galiana G.D., 1996. Assesment and control of the FACTS devices location for enhancement of total
impact of FACTS devices on power system transfer capability, Power Engineering Society
performance, IEEE Transactions on Power System, Winter Meeting, IEEE, Vol. 2 : 522-527.
Vol. 11, No. 4: 1931-1936. 16. Singh S.N., David A.K., 2000. Placement of
7. Larsen E., Millers N., Nilsson S., Lindgren S., FACTS devices in open power market, Advances
1992. Benefits of GTO-Based compensation in Power System Control, Operation and
systems for electric utility applications, IEEE Management, Vol. 1 : 173-177.
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 4: 17. Wood A.J., Wollenberg B.F., 1996. Power
2056-2064. Generation, Operation and Control, John Wiley,
8. Preedavinchit P., Srivastava S.C., 1998. Optimal New York.
reactive power dispatch considering FACTS 18. MATPOWER, a MATLAB Power System
Simulation Package, Version 3.0.0,
devices, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 46,
http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower.
No. 3: 251-257.
247