Usefulness of DC Power Flow for Active Power

Flow Analysis with Flow Controlling Devices

D. Van Hertem

, J. Verboomen

, K. Purchala

, R. Belmans

, W. L. Kling

ESAT/ELECTA, K.U.Leuven, Belgium (e-mail: dirk.vanhertem@ieee.org)

Electrical Power Systems Group, T.U. Delft, The Netherlands

Elia n.v., Belgium

Power Systems Laboratory, T.U.Eindhoven, The Netherlands and

TenneT b.v., The Netherlands
Keywords: Power system analysis, DC power ow, power
ow control
Abstract
DC power ow is a commonly used tool for contingency anal-
ysis. Recently, due to its simplicity and robustness, it also be-
comes increasingly used for the real-time dispatch and techno-
economic analysis of power systems. It is a simplication of a
full power ow looking only at active power. Aspects such as
voltage support and reactive power management are possible to
analyse. However, such simplications cannot always be jus-
tied and sometimes lead to unrealistic results. Especially the
implementation of power ow controlling devices is not trivial
since standard DC power ow fundamentally neglects their ef-
fects. Until recently, this was not an issue as the application of
power ow controlling devices in the European grid was lim-
ited. However, with the liberalisation of European electricity
market and the introduction of large wind energy systems, the
need for real power ow control has emerged and therefore, the
use of these devices has been reconsidered. Several phase shift-
ing transformers (PST) are being installed or planned in order
to control ows. Therefore, it is important to fundamentally
re-validate the fast, but less accurate, DC power ow method.
In this paper the assumptions of DC power ow are analysed,
and its validity is assessed by comparing the results of power
ow simulations using both the DC and AC approaches on a
modied IEEE 300 bus system with PSTs.
1 Introduction
Static power system analysis has been performed using power
ow (load ow) techniques for several decades now. It is one
of the fundamental tools for power system analysis and is used
in the operational as well as planning stages. Vertically inte-
grated companies have installed it to control their systems, as
well as to plan the optimal economic dispatch of generating
resources, either by means of optimal power ow or unit com-
mitment. It is therefore extremely important to solve the power
ow problem as efciently as possible. Since the invention and
widespread usage of computers, in the 1960s, many methods
for solving the power ow problem have been developed [8].
Full power ow allows for the treatment of both active and re-
active power. However a full AC power ow calculation re-
quires quite extensive computational resources. This is impor-
tant when multiple power system calculations have to be per-
formed successively, for instance when studying contingency.
When conducting such an analysis, near real-time assessment
of the system state has to be available, together with a N1 se-
curity check which requires a multitude of system evaluations.
The detailed accuracy of these calculations is less important,
after the fast, but correct, assessment of the system state (nor-
mal or emergency).
DC power ow is a simplication, and linearisation of a full
AC power ow. DC power ow looks only at active power
ows, neglecting voltage support, reactive power management
and transmission losses. Thanks to its simplicity and linearity
it is very often used for contingency analysis [5] and techno-
economic studies of power systems for assessing the inuence
of commercial energy exchanges on active power ows in the
transmission network. The method as such is well-known and
its fundamentals have been discussed extensively [3, 7].
Surprisingly, in view of its extensive use, there is little study
performed towards the accuracy of the DC approximation [5].
Purchala et. al. [7] made a rst assessment of the usefulness of
this method for normal power systems analysis. This paper is a
follow-up of that paper, considering the impact of power ow
controlling devices on the accuracy of DC power ow.
The paper is organised as follows. In section 2, a short
overview of power ow control is given. Section 3 summarises
the power ow analysis techniques, with special attention to
DC power ow. Afterwards, the implementation of power ow
controlling devices in DC power ow is treated. In section 5,
DC and AC power ow are compared and their accuracy is
tested on a modied version of the IEEE 300 bus network.
For the actual power ow analysis, the MATPOWER program
is used [10].
2 Power ow control
2.1 Changing transmission grid
Originally, electric power ows were the result of the inter-
action between power generation, consumption and available
transmission paths. As such, the system operator had little in-
uence on the owpaths. He could connect or disconnect lines,
change the tap settings of transformers, connect capacitors for
reactive power injection, and give active or reactive control
signals to power plants. At that time, the European grid was
subdivided in several smaller, mostly national grids, and each
served by only one local, vertically integrated company. The
power ow through the grid was known, and could, if needed,
be controlled by redispatching power plants. Interconnections
between zones were intended only for emergency backup and
maintaining synchronism with other systems. Between these
zones there were, and still are, few interconnections. Later, the
available transmission lines were also used to allow long term
scheduled power transfers between countries.
With the emerging liberalisation of the European electricity
market, power exchanges tend to follow the price differences.
However, electric power ows according to Kirchhoffs laws.
As resulting from liberalisation of electricity market, energy
transactions in the meshed European grid are not centrally con-
trolled or coordinated but rather vividly take place until the
very moment of the physical delivery. Therefore, power ows
in real time differ from what was expected on a day-ahead time
frame. Together with the increased penetration levels of undis-
patchable generation resources (i.e. wind power), this gives rise
to the amount of uncertainties in the international grid. Unex-
pected power ows, called loop ows, which can be seen in the
European grid, make it necessary for the Transmission System
Operator (TSO) to operate with a larger safety margin. The
market operation, with its hourly based scheduling, together
with the recent rising penetration levels of renewables, there-
fore add to the amount of uncertainty in the international grid
and congestion problems at borders occur. However, invest-
ments in grid reinforcements (new transmission lines) are lim-
ited throughout Europe, foremost caused by political unwill-
ingness due to socio-ecological concerns about new overhead
lines. Also regulatory pressure towards short term price reduc-
tions does not lead to many new investments [2, 6].
Quite simultaneous with the emergence of these phenomena,
power ows are becoming technically more controllable. Phase
Shifting Transformers (PST), Flexible AC Transmission Sys-
tems (FACTS) and High Voltage DC (HVDC) installations are
recently installed, or planned for the near future, in order to
meet the new challenges in the grid. These devices enable the
grid operator to limit the unpredicted loop ows, thus allow-
ing to work closer to the operational limits and with a higher
economic benet.
2.2 Power ow control
A simplied relation between active power transported over a
transmission line between nodes s and r and the complex volt-
ages at both nodes is:
P
Line
=
|V
s
| |V
r
|
X
Line
sin(
sr
) (1)
with V
s
and V
r
the voltages at the nodes,
sr
the phase angle be-
tween these voltages and X
Line
the line impedance. The power
ow through the line can be controlled by altering the voltage
at a node, the impedance between the nodes and the angle be-
tween the terminal voltages. Since the voltage in a power sys-
tem has to remain within strict limits, voltage regulation is not
suited. The line impedance can be altered by inserting a vari-
able series impedance. An example of such a device is a TCSC
(thyristor controlled series capacitor). This device allows a fast
varying active power ow control. Although series impedances
can be used to alter the ow, they are mostly used for dynamic
V
1
V

1
V
1
V

Figure 1: Asymmetric PST with one active part

power system control such as power oscillation damping.
Changing the phase angle between two nodes can be done by
injecting a series voltage in quadrature with the phase volt-
age. The PST is a mechanically switched device which inserts
a transformed, variable (using a tap changer) line voltage in
series with the phase voltage. Fig. 1 depicts this in a simple
implementation.
P
Line with PST
=
|V
s
| |V
r
|
X
Line
+X
PST
sin(
sr
+
PST
) (2)
A special case of power ow control is HVDC, allowing full
control of the power owing through this device. An overview
of the available power ow controlling devices can be found in
literature [4, 9].
3 Power ow analysis
Since power ow analysis techniques are well known and fully
described in literature (e.g. [3, 8]), only a short description of
their main properties is given.
3.1 AC power ow
The classic power ow problem consists of active and reac-
tive power ow and can be formulated using four variables per
node voltage angle, voltage magnitude, active and reactive
power injections. Active power losses are not known in ad-
vance as they depend on the active power injection pattern and
voltage prole. Other variables are also interdependent, mak-
ing the problem non-linear. This is why it is often linearised
and the solution is obtained using succesively linearised steps
iteratively. The losses are re-estimated at each iteration based
on all other variables. Modern power system analysis tools use
as a basis the Newton-Raphson algorithm. The complex power
injected at bus s, from bus r can be expressed as a function of
the nodal voltage and the injected current at the bus:
S
s
= P
s
+jQ
s
= E
s
I

s
= E
s
(Y
ss
E
s
+Y
sr
E
r
)

(3)
Separating the real and imaginary parts and incorporating the
inuence of every bus in the system, gives the power equations
(using the -equivalent representation for transmission lines):
P
s
=V
s

r=1
[G
sr
V
r
cos
sr
+B
sr
V
r
sin
sr
] (4a)
Q
s
=V
s

r=1
[G
sr
V
r
sin
sr
B
sr
V
r
cos
sr
] (4b)
for every node s. Using (4), in the form of (5), the Newton-
Raphson algorithm is obtained (at the i-th iteration):

P
Q

(i)
=

P
V
V
Q

Q
V
V

(i)

V
V

(i)
(5)
This equation has to be solved iteratively.
The Newton-Raphson method has a quadratic convergence and
computing time only increases linearly with system size.
3.2 Assumptions of DC power ow
In order to reduce calculation time, the power ow problem can
be simplied in by making the system linear. A number of as-
sumptions are made in order to make his linearisation feasible:
1. Voltage angle differences are small, i.e. sin(
sr
)
sr
and
cos(
sr
) 1
2. Flat voltage prole : all voltages are put to 1 p.u.
3. Line resistance is negligible i.e. R X, thus lossless lines
4. Tap settings are ignored (and therefore also PSTs)
However, these assumptions are not always realistic. The volt-
age prole most likely is not at but may vary among busses,
causing the voltage prole to be different from the assumed
one. Moreover, the X/R ratio condition can be difcult to guar-
antee. The inuence of the resistance increases with the de-
crease of voltage, which means that only the high voltage trans-
mission networks can tolerate this condition. Each of these
assumptions has some inuence on the accuracy of the power
ow calculations. Therefore, the DC power ow is less accu-
rate compared to the full, AC power ow solution.
The forth assumption makes it impossible to include the in-
uence of PSTs. In section 4.1 this problem is overcome by
making use of power injections.
3.3 DC power ow formulation
When losses are neglected, nodal voltage magnitudes set to
1 p.u. and the sine of the angle is replaced by its argument,
equation (1) can be rewritten as:
P
Line
=

sr
X
Line
= B
line

sr
(6)
The entire system can be modelled solely using linear equa-
tions:
P
s
=
n

r=1
B
sr
(
s

r
) (7)
When using (7) in equation (5), clearly, the following holds:
P =

[] (8)
P is the vector of bus real power injections, B

is the bus suscep-

tance matrix, and is the vector of bus voltage angles. As to
the fact that losses are neglected, all active power injections are
known in advance. Since B

is also known, the single solution

for this problem can be calculated directly using:
=

1
[P] (9)

4
To check whether the both line parameters are
interdependent, their influence has been plotted against each
other in Fig. 6.

P error [%]
0
5
10
15
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 X/R
X=0..2 X=4..6 X=8..10 X=12..14 X=16..18
70 kV 150 kV 220 kV 380 kV
X/R ratios typical for
Figure 5. Influence of X/R ratio on active flow estimation error P
error
for a given
range of reactance X (5000 samples)


Figure 6. Influence line parameters on active flow estimation error P
error
(5000
samples)

The following conclusions can be drawn:
For low values of the resistance the size of the
reactance, and consequently X/R ratio, is almost of no
importance, as there is virtually no change of P
error
with
varying reactance.
The higher the resistance, the more important X/R
becomes. Even for the highest values of the resistance,
provided that reactance is high enough, DC load flow
does not introduce unacceptable active power
estimation error.
As a general conclusion it can be said that it is the line
resistance which is the decisive factor for the feasibility of DC
power flow approximation. The smaller the line resistance,
the better the DC approximation of power flows. Additionally,
X/R ratio greater than 4 should be enough to limit the P
error

increase in case of higher values of the line resistance.
C. Influence of voltage variations (bad voltages)
One of the assumptions of DC power flow is the flat
voltage profile meaning that, in per unit terms, all voltages are
equal. It is often asserted that these should be as close to 1
p.u. as possible. However, it is not the absolute voltage
magnitude that matters, but deviations from the predefined
value. If the nodal voltages are scattered round 1.1. p.u.
instead of 1 p.u. DC power flow gives actually a better
approximation of the power flows, as higher line voltages
decrease losses. Voltage deviations, on the other hand, lead to
line voltage differences that cannot be accounted for in DC
power flow, which in turn influences the active power
estimation error. From Fig. 7 it can be seen that the P
error

increases with the increase of voltage deviations measured by
means of standard deviation s
U
(6).

=
n
i
i U
U U
n
s
1
2
) (
1
1
(6)
Though for most cases the average P
error
is limited to 5%,
the maximal error MAX P
error
, almost perfectly correlated to
the average, is over 8 times higher. Therefore the flat voltage
profile is of extreme importance for the accuracy of DC
power flow.

S
U

Figure 7. Influence of voltage fluctuations (standard deviation of the voltage) on
active flow estimation error (1000 samples)

In the actual power system however it is quasi impossible
to keep all voltages constant, avoiding voltage fluctuations.
To check the likelihood of a favorable voltage profile,
voltages in the Belgian high voltage network are taken as an
example. have been analyzed. Fig. 8 presents the nodal
voltage magnitudes in the Belgian high voltage transmission
grid, thus 70-380 kV, for the 13 GW winter peak scenario. As
noticed, voltage profile is not very flat, the standard deviation
being s
U
= 0.0166. As seen in Fig. 7, P
error
is very sensitive to
voltage deviations, and care should therefore be taken while
interpreting the results. Realistic example of voltages in the
actual power system shows that the assumption of perfect
voltage profile is the most critical one and voltage profile is
the biggest source of active power estimation error.
Figure 2: Inuence of voltage uctuations on the active power
ow estimation error (1000 samples on a randomly generated
30-bus test system) [7]
The DC power ow has three advantages over the standard
Newton-Raphson power ow:
1. the system matrix (B

) is about half the size of the full

problem
2. The problem is non-iterative, requiring just a single calcu-
lation in order to obtain the solution
3. the system matrix (B

) is independent of the system state,

and therefore has to be calculated only once, as long as
the system topology does not change.
The rst two advantages make DC power ow 7 to 10 times
faster than AC. The last advantage is of great importance when
multiple subsequent solutions are needed since B

1
has to be
calculated only once. This signicantly reduces calculation
time as triangularisation is computational heavy.
This method is called DC power ow because the linearised
model (6) can be interpreted as the model for a network of re-
sistors fed by DC currents sources, with P the vector of nodal
current intjections, the nodal vector of voltages and B

the
conductance matrix.
3.4 Accuracy of DC power ow
In [7], indexes have been identied that quantify the assump-
tions underlying the method. There are several parameters in-
uencing the accuracy of DC power ow. First of all, the volt-
age prole has to be as at as possible, meaning that there
should be as little voltage deviations as possible. The higher
they become, the higher the active power estimation error. A
standard deviation, S
V
, below 0, 015 is desirable. Secondly, the
X/R ratio should be high enough, otherwise the assumption of
negligible resistance is violated. The proposed border value
is set at X/R = 4. It should be noted that the inuence of both
parameters enforce each other as is clear from Fig. 2. The inu-
ence of linearizing the sine function is small when the voltage
angle remains below 30

. This condition is in normal power

system operation easily met. In general, DC power ows can
give a good approximation of active power ows in transmis-
sion networks.
Even if all assumptions to limit the average P
error
to 5 % are
fullled, errors on individual lines can occasionally be signi-
cant, especially if voltage prole is not sufciently at. There-
fore care should be taken when drawing conclusions based on
simulations performed using the DC power ow technique, as
not every network is suitable for it.
4 Power ow controlling devices in power sys-
tem analysis
Since power ow controlling devices are often placed on inter-
connections, in order to inuence the international power ow
and optimise the transfer capacity, it is of vital importance that
these calculations are performed within a reasonable error mar-
gin. However, as stated before, the economic operation of the
power system is mostly assessed using DC power ow. Fur-
thermore, the correct assessment during contingency analysis
depends on line ows, and also there DC power ow is used.
4.1 Phase shifting transformer model
The PST can be modelled as a on-load tap changing trans-
former (OLTC) with complex transformation ratio [1]. How-
ever, in DC power ow tap positions are disregarded [3].
Therefore, the PST should be modelled as a transmission line,
as is proposed in equation (1), which can be adjusted to the DC
power ow simplications:
P
Line with PST
=

sr
+
PST
X
Line
+X
PST
(10)
The power through the PST has two components, the rst one
depending on the terminal bus voltages (
sr
/X) and the second
dened by the phase shift angle (/X). Reformulating this as
in (7) yields:
P
s
=
n

r=1
[B
sr
(
s

r
)] +B
sr

PST
(11)
=
n

r=1
[B
sr
(
s

r
)] +P
shi f t
(12)
Note that in this case in fact sin(
sr
+
PST
) is replaced by

sr
+
PST
. This neglection is valid for small angles, but at an
angle of 30

, this simplication causes an error of about 5 %.

4.2 Series impedance
The modelling of a series impedance such as the TCSC for
static calculations is straightforward. Its impedance can be
added to the series impedance of the line. Note that for DC
power ow the X/R ratio decreases when inserting a capaci-
tance, hence a larger error is found.
4.3 HVDC
With HVDC, full active power control is possible, and the mod-
elling of a HVDC line can be done by replacing it by a power
injection/withdrawal at the receiving/sending node. When the
losses in the HVDC line are neglected, the injected power is
equal to the power withdrawn from the sending node.
5 Inuence of power ow controlling devices
5.1 Test case
As test case, a modied form of the IEEE 300 bus system
1
used. In order to allow a meaningful DC power ow evalu-
ation, busses with numbers (and according lines) higher than
9000 (LV system) are removed from the system and the genera-
tion of that part was taken into account in the remaining system.
These busses represented a distribution system at low voltage.
The remaining system counts 265 busses, 373 branches and 64
generators. The total load of the system adds up to 23, 4 MW.
The systems parameters which inuence the expected accu-
racy of the DC power ow, as described in section 3.4, are the
following: X/R = 5, 5 and the standard deviation S
V
of the bus
voltages, as calculated with AC power ow, equals 0, 03. These
values make this system barely useable for DC power ow and
an average error of about 5 % or more can be expected.
On this system the inuence of PSTs is tested by inserting a
phase shifter in the network. In order to have a meaningful op-
eration of the PST, there has to be a parallel circuit to the branch
in which it is installed
2
. The PST has a series impedance
X
PST
= 0, 09 p.u. and the phase shifting range is 30

.
5.2 Simulations
In order to assess the inuence of power ow controlling de-
vices on the accuracy of DC power ow, rst the correct so-
lution using AC power ow is found. The mismatch between
the obtained AC power ow and DC power ow with PSTs is
of a partially due to the incorrect phase shifter model and par-
tially to the inaccuracy of the overall DC power ow method.
By adding the difference between AC and DC solution at zero
degree phase shift to the DC solution (13), the corrected DC
voltage is found and the inuence of the phase angle on the
power ow error P
error
is seen.
P
DCcor
() = P
DC
() +(P
AC
(0

) P
DC
(0

)) (13)
P
error
() = P
AC
() P
DCcor
() (14)
Fig. 3 shows the AC, DC and corrected DC power ows
through the PST in the three considered cases (top), and the
error due to inaccurate power ow controller modelling (bot-
tom). As expected, the mismatch becomes larger when the
phase shift increases. At a phase shifting angle of 30

, the
error due to power ow controlling devices is around 5 % of
the line ow, but higher, up to 20 %, error rates were encoun-
tered during simulations. Furthermore, this error is added to
the error caused by DC power ow approximation of the sys-
tem. Fig. 4 shows the absolute value of the mismatch between
the corrected DC power ow calculation and the AC calcula-
tion using Newton-Raphson. The power mismatch caused by
the inaccurate representation of power ow controlling devices
1
The IEEE 300 system is online available http://www.ee.
washington.edu/research/pstca/pf300/pg tca300bus.htm
and within the MATPOWER program.
2
For the three cases considered in this paper, the PST is placed in the line
between nodes 4 and 16 (case 1), 129 and 130 (case 2) and between 133 and
137 (case 3)
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
800
600
400
200
0
200
400
600
800
P
h
a
s
e

s
h
i
f
t
e
r

f
l
o
w

P
f
l
o
w

(
M
W
)
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
E
r
r
o
r

(
M
W
)
Phase shifting angle (degree)
1
1
2
2
3
3
!
!
S
S
S
Z
Z
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Figure 3: Top: Power ow through the PST calculated using
AC () and DC power ow (+); Bottom: Mismatch between
them: total (+) and corrected (). In both plots the three cases
are depicted: case 1 in blue, case 2 in red and case 3 in black.
30
15
0
15
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Phase angle (

)
Branch number
Error (MW)
Figure 4: Absolute value of P
error
when placing a PST between
nodes 133 and 137 (case 3).
(PSTs) throughout the network is relatively small, except for
some lines that experience a power mismatch of up to 35 MW.
6 Conclusions
DC power ow is a much used tool in power system analy-
sis, especially in techno-economic studies, related to electric-
ity markets, and contingency analysis. Earlier work quantied
the main indexes of the power system for an accurate solution
when utilising DC power ow: especially a at voltage pro-
le and a high X/R ratio improve accuracy. In this paper, the
authors fundamentally extend this earlier research and exam-
ined the usefulness of this tool when the power system con-
tains power ow controlling devices, and especially PSTs. The
issues with modelling of power ow controlling devices for DC
power ow are examined. This modelling introduces an addi-
tional error caused by the approximation of a sine function by
its argument.
The DC power ow methodology is tested on a modied ver-
sion of the IEEE 300 bus system, to which a power ow con-
trolling device is added. Overall, the introduced error by in-
accurate representation of the power ow controlling device is
relatively small, increasing with higher phase shifting angles
(about 5 % of the line ow). However, this is an additional er-
ror and precaution has to be taken when drawing conclusions
based on simulations using DC power ow when PSTs are in-
volved.
Acknowledgments
The research performed at the K.U.Leuven is nancially sup-
ported by the Belgian Fund for scientic research (F.W.O.)
Vlaanderen. Dirk Van Hertem is a doctoral research assistant
of the F.W.O. The research at the TU Delft has been performed
within the framework of the intelligent power systems pro-
gram, nancially supported by SenterNovem. SenterNovem is
an agency of the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs.
References
[1] E. Acha, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, Ambriz-P erez, and C. Angeles-
Camacho, FACTS Modelling and Simulation in Power Net-
works. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[2] S. Cole, D. Van Hertem, L. Meeus, and R. Belmans,
Technical developments for the future transmission grid,
in FPS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Nov. 1618, 2005,
p. 6. [Online]. Available: http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/
publications/fulltexts/pub 1503.pdf
[3] J. J. Grainger and J. Stevenson, William D., Power System Anal-
ysis. McGraw-Hill, 1994, no. ISBN 0-07-061293-5.
[4] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS, Con-
cepts and technology of exible AC transmission systems.
IEEE Press, 2000, no. ISBN 0-7803-3455-8.
[5] U. G. Knight, Systems in Emergencies, 1st ed. John Wiley &
Sons, Feb. 15, 2001.
[6] L. Meeus, K. Purchala, D. Van Hertem, and R. Belmans, Reg-
ulated cross-border transmission investments in europe, ETEP
European transactions on electric power, 2006, accepted for
publication.
[7] K. Purchala, L. Meeus, D. Van Dommelen, and R. Belmans,
Usefulness of dc power ow for active power ow analysis,
in IEEE PES general meeting, San Francisco, California, USA,
June 1216, 2005, p. 6. [Online]. Available: http://www.esat.
kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub 1456.pdf
[8] B. Stott, Review of load-ow calculation methods, Proceed-
ings of the IEEE, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 916 929, July 1974.
[9] D. Van Hertem, J. Verboomen, R. Belmans, and W. Kling,
Power ow control devices: An overview of their working
principles and their application range, in FPS, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, Nov. 1618, 2005, p. 6. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/
pub 1501.pdf
[10] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-S anchez, and
D. Gan, MATPOWER: Matlab Power System Simulation Pack-
age Users Manual, v3.0.0 ed., PSerc, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, NY, Feb. 15, 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/