Abstract In deregulated environment of power sector,

the transmission congestion management and pricing is

one of the important tasks of system operator. In this
paper, the number of generators participating in
congestion management has been selected based on the
sensitivities to power flow on the congested line. The
generators are selected for real and reactive powers
rescheduling based on their real and reactive sensitivity
factors respectively. The descent gradient method has been
used to alleviate congestion. The descent gradient method
handles the binding constraints using penalty function
method. The effect of reactive power support on the
rescheduling of the generation has been studied. The
reactive support is obtained from generators, capacitor
and combination of both. The effectiveness of the proposed
methodology has been analyzed on 39-bus New England
system. The results obtained by the proposed method are
compared with the available reported methods.
Index Terms Deregulation, Descent Gradient, Congestion,
Sensitivity Analysis, Rescheduling, Optimization, Newtons
Method, Jacobian.
I. INTRODUCTION
s restructuring and deregulation deepen in the electric
power industry open access is gaining greater attention.
Open access implies that the opportunity to use the
transmission system must be equally available to all buyers
and sellers. This is an important step to promote the
deregulation of the electricity supply system. Transmission
networks are one of the main sources of difficulties on fair
implementation of electricity restructuring. The limitations of
a power transmission network arising from environmental,
right-of-way and cost problems are fundamental to both
bundled and unbundled power systems. Power flow in lines
and transformers should not be allowed to increase to a level
where a random event could cause the network collapse
because of angular instability, voltage instability or cascaded
outages. Transmission congestion may be defined as the
condition where more power is scheduled or flows across
transmission lines and transformers than the physical limits of
those lines. Transmission congestion may prevent the


V. Srinivasarao and S. P. Singh are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, UP, India.
(e-mail: sps_ee@bhu.ac.in, sps5957@indiatimes.com).
G.S. Raju is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, VNR Vignan
Jyothi Institute of Engg. & Tech, Hyderabad, AP, India.
(email: gsraju734@yahoo.com).
existence of new contracts, lead to additional outages, increase
the electricity prices in some regions of the electricity markets,
and can threaten system security and reliability [1-4]. The
objective of congestion management is to take actions or
control measures to relieve the congestion of transmission
networks.
Reactive power plays an important role in supporting the
real power transfer across a large-scale transmission system
[5]. Reactive support is generally provided by the switching of
shunt capacitors, the positioning of transformer taps and the
reactive power outputs of generators . Thus, the Var support
requirement from generators and capacitors to manage
congestion along with real power rescheduling poses a great
challenge to SO in an open-access electricity market.
Various congestion management schemes suitable for
different electricity market structure have been reported in
literature. In [6], congestion relief by the coordination between
two different FACTS devices via implementation of intelligent
real genetic algorithm technique to increase the capacity of
power transfer has been proposed. Alvarado [7] proposed
power system application data dictionary to implement
efficient codes in MATLAB used for congestion management.
In [8], congestion management by optimal location of TCSC
which is determined based on real power performance index
and reduction of total system reactive power loss has been
proposed. The multi-area congestion management is achieved
through crossborder coordinated redispatching by regional
transmission system operators [9]. In [10], a simple and
efficient model for optimal location of FACTS devices that
can be used for congestion management by controlling their
parameters optimally has been proposed. Huang and Yan
examined the impact of FACTS devices in congestion
management by reducing transaction curtailment and total
transfer capability (TTC) improvement issues [11]. A.
Oudalove [12], proposed the coordinated emergency control
system for overload limitations in a transmission system using
load shedding combined with multiple FACTS devices. In
[13], transmission congestion distribution factors (TCDFs)
based on ac power flow jacobian sensitivity has been
proposed. In [14], a sensitivity based approach for the optimal
location of unified power flow controller (UPFC) was
proposed for the congestion management. In [15], hybrid
model for congestion management with real and reactive
power transaction using gradient method has been proposed.
In [16], a new method based on the relative electrical distance
(RED) has been proposed for the alleviation of congestion
management. The RED is the relative location of load buses
with respect to generator buses.
The present paper deals with alleviation of congestion
A
Active and Reactive Power Rescheduling for
Congestion Management Using Descent
Gradient Method
V. Srinivasarao, S.P. Singh and G.S. Raju
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
295
through rescheduling of real and reactive powers. The
capability of descent gradient technique is exploited to achieve
this objective such that the cost of rescheduling is minimum.
The generators participating in congestion alleviation are
selected based on the generator real and reactive powers
sensitivities in order to reduce the number of participating
generators. Based on the generator sensitivities appropriate
generators are selected which participate in rescheduling of
their real and reactive powers according to bid prices. The
reactive power support is obtained from the generators,
capacitor/s and combination of both. The effectiveness of
proposed method has been demonstrated on 39-bus New
England system. The effect of the reactive power rescheduling
on the real power rescheduling for congestion management
has also been studied.
II. CONGESTIONMANAGEMENTPROBLEM
FORMALATION
In the congestion management problem formulation, first it
is required to find the optimal number of generators
participating in the congestion alleviation process and then the
application of one of available optimal power flow method to
find minimum rescheduling cost to alleviate congestion. The
effect of the generator and capacitor reactive support on the
generator rescheduling has to be formulated. Thus the
congestion management problem formulation consists of two
parts which are as follows:
1) Sensitivity Analysis
2) Optimization Problem
The optimal number of the participating generators will be
taken care by sensitivity calculations. The congestion
alleviation process will be taken care by the optimal power
flow.
A. Sensitivity Analysis
The generators in the system under consideration have
different sensitivities to the power flow on the congested line.
Real power sensitivity factor
k
Pn
S is defined as the change in
real power flow in transmission line-k connected between bus-
i and bus- j due to unit change in the real power injection
) (
n
P A at bus- n. Mathematically, for line- k it can be written
as

n ij
k
pn
P P S A A =

(1)
where,
ij
P A - change in real power flow in line-k
Similarly,

n ij
k
qn
Q Q S A A =

(2)
where,
ij
Q A - change in reactive power flow in line-k
connected between bus- i and bus- j
n
Q A - change in the reactive power injection at bus- n.
k
pn
S and
k
qn
S denotes that how much real and reactive power
flow over a transmission line- k connected between bus- i and
bus- j would change due to change in real and reactive power
injections respectively at bus- n.
The real and reactive power sensitivity factors have been
calculated as follows [13]:
) ( ) ( ( )) ( ) ( (
n j j ij n i i ij n ij
k
pn
P P P P P P S A A A A + A A A A = A A = o o o o
) (
jn ij in ij
k
pn
m b m a S + = (3)
) (
jn ij in ij
k
qn
n b n a S ' + ' =

(4)
where,
) sin(
i j ij ij j i ij i ij
Y V V a P o o u o + = = A A
) sin(
i j ij ij j i ij j ij
Y V V b P o o u o + = = A A
sh ij ij i i j ij ij j ij i ij
Y Y V Y V a V Q + + = ' = A A u o o u cos 2 ) sin(
) sin(
i j ij ij i ij j ij
Y V b V Q o o u + = ' = A A
n i in
P m A A = o

n j jn
P m A A = o
n i in
Q V n A A =

n j jn
Q V n A A =
where,
ij
Y - Admittance of the line connected between bus- i and
bus- j
sh
Y - Shunt Admittance
B. Selection of Generators and Capacitors for Reactive
Power Support
Reactive power and voltage control plays an important role
in supporting the real power transfer across a large-scale
transmission system. In this paper, the reactive support is
obtained from the generators, capacitor and combination of
both. Based on the reactive power sensitivity factors, the
generators having the highest and unevenly distributed
sensitivity factor are selected for reactive support. However,
the optimal placement of capacitor is selected, in case there is
no or insufficient capacitive support in the system, at a bus
which is having most negative reactive power sensitivity
factor with respect to congested line.

C. Optimization Problem
The cost of rescheduled active and reactive powers are
1
f and
2
f , the objective function is formulated as optimization
problem which has to be minimized is as follows:
Minimize
2 1
f f Z + = (5)
Subjected to
| | 0 ) , , ( = p u x g

(6)
i i i i i i i
P P P P P P P = A s A s A =
max max min min

(7)
g i i i
N i Q Q Q ,.... 2 , 1
max min
= A s A s A

(8)
c cj cj cj
N j Q Q Q .... 2 , 1
max min
= s s

(9)

nl k F F
k k
,...... 2 , 1
max
= s

(10)

where,
_ A A =
Ng
i
i
P
i
P
pi
C f ) (
1

(11)
_ A A + _ A A =
Nc
j
cj
Q
cj
Q
cj
C
Ng
i
i
Q
i
Q
qi
C f ) ( ) (
2
(12)
where,
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
296
i
P A and
i
Q A are the real and reactive power adjustment of the
generator at bus- i .
cj
Q A is the change in the reactive support of the capacitor at
bus j .
k
F is the power flow caused by all contracts
requesting the transmission service.
max
k
F is the line flow
limit of the line connecting bus- i and bus- j .
g
N is the
number of participating generators, nl is the number of
transmission lines in the system.
min
i
P and
max
i
P denote
respectively the minimum and maximum limits of the
generator real power outputs.
min
i
Q A and
max
i
Q A are the
minimum and maximum limits of the change in generator
reactive power outputs respectively.
cj
Q is the capacitor
reactive support,
min
cj
Q and
max
cj
Q are the minimum and
maximum limits of reactive power output of the capacitor at
bus j .
i i i i i i pi
c P b P a P C + A + A = A ) ( ) ( ) (
2

(13)
pi
C is the cost of the active power rescheduling according to
the bid functions submitted by the generators participating in
congestion management.
i i i
c and b a , are the predetermined
cost coefficients of the
th
i generator. Here
i
c taken as zero for
all the generators.
Similarly,
qi
C is the cost of the reactive power rescheduling
according to the bid functions submitted by the generators
participating in congestion management which is taken as
[17]:
( )
i
k
i
Q
Gi
S
pi
C
Gi
S
pi
C
i
Q
qi
C
(

|
.
|

\
|
A = A
2 2
max max
) (

(14)
where,
pi
C is the active power generation cost
max Gi
S is the nominal apparent power of the generator and
i
k is an assumed profit rate of the active power generation at
bus i . Here
i
k is taken as 5%. Here
max max Gi Gi
P S = .
c
C is the equivalent cost for returns on the capital
investment of the capacitors which is taken as follows:
cj j cj cj
Q r Q C = A ) ( (15)
where
j
r and
cj
Q are the reactive cost and amount of reactive
power purchased, respectively, at location j .
The cost or depreciation rate of the capacitor can be calculated
as:
MVAR
h
MVARh
hours Operating
t Investment
j
r / 24 . 13 $
) 3 / 2 24 365 15 (
) / 11600 ($ cos
=

= =
Therefore
cj cj cj
Q Q C 24 . 13 $ ) ( = A
III. CONGESTIONMANAGEMENTPROBLEM
SOLUTION
The Descent gradient method for optimal power flow was
first introduced by Dommel and Tinney [18]. The main
features of this method are gradient procedure for finding the
optimum value of the function. The gradient method has been
used as the optimization technique for above said problem.
A. Solution by descent gradient method
In the gradient method the equality constraints are handled
by the lagrangian multiplier and the functional inequality
constraints are handled by the penalty function.
Applying lagrangian multiplier for equality constraint and
penalty term for inequality constraints to convert the above
constrained problem (5) into an unconstrained problem, the
resulting problem would be to minimize
_
+ + + =
t
t
W p u x g f f Z o )) , , ( (
2 1


(16)

where,
is Lagrange multiplier
o is a constant
t
W is the penalty function which is given by
{
max 2 max
, ) (
t t t t t t
F F whenever F F W > = q (17)
where,
t
q is penalty factor for each violated inequality constraint t .
The value of penalty factor should be selected such that in
case of congestion, the cost of rescheduling should not be
optimum. So the penalty factor is selected as 100 for each
violated inequality constraint.
Here the unknown or state vector | | x is taken as
| |
}
(
(
(

)
`

=
bus PV each on
bus PQ each on
V
x
o
o

(18)
where, V and o are the voltage magnitude and angle at each
bus respectively.
For the present study following combinations of control
variable | | u have been assumed. However, only one of the
above mentioned combinations would exist.
| |
}
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

)
`

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
=
j bus at
port reactives capacitor with i bus generator
at d reschedule powers reactive and Active
cj
Q
i
Q
i
P
j bus at port reactive capacitor with
i bus generator at d reschedule power Active
cj
Q
i
P
i bus generator at
d reschedule powers reactive and Active
i
Q
i
P
port reactive without
i bus generator at d reschedule power Active
i
P
u
sup
sup
sup
(19)
The vector of all specified variables | | y taken as
| |
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

)
`

)
`

=
bus PV each on
V
net
P
bus PQ each on
net
Q
net
P
bus slack on
V
y
1
1
o

(20)
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
297
where,
net
P and
net
Q are respectively specified real and
reactive power for each PQ bus and
net
P specified real power
for each PV bus.
The LHS of the power flow equation of the network expressed
by (6) are

=
salckbus including not
m bus PV each for
P V P
i bus PQ each for
Q V Q
P V P
V g
net
m m
net
i i
net
i i
) , (
) , (
) , (
) , (
o
o
o
o
(21)
where,
i
P and
i
Q are respectively the calculated real and
reactive power for PQ bus- i
m
P and
net
m
P are respectively the calculated and specified real
power for PV bus- m
B. Computational Steps
The algorithm for the descent gradient method proposed in
the above sections can be implemented using following steps:
Step1: Run base case load flow program. Find the initial
values for
i
P and
i
Q .
Step2: If there is any reactive support available for
rescheduling then go to next step. Otherwise go to step
11.
Step3: Assume the suitable control parameters from above
specified set of control parameters | | u expressed by
equation (19). Initially it is assumed as 2% of their
initial value.
Step4: Update the control parameters
u Q Q
old
i
new
i
+ =
Step5: Find a feasible power flow solution by Newtons
method. This yields a jacobian matrix for the solution
point x .
Step6: Solve the following equation for | |
q
,
| | 0
2
=
c
c
+
(

c
c
+
(

c
c
_
t
t
q
T
x
W
x
g
x
f
o
which is obtained by differentiating the equation (16)
with respect to x .
| |
)
`

c
c
+
(

c
c

|
|
.
|

\
|
(

c
c
=
_

t
t
T
q
x
W
x
f
x
g
o
2
1

(22)
Step7: Substitute | |
q
from (22) into the following equation
and compute gradient

| | | |
_
c
c
+
(

c
c
+
(

c
c
= V
t
t
q
T
u
W
u
g
u
f
L o
2

(23)
Step8: If | | L V is less or equal to predefined tolerance then
minimum has been reached and go to step 10.
Otherwise go to step 9.
Step9: Find a new set of control parameters from
| | L c u V = A
,
u u u
old new
A + =

(24)

Check the limit of control variable. If it is within
limit, then
new
old
i
new
i
u Q Q + =

(25)
Otherwise, set its value at its limiting value and
new
old
i
new
i
u Q Q + =

Go to step 5.
Step10: Check whether all the line flows are within the limit.
If any line is congested, go to next step otherwise
stop.
Step11: Select the suitable value of control variable
i
P A .
Initially it is assumed as 2% of their generation.
Step12: Update the control parameters
u P P
old
i
new
i
+ = (26)
Step13: Find a feasible power flow solution by Newtons
method. This yields a Jacobian matrix for the solution
point x .
Step14: Solve the following equation for | |
p
,

| | 0
1
=
c
c
+
(

c
c
+
(

c
c
_
t
t
p
T
x
W
x
g
x
f
o
which is obtained by differentiating the equation (10)
with respect to x .

| |
)
`

c
c
+
(

c
c

|
|
.
|

\
|
(

c
c
=
_

t
t
T
p
x
W
x
f
x
g
o
1
1

(27)
Step15: Substitute| | from (27) into the following equation
and compute gradient

| | | |
_
c
c
+
(

c
c
+
(

c
c
= V
t
t
p
T
u
W
u
g
u
f
L o
1

(28)
Step16: If | | L V is less or equal to predefined tolerance then
minimum has been reached and print
new
u and stop.
Otherwise go to next step.
Step17: Find a new set of control parameters from
| | L c u V = A
,
u u u
old new
A + =

(29)

Check the limit of control variable. If it is within
limit, then
new
old
i
new
i
u P P + =

(30)
Otherwise, set its value at its limiting value and
new
old
i
new
i
u P P + =

Go to step 13.
IV. RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS
The descent gradient method for congestion management
has been implemented using Visual C++ programming
language. The performance of the method has been studied on
39-bus New England system. This system consists of 10
generator buses and 29 load buses. The slack bus is numbered
as 1 followed by the generating buses and load buses. The
congested line, power flow and the line limit are shown in the
TABLE-I.
The participating generators for congestion management
have been selected based on the sensitivity analysis. The real
and reactive power sensitivities for the congested line are
shown in TABLE-II and TABLE-III respectively. The
generators connected to buses 3, 8 and 10 are selected for the
real and reactive power rescheduling. The price bids for
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
298
different generators are shown in TABLE-IV.
The following different cases are taken for the study for
rescheduling the generators to alleviate congestion
management.
Case 1: without reactive support from generators and
capacitor.
Case 2: with generator reactive support.
Case 3: with capacitor reactive support.
Case 4: with generators and capacitor reactive support.
The capacitor is located at bus 14. The real and reactive
powers rescheduling are tabulated for all the cases from
TABLE-V to TABLE-VIII. The base case real power loss is
49.89MW. These tables also contain the results reported in
[13] for said conditions. From the results it is concluded that
the proposed method suggests less rescheduling cost, less
losses i.e., 48.73MW compared to 49.74MW by the method
TABLE I
CONGESTED LINE DETAILS OF 39-BUS SYSTEM
Congested Line Power flow (MW) Line Limit (MW)
14-34 265 250

TABLE IV
GENERATOR PRICE BIDS (a in $/MW
2
/hr and b in $/MW/hr)
FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
Gen.
No.
a b Gen.
No.
a b
1 0.00125 1.00 6 0.00125 2.60
2 0.00125 1.95 7 0.00125 2.60
3 0.00125 0.85 8 0.00125 1.95
4 0.00125 2.60 9 0.00125 0.85
5 0.00125 2.60 10 0.00125 2.00
TABLE V
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
(Case 1)
Proposed method Reference [13]
Cost ($/day) 2228.53 2281.50
P
3
(MW) -73.42 -75.00
P
8
(MW) +33.6 +35.00
P
10
(MW) +39.82 +40.00
P
14
(MW) NP NP
V
min
(p.u.) 0.9431 0.9429
P
loss
(MW) 49.73 49.74
TABLE II
k
pn
S FOR 39-BUS SYTEM (congested line 14-34)
Gen. No. k
pn
S
Gen. No. k
pn
S
1 -0.02 6 0.1535
2 -0.0345 7 0.1533
3 0.2 8 -0.02
4 0.1539 9 0.0309
5 0.1537 10 -0.04
TABLE III
k
qn
S FOR 39-BUS SYTEM (congested line 14-34)
Gen. No. k
qn
S
Gen. No. k
qn
S
1 -0.05 7 0.1221
2 -0.0644 8 -0.05
3 0.16 9 0.0006
4 0.1227 10 -0.07
5 0.1225 14 -0.2296
6 0.1223
TABLE VI
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
(Case 2)
TABLE VII
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
(Case 3)
TABLE VIII
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
(Case 4)
TABLE IX
k
pn
S AND
k
qn
S FOR 39-BUS SYTEM(FOR LINE 14-34 OUTAGE)
Proposed method Reference [13]
Cost ($/day) 2180.07 2254.74
Gen.
No.
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
3
(MW) -70.00 -47.29 -72.00 -50.00
P
8
(MW) +31.50 +63.19 +32.00 +65.90
P
10
(MW) +38.50 -22.52 +40.00 -24.60
P
14
(MW) NP NP NP NP
V
min
(p.u.) 0.9435 0.9431
P
loss
(MW) 49.27 49.35
Proposed method Reference [13]
Cost ($/day) 2040.03 2156.79
Gen.
No.
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
3
(MW) -63.56 NP -66.00 NP
P
8
(MW) 27.41 NP +28.00 NP
P
10
(MW) 36.15 NP +38.00 NP
P
14
(MW) NP 42.71 43.90
V
min
(p.u.) 0.9455 0.9455
P
loss
(MW) 49.26 49.28
Proposed method Reference [13]
Cost ($/day) 1948.34 2031.24
Gen.
No.
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
3
(MW) -61.23 -36.75 -63.00 -38.80
P
8
(MW) +27.16 +30.19 +26.00 +34.20
P
10
(MW) +34.70 -38.52 +37.00 -40.00
P
14
(MW) NP +31.63 NP +43.90
V
min
(p.u.) 0.946 0.946
P
loss
(MW) 48.96 48.98
Gen.
No.
k
pn
S
k
qn
S
Gen.
No.
k
pn
S
k
qn
S
1 -0.023 -0.0204 7 -0.1146 -0.1773
2 -0.230 -0.3041 8 -0.249 -0.3174
3 0.1985 0.1485 9 -0.2073 -0.2737
4 -0.1167 -0.1796 10 -0.2785 -0.3483
5 -0.1163 -0.1792 14 Not
required
-0.3483
6 -0.1156 -0.1785
Further, for comparing the performance of the proposed
method with the method reported in [13], an outage of line
connecting between the buses 14 and 34 resulting in
congestion of the line connected between 15 and 16 as
congested. The actual power flow in this line is 628.6 MW
whereas the power flow limit of the line is 500 MW. The real
and reactive power sensitivities for this congested line
are shown in TABLE-IX. Based on the sensitivities, only
six generators are participating in the congestion management
by the proposed method compared to all the 10 generators
participating in reported method in [13]. The cost of
rescheduling is less in the proposed method i.e., $ 8520 per
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
299
day than the method reported in [13] i.e., $ 8631.6 per day in
case 1 as shown in TABLE-X. The real and reactive powers
rescheduling for congestion alleviation for different cases
stated above are tabulated in TABLE-X and TABLE-XI.
TABLE X
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS
SYSTEM
(Case 1 for line 14-34 outage)
Proposed Method Reference [16]
Cost ($/day) 8520.00 8631.60
P
1
(MW) -231.22 - 99.59
P
2
(MW) + 74.52 + 98.75
P
3
(MW) - 63.63 -159.64
P
4
(MW) NP + 12.34
P
5
(MW) NP + 24.69
P
6
(MW) NP + 24.69
P
7
(MW) NP + 12.34
P
8
(MW) + 93.02 + 24.69
P
9
(MW) + 50.34 + 12.34
P
10
(MW) + 87.90 +49.38
V
min
(p.u.) 0.9426 0.932
P
loss
(MW) 59.16 58.00
TABLE XI
RESCHEDULING OF GENERATION FOR 39-BUS SYSTEM
Proposed Method
Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Cost
($/day)
8251.74 7729.77 7637.02
Gen.
No.
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 -224.00 +21.15 -203.80 NP -208.93 -0.43
2 + 68.92 -05.63 + 45.67 NP + 65.21 -11.88
3 - 65.05 -21.20 - 60.22 NP - 57.37 -18.56
8 + 92.97 -12.34 + 95.91 NP + 80.12 -11.34
9 + 49.76 -06.85 +42.45 NP + 44.32 - 4.80
10 + 87.13 -07.98 + 90.28 NP + 86.09 -13.87
14 NP NP NP 44.66 NP 39.02
V
min
(p.u.)
0.9532 0.9476 0.9544
P
loss
(MW)
58.00 58.55 57.55
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper a new method for the minimization of the
rescheduling cost to alleviate congestion in pool dispatch has
been analyzed and applied to 39-bus New England ystem. The
generators, which are participating in congestion alleviation,
are selected based on their sensitivities to the power flow of
the congested line and then the descent gradient method has
been used for corrective rescheduling to alleviate congestion.
The reactive power rescheduling cause lower cost of
rescheduling and the better voltage profile. It has been
observed that the cost of rescheduling is minimum when the
generator and capacitor both provide reactive support. In this
case the amount of reactive power supplied by the capacitor is
less when compared to the only capacitor reactive support.
Proposed method is derived by the extension of basic load
flow program, thus it is free from complex mathematical
formulations. Proposed method gives the better results
compared to the methods reported in [13] and [16].
REFERENCES
[1] Papalexopoulos, Congestion management in a competitive environment,
in: PICA 1997 Conference, Tutorial on Future Needs and Trends in
Power System Computing, Columbus, OH, May 1997.
[2] W.W. Hogan, Nodes and zones in electricity markets: seeking simplified
congestion pricing, in: 18th Annual North American conference of the
USAEE/IAEE, San Francisco, California, Sept. 1997.
[3] F.D. Galiana, M. Ilic, A Mathematical framework for the analysis and
management of power transactions under open access, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 13, pp. 681687, May 2, 1998.
[4] J. Tome Saraiva, An Approach for Enhancing Power System Security in
Market Environment with Third Party Access, EPSCOM, Zurich, 1998.
[5] Miller. T. J. E., Reactive Power Control in Electric Systems. New York:
Wiley, 1982.
[6] H. Iranmanesh, M. Rashidi-Nejad, A. A. Gharaveisi and M. Shojaee,
Congestion relief via intelligent coordination of TCSC & SVC, 7
th
WSEAS Int. conf. on mathematical methods and computational
techniques in electrical engineering, Sifia,pp. pp.181-186, 27-29/10/05.
[7] F.L. Alvarado, Solving power flow problems with a MATLAB
implementation of the power system applications data dictionary, in:
Proceedings of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Scheduling Coordinators, January 58, 1999.
[8] S. A. Taher and H. Besharat, Transmission congestion management by
determining optimal location of FACTS devices in deregulated power
systems, American Journal of Applied Sciences 5(3): pp 242-247,
2008.
[9] P.N. Biskas and A.G. Bakirtzis, Decentralized congestion management
of interconnected power systems, IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm and
Distrub. vol.149, No.4, pp- 432-438, july-2002.
[10] S.N. Singh and A.K. David, Congestion management by optimizing
FACTS device location, IEEE Intc. On Elecric utility deregulation and
restructuring and power technologies, pp-23-28,2000.
[11] G.M. Huang, P. Yan, TCSC and SVC as re-dispatch tools for congestion
management and TTC improvement, in: Proceedings of IEEE PES,
Winter Meeting, vol. 1, January 2731, 2002, pp. 660665.
[12] A. Oudalov, P. Etingov, N. Voropai, A. Germond, and R. Cherkaoui,
Coordinated emergency control of load shedding and FACTS devices,
IEEE St.Peterberug Power Tech, june 27-30., 2005.
[13] Ashwani Kumar, S. C. Srivastava, and S.N.Singh,A Zonal Congestion
Management Approach Using Real and Reactive Power Rescheduling,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19 (No. 1), 2004, pp. 554-562.
[14] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, Optimal location of FACTS devices for
congestion management, Int. J. Electric Power Syst. Res. 58 (2001) 71
79.
[15] Y.R. Sood, N.P. Pandhy, H.O. Gupta, M.A. Abdel Moamen and Maruthi
Kumar, A hybrid model for congestion management with real and
reactive power transaction, IEEE proc. 2002, pp. 1366-1372.
[16] G. Yesuratnam and D. Thukaram, Congestion management in open
access based on relative electrical distances using voltage stability
criterion, Electrical Power Systems Research, vol.77, pp. 1608-1618,
2007.
[17] C.Y.Chung, T.S.Chung, C.W.Yu and X.J.Lin, Cost-based reactive
power pricing with voltage security consideration in restructured power
systems, Electrical Power System Research,70, pp.85-91, 2004.
[18] Dommel HW, Tinney WF. Optimal power flow solution. IEEE
TransPower Appar Syst 1968;PAS-87(10):18661876.
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), IIT Bombay, December 2008
300