Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Linear-programming-based decomposition method

for optimal planning of transmission network


investments
V.A. Levi
M.S. CaloviC

Indexing terms: Power systems and plant, Linear programming, Transmission network expansion planning

Abstract: The paper is devoted to an optimal


solution of the investment model within overall
transmission network expansion planning. The
proposed investment model is defined as the static,
minimum-cost linear-programming problem. Adequate rearrangement of this model achieves its
decomposition into two interrelated subproblems.
The first subproblem deals with the solution of
initial power flows encompassing security aspects
only, and the second subproblem solves superimposed power flows taking into account the
economy of the problem as well. The minimumload curtailment model is used for the solution of
the first subproblem, and the proposed model of
linear-programming marginal network is used for
the solution of the second subproblem. The proposed investment model is incorporated into the
newly developed, very flexible procedure for
overall transmission network expansion planning,
which enables the application of different expansion planning concepts.

Introduction

Transmission network expansion planning represents the


problem of finding the best transmission network development strategy, while meeting imposed operational, economic and reliability constraints. In the Yugoslav power
industry, transmission expansion planning over the past
decade has been performed by applying two software
packages: Tranex [l] and Neva [Z]. The former solves
the investment problem by applying a sensitivity-based
interactive methodology. As this software package uses
the (n - 1) security concept, the other package, Neva, is
used for the checking of bulk power-system reliability
indices of individual optimum development plans. Longterm application of these two packages in everyday practice has highlighted some very important drawbacks, e.g. :
(a) When the (n - 1) security concept and the reliability model are applied together, it is not possible to
obtain insight into the trade-off between the investment
costs and the cost of nonsupplied energy. This often
results in over-secure expansion plans. Moreover, the

0IEE, 1993
Paper 9607C (W),
first received 28th April 1992 and in revised form
26th March 1993
The authors are with the Institute of Power Engineering and Electronics, School of Engineering Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000
N o n Sad, Serbia
516

additional operation costs originating from the transmission network are completely neglected.
(b) Interactive transmission expansion planning can be
a very tiring and time-consuming process, when only the
sensitivity-based expansion planning criterion [l] is used.
Moreover, the real optimal solution is never known, and
the problem cannot be well visualised. In some cases,
there are a large number of network reinforcement candidates with very little difference between the expansion
planning criterion values, which, on the other hand,
always favour the construction of longer (more expensive)
lines.
(c) Reliability evaluation using the model of capacity
state classification by subsets from Reference 2 seems to
be inappropriate for meshed transmission networks, as
the Kirchhoff voltage law (KVL) is not encompassed in
this model. This means that the calculated bulk power
system reliability indices are better than the real ones.
This paper proposes a new methodology for optimum
transmission expansion planning, with the goal of
improving the shortcomings listed above. The overall
expansion planning task is decomposed into two independent entities: the investment problem gives the
answer to the best network reinforcements, and the
additional operation expenses and corresponding bulk
power-system reliability indices are calculated by the
operation model. Both models are defined in such a way,
that their aggregation into a unique entity is very simple
and compatible with the generation expansion planning
methodology Wasp [3]. This feature avoids drawback
(a). The investment problem is defined as a linearprogramming model, and, besides the sensitivity-based
interactive expansion planning policy, it considers the
economy of the solution and produces optimal expansion
plans. In this way, drawback (6) is eliminated. The operation problem is defined through an independent Monte
Carlo simulation, based on the DC load flow [4, 51. As
the DC load flow and real-life control and operation
policies are included in this model, drawback (c) is
removed.
This paper is exclusively devoted to the consideration
of the investment problem. It represents recent research
results of improvements on the model proposed in Reference 6. The development of this investment model was
motivated by some possible shortcomings of the original
model, as cited in Reference 6. Namely, it was mentioned
that, in some situations, in the presence of small load curtailments in the existing network (obtained by the
minimum load curtailment (MLC) model [l]), a zerovalued objective function can be obtained as the optimal
solution of the marginal network (MN) model [SI. This
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

means, in practice, that no transmission investments are


necessary, although the existing network is not able to
supply the overall system demand. This shortcoming is
the consequence of the fact that, in the original problem
formulation, the KVL is not taken into account. For this
reason, the transmission network investment planning
problem is specified in this paper via the minimum-cost
linear-programming formulation. To retain the linearity
of the model, the existing network is represented by the
DC load-flow model, and the new branches (candidates
for the future expansion of the network) are modelled
through the pathcapacity approach. To enable the application of the interactive and optimum-based expansion
policies, the investment model is further reformulated
and decomposed into two subproblems. The fist subproblem defines the network bottlenecks, giving a very
good visual follow-up of the existing network. It is solved
by the MLC model. The second subproblem determines
the most economic network reinforcements necessary to
alleviate the transmission network bottlenecks. It is
solved by the proposed linear-programming marginal
network (LPMN) model. The final result of the proposed
methodology is the new software package intended to be
used in the Yugoslav power industry. It is verified on
several test examples, as well as on the example of the
high-voltage transmission network of eastern Yugoslavia.

Overall transmission network expansion


planning

The proposed overall transmission network expansion


planning methodology is of a static type and it is characterised by the independent consideration of investment
and operation problems. Its global flowchart is given in
Fig. 1. When the solution of the investment problem is
found in all years of the planning period (part A of the
algorithm), a so-called decision tree is obtained, where
the nodes are different network configurations and the
arcs are discounted investment expenses. In part B, the
possible violations of reliability constraints are checked
in all the network configurations so obtained, and the
additional operation expenses are calculated by using the
independent Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, in part C,
the optimum transmission expansion strategy is found by
applying a minimum-path algorithm along all configurations satisfying reliability constraints. This strategy
represents the optimum trade-off between investment and
operation costs in the whole planning period. When
applying this algorithm in everyday practice, the following facts have to be taken into account:
(a) It is necessary to specify various operation costs
that should be included in the calculation. This specification primarily depends on the purpose of the study.

read a11 data in the base


year of the planning period

II
solve the investment problem

i
I

I
year= year.1

make required reinforcements either by


using interactive policy, or by using
optimum based policy, and calculate

'r'
year=base year

read additional data in the base year


of the planning period

take m e netwwk configuration in the


considered year

solve the operation problem and


calculate discounted operation costs

if the reliability constraints are


violated, reject this configuration

by running a minimum path


algorithm along the decision tree

Fig. 1

Globalpowchart ofthe m a l l transmission expansion planning

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

517

(b) It is common practice to define certain 'rules' when


solving the investment part of the whole problem. The
most frequently met rule is the (n - 1) security concept,
generation rescheduling allowed/not allowed.
The proposed transmission expansion methodology is
intended for expansion planning for the whole power
system. Thus, when specifying the operation costs, one
should be very careful as most of them are already taken
into account in the generation expansion planning stage
[3]. Therefore, only the additional operation costs, which
are the consequence of the transmission network constraints, are to be encompassed. When the (n - 1)
security concept is used, it becomes obvious that these
costs could be significantly smaller than the investment
costs. In that case, it is very convenient to modify the
original expansion planning algorithm, shown in Fig. 1,
by altering the positions of parts B and C and by deleting
the inner loop of part B. In this way, calculation of operation costs is made for the optimum network configurations only, and the computing time requirements are
significantly reduced. It should be pointed out that, if
these additional operation costs are further neglected, the
algorithm is essentially reduced to the one being presently used in the Yugoslav power industry, via the software
packages Tranex [l] and Neva [2].

Investment problem of transmission expansion


planning

3.1 Decomposition of the overall problem


The investment problem of transmission network expansion planning is defined by a static, minimumcost linearprogramming model. With the aid of this model, the
minimisation of capital costs for new network elements is
performed, while meeting the operation constraints. The
formulation of this problem is as follows:

-BO

+ G + Mlf

ITG = ITD
G" Q G Q

cH

IS196
f Qi:
where

B = the set of all branches connecting nodes k and


rn in the existing network, and new rights-ofway k - rn where the construction of branches
is allowed
Kk-,,, = the capital cost of the branch k - m, reduced
to unit power flow
f = the vector of active power flows in new
network elements (its individual elementsf k - ,
represent active power flows in branches
k - m); superscript - denotes the vector of
maximum active power flows
B = the system node susceptance matrix
O = the vector of node voltage phase angles
G = the vector of generations in existing power
plants; superscripts M and rn designate the
maximum and minimum generations, respectively
518

MI = is the node - branch incidence matrix


D = the vector of loads in all network nodes
I = a unit vector
$ = the vector of phase-angle differences across
existing branches; superscript - designates
corresponding maximum allowable values.
It is obvious that in the problem formulation eqn. 1 the
existing network is specified by the DC load flow submodel, and new network elements (in existing branches
and in new rights-of-way) are specified by the pathcapacity submodel. The constraints of the above defined
model encompass the following operation limits:
(a) Load balance equation in each of the nodes: constraint of eqn. l b
(b) system balance equation: constraint of eqn. IC
(c) minimum and maximum generation limits: constraint of eqn. Id
(d) transmission limits of existing network elements
(expressed through maximum phase-angle differences)
and of new network elements (defined by maximum
active power flows): constraints of eqn. l e and If; respectively.
The unknown variables in this model are vectors 8, G
and f (vector is defined by the branch-to-node incidence matrix and vector e). It should be noted that the
model of eqn. 1 contains a high number of variables (the
most important conribution to the dimension of the
problem are made by the elements of the vectorn.
The essential features of the mode of eqn. 1 are its
simplicity and the possibility of the application of a reliable solution procedure. This is achieved by introducing
two simplifying assumptions:
(i) Capital costs are defined with the aid of continuous
variables, instead of integer ones. This leads to the presence of specific capital costs per unit power flow Kk-,,
as well as active power flows over new elementsf,-, in
the objective function of eqn. la.
(ii) All new network elements (in existing branches and
in new rights-of-way) are described by the Kirchhoff
only. This method is chosen owing to
current law (KCL),
the desire to obtain a linear model, as, in this way, no
branch susceptances of new network elements appear in
the model of eqn. 1.
When the investment problem of eqn. 1 is directly solved,
the optimum network reinforcements expressed through
power flowsf,-, are obtained. In addition to the high
dimension of the problem in the case of large networks, a
planning engineer does not obtain insight into the
network 'bottlenecks' and has no opportunity to influence the optimum solution. For this reason, the decomposition procedure proposed in Reference 6 is again
applied to the investment model of eqn. 1. For the derivation of this decomposition procedure, it is necessary to
assume that an initial load-flow pattern exists in this
network, satisfying the following constraints:
-BB"+Go=Do
ITG0 ITDo

G"' Q Go Q GM

(2)

l@lQ6
f"=O
where the superscript designates the corresponding
initial quantities. The physical meaning of the above conditions is that there are nonzero power flows over elements of the existing network, whereas they are all equal
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. IN, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

Table 1 : Survey of elements and conatraints of the initial


transmission nework and the LPMN model
initial transmission
network
element

Linear-programming
marginal network

associated
constraints
(model of man. 2)

variable cost

When using the DC load flow, the MLC model is specified by the following linear-programming problem:
min z = ITR

+G +R =D
IT(G + R) = ITD

associated
constraints

-BO

min z =

1 Kk-,,,fL-"

(34

- B A O + AG' + Mlf
I T AG = IT(R - G"

0 < A G Q G'-

=R

- G"'+ Go

+ Go)

G"

(3b)

(34
(34

-4 - JI" < At) < 4 - @

(34

f <f

(3f 1

where A designates a superimposed quantity (AO, AG,


At)) to the corresponding initial value (P, Go, JI");
R = the vector of curtailed loads (R = D - Do); and
AG' = the vector of transformed additional generations
(AG = AG - G" + Go).
This derivation makes it possible to decompose the
initial investment problem in eqn. 1 into two subproblems. The first subproblem deals with the determination of the initial load-flow pattern of eqn. 2, and the
second one, representing the reformulated investment
model (eqn. 3), seeks the solution of marginal quantities
superimposed on initial variables (eqn. 2). As is emphasised above, the second subproblem is considered only
when load curtailments are obtained after the first stage
of the solution procedure. In the proposed methodology,
the two following models are applied:
(a) MLC model needed to establish the initial loadflow pattern (eqn. 2)
(b) LPMN model, as defined by eqn. 3, determining
the economically best network reinforcements.
3 2 Minimum load curtailment (MLC) model
The MLC model recognises the security aspects of the
network operation problem only. Its objective is to minimise the overall nonsupplied load in the system, while
respecting generation and branch loading limits [13.
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

(4b)

(4)

G"<G<GM

(44

OQRQD

(44

I*l
to zero in new elements. The nonzero power flows satisfy
all imposed operation constraints, but the delivered loads
are on the level the existing network is capable of supplying ( D O ) .
Two different cases of the initial conditions in eqn. 2
should be discussed. The situations where the delivered
loads Do are equal to the required loads D are, from the
planning standpoint, trivial cases, as no network
reinforcements are necessary. Then, there is no need to
solve the investment model of eqn. 1. In the opposite
case, when load curtailments exist in the original network
Do < D), it is necessary to solve the reformulated investment model, in which the initial load flow pattern in eqn.
2 is also incorporated. By substituting eqn. 2 into the
model of eqn. 1 and transforming all the variables to be
non-negative, the following equivalent model is obtained:

(44

(4fl

The solution of this problem is obtained by using the


efficient relaxation procedure [7]. This is an iterative
technique, where the original highly-dimensional
problem of eqn. 4 is substituted by a series of reducedsize problems. In these problems, all nonviolated branch
loading constraints (eqn. 4f) are ignored. Each of the
reduced-size problems is solved by using the dual simplex
algorithm with bounded variables.
Sensitivity analysis should be used to determine
branches, the best candidates for network reinforcement
[l], when the load profile and curtailed loads are
obtained by the MLC model (eqn.4). The ordered list of
branches, the best reinforcement candidates, is established by making the sequence of decreasing numerical
values of elements I az/abk-, I. These partial derivatives of
the optimum objective function z* with the branch susceptances bk-, (called 'expansion planning criteria') give
the measure of the reduction of the overall curtailed load
with a unit increase of susceptances of reinforcement
branches k - rn (new rights-of-way, as well as existing
branches). The calculation of the expansion planning criteria can be performed in two ways: in the case where the
system generation resources are suflicient to cover the
load (eqn. 4c can be neglected), the optimum value of the
objective function z* is expressed through dual variables,
and the approximate formula is directly found by differentiating this expression [l]. In the opposite case, the
'accurate' solution is derived by using a matrix inversion
lemma and the assumption that the optimum basis of the
MLC model (eqn. 4) does not change with a unit increase
of a branch susceptance [6]. If the expansion planning
criterion is calculated for a new right-of-way k - m, the
constraint (eqn. 4f) (I $k-,,, I Q $k-J needs to be checked
to examine the validity of the obtained optimum solution.In the case where this constraint is not satisfied, it is
necessary to assume that a branch with bk-m= 0 exists in
the new right-of-way, to resolve the MLC model (eqn. 4),
and to repeat the sensitivity analysis (the same situation
occurs within the security analysis procedure, when the
constraint of eqn. 4f, specified for the outaged branch,
cannot be relaxed). When the expansion planning criteria
have been calculated and the priority list of the best
reinforcement candidates has been determined, a planning engineer can start the interactive expansion planning process.
3.3 Linear-programmingmarginal network ( L PMN)
model
The LPMN model is represented by the set of mathematical relations of eqn. 3. The unknown variables in this
model are vectors AO, AG' and f. Regarding the dimension of the problem, the number of elements of the vector
f is the most influential factor. However, when solving the
model in eqn. 3, most of the elements of the vector f are
519

zero-valued. For this reason, it is proposed here to introduce 'good' reinforcement candidates X - , only into the
LPMN model. This is decided upon the initial loading of
a branch, obtained by the MLC model (eqn. 4). Only in
cases where a relative branch loading exceeds a prespecified limit (decided upon the user-defined factor y, which
indicates the critical zone of the branch loading), a properly directed variablef,-, is set into the LPMN model
(Table 1, item 1). Of all possible new rights-of-way, only a
few are placed into the LPMN model. The corresponding
requirements are listed in Table 1, item 2.
The solution of the LPMN model in eqn. 3 gives
optimum network reinforcements to the planning engineer. In addition, the whole transmission investment
problem can be very well visualised, as the only demands
in the LPMN model are the curtailed loads. Thus, the
treatment of all power flows that can be supplied by the
existing network is avoided. The only load flows participating in the LPMN model are those supplying the
curtailed loads and clearly distinguishing the system
bottlenecks.

3.5 Application of the investment model


The flowchart of the investment model is depicted in Fig.
2. The (n - 1) security concept can be chosen, depending

3.4 Solution of the linear-programming marginal


network (LPMN) model
The results of the MLC model (eqn. 4) are used for the
solution of the LPMN model (eqn. 3). This solution
requires the consideration of two independent stages.
These are: first, the 'construction' of the LPMN model
(eqn. 3); and, secondly, the application of a linearprogramming routine.
If one compares the LPMN model (eqn. 3) with the
MLC model (eqn. 4), it becomes obvious that they
possess similar structures. For this reason, it turns out
that the 'construction' of the LPMN model (eqn. 3) consists of three very simple steps:
(a) The vector of initial superimposed deviations of
node voltage angles A@", entering the linear program of
eqn. 3, should be loaded by:

Fig. 2

A p=

- 8"

(5)

where e'" = the stored vector of initial node voltage


angles, representing the starting solution of the MLC
model (eqn. 4); and 8" = the vector of optimal node
voltage angles after the application of the MLC model
(eqn. 4). Eqn. 5 shows that the initial solution regime of
the LPMN model (eqn. 3) is simply obtained by
'subtracting the states' after and before the solution of the
MLC model.
(b) Modified transmission capacities of existing
branches should be calculated according to eqn. 3e. As
the lower and upper limits are now numerically different,
it is necessary to store the corresponding branch orientation.
(c) It is necessary to define branches considered as
'good' network reinforcement candidates, using the procedure given in the previous Section. The vectors describing the individual power flows over new elements f k - ,
that enter the LPMN model (eqn. 3) should be specified
next.
A standard linear-programming routine can be used to
solve the LPMN model (eqn. 3). However, the presence
of branch loading constraints (eqn. 3e) makes this
problem highly dimensional and computationally inefficient. It is possible to apply the same relaxation procedure [7J and dual simplex algorithm with bounded
variables as in the case of the MLC model (eqn. 4).
520

next outage

I1

verloading exists

I
N

GIobal$owchmt of the investment problem

on the applied overall transmission expansion policy. The


decision on new investments can be made by the
sensitivity-based expansion planning criterion available
after the solution of the MLC model (eqn. 4), as well as
by active power flows over new elements, when the
LPMN model (eqn. 3) is solved. If the (n - 1) security
concept is applied, the LPMN model (eqn. 3) is sequentially solved for all considered outage states, and different
optimum solutions (new network elements) can be found
for each of them. The new network element that gives the
maximum overall contribution to the elimination of overloading should be chosen for the reinforcement. This criterion can be found by summing up active power flows
over new elements for all considered outage states. For
this reason, average active power flows are calculated
after the application of this algorithm, and they are the
basis for the optimum - based expansion planning
policy.
The capital costs are represented through the investment model (eqn. 1) in an approximate way. For this
reason, the optimal solution of the LPMN model exhibits
noninteger values of the n p b e r of new necessary
network elements (ratios fk-,,,/'-.J.
Rounding off to the
nearest integers greater than obtained fractional values
represents one possible solution. However, as this procedure gives a possible near-optimal integer solution, the
concept d sequential planning proposed in Reference 8
can be applied. This concept consists of sequential
reinforcements of the network by only one new element,
having the highest mean active power flow, until all constraints in the base state (and for postulated outages) are
satisfied.

Verification of the methodology

Based on the proposed methodology for the solution of


overall transmission expansion planning, a suitable software package was developed. The execution times of the
LPMN model and the MN model previously proposed in
Reference 6 were compared. It was found that the establishment of the LPMN model and the reconstruction of
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

results were much faster. On the other hand, although a


very efficient linear-programming procedure was applied
to solve the LPMN model, the time requirements were
MLC model
80150

100

LPMN model

MN model

MLC model

LPNM model

136.5

150

150
LPMN model

MLC model

200

another new line should be constructed in the same comdor 4-6 (Fig. 34,giving finally the network that satisfies
all imposed operation constraints (Fig. 34. It is inter-

50

100
LPMN model

MLC model

245.3

15.3

150
MLC model

276.8

Fig. 3 Transm'ssion expanswn planning applied to the Gmwr test system [IO]
(I The &at iteration (1 branch 2-6 ioitiaUy constructed)
b Thc m n d iteration ( I branch 2 - 6 1 brnnch 3-5 conatructcd)
E Thc third iteration (2 bmn&cs 24.1 bnmh 3-5 Fonstructcd)
d The fourth itclation (2 branched 2-6, I branch 3-$1 branch 4-6 constructed)
c

Find solution

higher than for the solution of the MN model by the


out-of-kilter algorithm. Thus, the time requirements of
both methodologies are almost the same.
The proposed methodology for optimal planning of
transmission network investments was verified on several
test examples, as well as on the real case of the transmission network of the eastern part of Yugoslavia. The
Garver six-node system [SI was used as the test example.
The principal steps of the transmission expansion of this
system are illustrated in Fig. 3 (all active injections and
power flows are expressed in MW),where the possibility
of generation rescheduling is taken into account. A new
generation centre in node 6 was initially connected to the
existing network and, after running the MU= model,load
curtailments existed at nodes 2 and 5 (Fig. 34. The
results of the LPMN model showed that the reinforcement of the branch 3-5 was necessary, as this branch was
subject to the highest active power flow over a new
element (Fig. 30). For comparison purposes, the results of
the MN model are exhibited in the same Figure. The differences between these two solutions are obvious and
they resulted in a different branch being chosen for the
network reinforcement in the first stage. In the second
iteration, load curtailments were necessary at the same
nodes, and the highest active power flow over a new
element appeared in the branch 2-6 (Fig. 3b). After the
branch 2-6was reinford, load curtailments at the same
nodes were only reduced, and it could be concluded that
a line in a new comdor 4-6 should be constructed (Fig.
3c). In the fourth, last stage of the expansion planning,
IEE PROCEEDINGSC, Vol. 140, No. 6 , NOVEMBER 1993

esting to note that the obtained 'optimal' solution (two


branches 2-6,two branches 4-6 and one branch 3-5) is
more expensive than that of the MN model (three
branches 2-6 and two branches 3-5) [a], the difference
being equal to the cost of 10 miles' line length.
The high-voltage transmission network of the eastern
part of Yugoslavia, which consists of 61 nodes and 72
branch-, was used as an example of real-life transmission network expansion planning. The proposed methodology proved to be very simple and useful as, in a
number of situations, only one nonzero active power flow
existed over prospective new elements, making the
optimal solution easily recognisable. As an illustrative
example, the same state as in Reference 6 is shown, where
the transmission capabilities of lines SR.Mitrovica-RP B.
Basta and Novi Sad-Srbobran were limited to 100 M V A
(an almost identical situation appears in reality in the
case of the outage of one of these lines). The optimal
solution of the MLC model is shown in the upper left
corner of Fig. 4 (the reduction of transmission capabilities due to reactive power flows is taken into account).
The expansion planning criterion supports the construction of the longer line. The solution obtained by the
LPMN model is exhibited in the same Figure, where the
bold lines represent branches which are the best
reinforcement candidates according to the sensitivity criterion (max I t?z*/t?b,-,I). The economically optimal
solution is the construction of a new line in the corridor
Novi Sad-Srbobran (exactly the same as in the case of the
M N model reported in Reference 6). As the existing
521

network is modelled by DC load flow, superimposed


active power flows exist in the whole network, and it is
no longer possible to establish a dimensionally reduced
MLC model
S Mitrovico

procedure and the possibility to deal with large networks


makes this methodology very convenient for everyday
application, particularly if an appropriate graphic inter-

SR Mirovico2

Srbobran

N Sad
nodes

length critl

20 41
30km -003

-0brenovac A

967

-L+R
1 P.hjim

Basta

Rhe
Bajlna Bosto
004162 2

He
k j i n o Basta--

--

-- tent A
Vardiste 9 3 9

Pozega

Fig. 4 Example of the analysed power pool of eatern Yugoslavia


AU numerical values arc given in MW

LPMN model corresponding to the previously proposed


local marginal network model [6].
5

Conclusion

In this paper, overall transmission network expansion


planning is separated into two independent problems of
investments and operations. Within the framework of this
separation, a new methodology for optimal investment
planning is proposed. It is speciiied as a minimumtost
linear-programming model and is solved by further division into two subproblems. The first considers the
maximum use of the existing network facilities for future
system needs and the choice of the best candidates for
network reinforcements to be applied in an interactive
expansion planning process. The second subproblem considers the prospective expanding network and decides on
the economically best network reinforcements, enabling
the optimum-based expansion planning policy.
The proposed investment model of overall transmission network planning represents further development of
and improvement on the original model proposed in Reference 6. Its main advantage is the level of accuracy of
the transmission network modelling, without any
increase of the solution time requirements. The significance of this feature is manifested mostly in real-We
expansion planning, when small load curtailments are
present and when the proposed methodology gives more
accurate results. The reliability of the applied solution

522

face is simultaneously developed. It should be repeated


that the proposed two-step procedure for the solution of
the investment planning problem enables the application
of the interactive and the optimum - based planning
policies. All these features seem to be most promising in
achieving the final goal of the methodology described in
this paper: to apply it practically in the Yugoslav power
industry.
6

References

1 DECHAMFS, C, and JAMOULLE, A.: Interactive computer


program for planning the expansion of m d s d transmission networks, Int. J . Electr. Power Energy Syst, 1980.2. pp. 103-108
2 VANKELECOM, J.. and FUCHSOVA, J.: EVA I1 - Users
manual(Systems Europe, Bnucllcs, Belgium, 1977)
3 Wicn automatic system planning package (WASP) A computer
code for power generating system expansion planning (International
Atomic Energy Agency, V i a Austra 1980)
4 LEVI, V.A., and CALOVIC, M.S.: Monte Carlo simulation for
transmission network expamion planning. IFAC lnt. Symp. on
Power Systems & P o w Piant Control, Scoul, Korea, 22th-25th
August, 1989
5 LEVI, V.A., and CALOVIC, M.S.: Probabilistic network expansion
planning recognizing M m t control strategies. Proc. 11th IFAC
World Congress, Tallin, Estonia, USSR, 13th-17th August 1990,pp.

115-120
6 LEVI, V.A., and CALOVIC, M.S.:A new decomposition based

method for optimal expamion planning of large transmission networks, IEEE Tram., 1991, PWE3-6, pp. 937-943
7 LASDON, L.S.: Optimization theory for large systnns (Macmillan
Co.,New York,1970)
8 GARVER, L.L.: Tmnamision metwork estimation wing h e a r programming, IEEE Trans., 1970,P M ,pp. 1688-1697

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1993

Anda mungkin juga menyukai