1
A DECENTRALIZED CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
USING INTERIOR POINT METHOD
Brijesh Singh, R. Mahanty and S.P. Singh, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract- This paper presents a framework to carry out an
optimal power flow in a coordinated multi area decentralized
system. An AC optimal power flow model is used for independent
optimal dispatch of each area while the global economic optimal
of whole electric energy system is achieved. This is achieved by
means of the interior point optimization procedure. In this
approach, each participant tries to maximize their own profit
with the help of system information announced by the operator.
The developed algorithm can be run in parallel either to carry
out numerical simulations or in an actual multi area electric
system. The simulation is conducted on a three area modified
IEEE-30 bus system. The results show clearly the effectiveness of
the suggested method. It is shown that the suggested
decentralized approach can yield the same optimal dispatch
solution as the centralized approach.
Index Terms – AC-OPF, power market, open access, security
constrained optimal power flow, decentralization, optimal
pricing.
I. INTRODUCTION
An important goal of the restructuring of the electric
power industry is to move from ‘command and control’
decision making for the planning and operation of
generation and transmission to a decentralised market-
driven approach with the goal of achieving total lowest cost
to end-users without sacrificing reliability. After the
restructuring of the electric power industry, profit
generating companies have been developed to deliver
electric energy in a competitive market and independent
regulated transmission system operators (TSOs) manage the
operation of the transmission system. The congestion
management is one of the central issues for centralized
optimal power flow reported in different literatures [1-5].
The recent trend is towards large multinational electricity
markets, such as the internal electricity market (IEM) in
Europe. However, there are technical and economic
challenges in the operation of a single joint market by
combining different regional electricity markets. If an
individual market optimizes its own electricity market
without coordinating with its neighboring markets, seams
issues arise between regional electricity markets.
Brijesh Singh, Ph.D. Research Scholar is with Department of Electrical
Engineering, Institute of Technology, B.H.U., Varanasi.
(e-mail: brijeshsingh81@indiatimes.com).
S.P. Singh and R. Mahanty are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Institute of Technology, B.H.U., Varanasi.
(sps5957@indiatimes.com, mahantyr@yahoo.co.in)
978-1-4577-1002-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
In multiple market environments, the seams issues lead to
market inefficiency in the operation of the combined
markets. Hence, a decentralized approach is needed to
facilitate economically efficient energy trading between
regional electricity markets [6].
In [7], a decentralized model partitioned by tie-line
between individual markets has been proposed for
coordinating trading between regional electricity markets.
Tie-line information is exchanged at the end of each
iteration until final convergence is achieved. Different
decomposition methods for dividing the
Interconnected electricity markets into individual markets
are introduced in [8].
After decomposition of a single joint market, a
decentralized approach to congestion management in
interconnected markets is proposed in [9]. Reference [10]
presents a decentralized approach for congestion
management in a spot market. An efficient economic
dispatch for competitive electricity markets is analyzed to
solve seams problems. The theory for algorithms of duality
and decomposition in mathematical programming is
introduced in [11].
As the push for deregulation of electric utilities continues,
definition of objective function for optimization of
economic system operations is becoming critical. The
conventional benefit optimizations have been mainly based
on economic dispatch which enables us to achieve cost
minimization in single utility environment [12, 13].
Currently many of these issues are being played out in
real time with the privatization of power system. The model
makes it possible the independent optimal dispatch of each
area while the global optimum of the whole system is
achieved. This is particularly relevant in multi-utility or
multi-country setting. In order to achieve an economical
optimal dispatch of whole electric energy system, it is not
necessary to set up a common control centre. It is sufficient
to interchange a small amount of information among the
involved utilities or countries [14].
Decentralised OPF algorithm is an iterative algorithm in
which the TSO of each region iteratively solves a modified
OPF subproblem for its own region and exchanges tie-line
information with the TSOs of neighboring regions [15, 16].
In [17], the transmission congestion management and
discovering the congestion prices in decentralized approach
to maximize the profit independently for each participant is
discussed. The focus is given on the operation of multi
utility system with objective of benefit maximization.
The current investigation being reported in this paper
deals with congestion management using decentralized and
centralized approaches. The centralized and decentralized
power systems in the multi-utility environment are defined
as under:

• Centralized power system: This system consists of
several electric utilities which are controlled by a
centralized dispatching control like a tight pool.
• Decentralized power system: In this system, each
utility acts independently and has its own
dispatching control.
The formulation of the problem is similar to that reported in
[17] but the solution is obtained by interior point method.
AC load flow has been conducted unlike DC load flow in
[17]. Accuracy of decentralized approach is authenticated
by comparing the results with centralised approach. IEEE
30 bus system has been used to demonstrate the
performance of method proposed. The test results reveal
that the proposed method produced superior results as
compared to that reported in [17].
II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
A. Outline of Centralized OPF Model Forward Markets
Forward contract market for real power is mainly focused,
where dc load flow is used. In the perfect competitive
market, the ISO adjusts the contracts to maximize the social
welfare to achieve efficient operation with all constraints
satisfied. This COPF is given by
(1)
Where
Nb number of bus;
T set of transactions in the market
T = {1,2,....K};
K index of each transaction, for all K T;
g(K) set of generators in transaction K, for all K T;
d(K) set of consumers in transaction K, for all K T;
Pgi output of generator i of transaction K, also an element
of generator output Pgi vector of transaction K, for all i
g(K) and K T;
Pdi demand of consumer i of transaction K, an element of
demand vector Pdi of transaction K, for all i d(K)
and K T;
Bi benefit function of consumer i of transaction K,
for all i d(K) and K T;
Ci cost function of generators i of transaction K,
for all i g(K) and K T;
m index of transmission line involved in congestion
management;
Pij(m) load flow caused by transaction k on line m, in which
Generator sensitivity factor are used, for all K T;
Pij max power flow limit in transmission line m in MW;
2
The objective in (1) is to maximize total social welfare. The
equality constraints in (2) denote the power balance for each
transaction. The inequality constraints in (3) denote the
output (or input) limits of generators (or consumers).
Inequality constraints in (4) denote the line capacity limits.
For simplicity the transmission lines is supposed to be
congested only in one direction.
B. Mathematical Model for Decentralized based OPF
The COPF model (1)–(4) is converted into DOPF model
below. Firstly we rewrite (1)–(4) to a simpler form. The
decision variables of contract K are defined as
The social welfare related to transaction k is rewritten as
Equation (2)-(4) is local constraints of individual contracts
that are not interactive among transactions. The original
DOPF model is written to a simpler form as
This equality condition is only true for those lines which
are congested, means the lines are not overloaded, but
whole transfer capability has been utilized.
C. Solution by Interior point approach
This method is also known as Karmarkar interior point
method [18, 19]. The conventional optimization needed the
number of iterations to reach the optimum solution can grow
exponentially. In fact there are extreme points visited before
the optimum is reached in linear programming (LP). In
interior point based optimization a polynomial-time
algorithm that cuts across the interior of the solution space.
The algorithm is effective for extremely large LPs. The
main idea of the Karmarkar method is introduced here and
then is provided the computational details of the algorithm.
Basic idea of the Interior-point Algorithm:
For the solution by this technique, the problem is formulated
as
min f(x)
s.t. h (x) = 0
gl ≤ g(x) ≤ gu (7)
where
f(x) is the objective function
h(x)=0 is a set of nonlinear equality constraints
(Power balance)
gl ≤ g(x) ≤ gu is a set of nonlinear inequality constraints
x is a vector consists of state variables and
control variables
 3

In interior point OPF, firstly construct a Lagrange function Fig.2 [17]. In order to demonstrate the multi-area example
for NLP eq. (7). the whole system is partitioned in three area A, B and C. it
Lg = f(x)-yTh(x)-zT[g(x)-l-gl]-wT[g(x)+u-gu] is assumed that each area have three load and two generator.
This way there are nine demand and six generation bidders
altogether. The marginal cost functions of generators and
marginal benefit functions of consumers are listed in Table
Where 1 and the electricity output q in MW.
y, z and w are Lagrange multipliers for equality and
inequality constraints respectively
li and ui are slack variables
µ is the barrier parameter.
So, the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions for NLP (7)
are
Lx = Jf - Jhy – Jg (z+w) = 0
Ly = h(x) = 0
Lz = g(x) – l – gl = 0
Lw = g(x) + u – gu = 0
Ll = LZE - µE = 0
Lu = UWE + µE = 0 (8)
Here
L = diag (l1, l2,…….lr)
U = diag (u1, u2, …….ur)
W = diag (w1, w2, …….wr)
Z = diag (z1, z2, …………….zr)
E = [1,1,……..1]T Fig. 2 Example system (IEEE 30 bus 3 area system)
Jf,, Jh and Jg are Jacobian matrixes of f(x), h(x) and g(x)
respectively. Table: 1
Using reduced Newton method to solve the nonlinear eq.
Assumed market demand and
(8) then can get the following three decomposed linear supply functions for example system
equations: Load
Generation Marginal cost bus Marginal
Utilities bus no. of supply no. benefit
(9) 3 3.88-0.03q
and 1 0.02q+2 4 3.9-0.05q
A 2 0.0175q+1.75 7 3.8-0.05q
12 3.8-0.04q
(10) 13 0.025q+3 15 3.95-0.02q
and B 23 0.025q+3 17 3.7-0.02q
24 3.6-0.03q
(11) 22 0.625q+1 26 3.8-0.04q
where C 27 0.00834q+3.25 27 3.7-0.02q
Lx! = Lx+ Jg [L-1(Ll!+ZLz)+(Lu!-WLw)] Suppose generators 1 and 2 belong to utility A, generators
H = -Hf+Hh+Hg-Jg[L-1Z-U-1W]Jg 13 and 23 belong to utility B, while generators 22 and 27
Ll! = LZE-µE-ΔwΔu belong to utility C. Here each utility has only its own
Hf , Hh and Hg are Hessian matrixes of f(x), yTh(x) and cT resources information and it all has the right to access the
g(x) respectively. information base to obtain the biddings of all the demands
here c = z + w. for optimized its own generations. In this system topology
The following are the main steps for interior point OPF the possible congested branches are line 10-17 and line 22-
based solution 24 with transfer limits of 28 MW and 16MW, respectively.
Step 1) Initialization: give initial values, and formulate Where 32.47 MW and 17.05 MW respectively are
admittance matrix Y = G + jB. overflowing. Using this proposed method the Table 2 shows
Step 2) Formulate Jacobian and Hessian matrix of objective the test results in centralized OPF for two cases: without
function, equality and inequality constraints: Jf, Jh, line constraint and with line constraints.
Jg, Hf, Hh and Hg. For optimizing individually its own generators to meet
Step 3) Formulate linear system (9)-(11), using predictor- the demand biddings, the suggested decentralized interior
corrector strategy to slove this linear system. If convergence point optimization approach is applied and the results
criteria are satisfied, then stop; otherwise, go to step 2. obtained are shown in Table 2 and 3 for two cases. These
two cases are without imposition of line limit and
III. TEST RESULT imposition of line limits. It is observed that the proposed
method succeed in managing the congestion as the line flow
The algorithm proposed is implemented in MATLAB on after application of proposed method produced line flow of
Intel (R), Core 2 Duo, and 2.66 GHz processor. Its 7.8230 MW and 12.034 MW in congested lines 10-17 and
performance is studied on modified IEEE-30 Bus system in 22-24 respectively in centralized optimal power flow.
 4

The results of these cases were obtained by centralized
formulation and solution by proposed interior point method
in order to authenticate the results of decentralized
approach. Therefore the results of centralized approach for
above mentioned two cases have also been obtained and
illustrated in Table 4. It is observed from Table 3 and Table
4 that the sum of demand and generation are same in case of
centralized and decentralized approaches. However the
generator outputs are different in two approaches. In
proposed method losses are also incorporated with
generators outputs. In decentralized approach the first
generator of utility A is considered as a slack bus. The
losses due to other utility have been incorporated with this
first generator. The additional cost of loss is incorporated
with this generator. This is shown in table 5. Further, the
results obtained by proposed method for two cases have
been compared with those obtained by method reported in
[17] is respect of generator outputs and costs for both the
cases of constrained and unconstrained solutions. In [17],
for the line limit satisfaction the total demand on system has
been reduced, rather than in proposed method the total
demand has been unchanged. Only for the congestion
management the generator rescheduling has been adopted
by OPF solution. The losses term is also not included with
the results of [17]. Then if the cultured load and the losses
are incorporate with these results, then the cost of
generation has been more in compared with the proposed
method. These results are depicted in Table 5. It can be
observed from this table that the cost obtained by
centralized and decentralized approaches are very close.
However these costs obtained by proposed method are
lower than that reported in [17] using both the approaches
and cases.

Table: 2. Results of Decentralized approach without line constrains

GENERATIONS (MW)
Ref [17] Using DCLF Proposed Using ACLF
Utility Generator PG PG losses PL
1 60.3187 75.0455
A 2 83.2210 80.0000 7.2230
13 8.2553 12.5000
B 23 8.2553 12.5000 1.9300
22 35.3021 15.0000
C 27 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000
195.0455 10.7530
Total generation 195.3524 205.7985
DEMANDS (MW)
Ref [17] Using DCLF Proposed Using ACLF
Load A B C A B C
3 17.3529 1.6055 3.4955 18.4307 4.2500 3.0305
4 10.7929 0.9831 2.0965 11.2584 2.7500 2.0183
7 21.9920 2.4459 5.2431 10.2584 1.7500 1.0183
12 10.9881 1.2318 2.6209 12.8230 2.1875 1.2729
15 29.4926 2.4454 5.2431 29.3960 8.1250 6.2957
17 16.9916 2.4462 5.2431 23.1460 1.8750 0.0458
24 7.9500 1.6748 3.4958 13.7640 0.0000 0.0000
26 10.9881 1.2317 2.6210 12.8230 2.1875 1.2729
27 16.9916 2.4462 5.2431 23.1460 1.8750 0.0458
143.5398 16.5106 35.3021 155.0455 25.0000 15.0002
total 195.3525 195.0457
 5

Table: 3. Results of Decentralized approach with line constrains

GENERATIONS (MW)
Ref [17] Using DCLF Proposed Using ACLF
Utility Generator PG PG losses PL
1 57.2912 45.5321
A 2 79.7305 69.5002 5.1700
13 7.3135 12.0000
B 23 12.0889 12.0000 1.9500
22 32.1607 22.6353
C 27 2.7192 33.9878 2.3400
195.6554 9.4600
Total generation 191.3040 205.1154
DEMANDS (MW)
Ref [17] Using DCLF** Proposed Using ACLF
Load A B C A B C
3 18.4845 2.1200 3.8201 13.9507 4.2500 7.7217
4 11.4826 1.2758 2.2901 8.5705 2.7500 4.8330
7 23.9327 3.1773 5.7271 7.5705 1.7500 3.8330
12 10.9338 1.6365 2.8566 9.4631 2.1875 4.7913
15 28.2749 3.1753 5.7272 22.6761 8.1250 13.3326
17 18.7965 3.1794 5.7272 16.4261 1.8750 7.0825
24 5.4212 0.0958 0.1471 9.2841 0.0000 3.0551
26 7.2382 1.5602 2.8574 9.4631 2.1875 4.7913
27 12.4573 3.1821 5.7272 16.4262 2.1875 7.0826
137.0217 19.4024 34.8800 113.8304 25.3130 56.5231
Total 191.3041 195.6660

Table: 4. Results Centralized approach

GENERATIONS (MW)
Generation without line constraints Generation with line constraints
Ref [17] Proposed Ref [17]** Proposed
Generator PG (DCLF) PG (ACLF) PG (DCLF) PG (ACLF)
1 60.3201 66.5455 57.2872 87.1750
2 83.2254 77.8500 79.7324 26.6553
13 8.2530 12.5000 7.3184 15.0000
23 8.2530 12.5000 12.0863 12.6430
22 35.3019 25.6500 32.1598 41.8801
27 0.0000 0.0000 2.7202 12.0000
Loss -- 9.6700 -- 9.8941
Total 195.3534 204.7155 191.3043 205.2475
DEMANDS (MW)
Demands without line constraints Demands with line constraints
Load Ref [17] Proposed Ref [17] ** Proposed
3 22.4562 25.7112 24.4241 25.9224
4 13.8726 16.0267 15.0499 16.1535
7 29.6812 13.0267 32.8394 13.1535
12 14.8402 16.2834 15.4268 16.4419
15 37.1812 43.8167 37.1765 44.1337
17 24.6811 25.0668 27.7035 25.3836
24 13.1196 13.7640 5.6626 12.3392
26 14.8402 16.2834 11.6562 16.4419
27 24.6811 25.0668 21.3652 25.6963
Total 195.3534 195.0457 191.3042 195.666
 6

Table: 5. Comparison of generation cost ($/MW) of two cases

Centralized OPF
Without constraints With constraints
Ref [17] Proposed Ref [17] Proposed
567.2568 566.0951 546.5729 572.8055
Decentralized OPF
Without constraints With constraints
Utilities Ref [17] Proposed Ref [17] Proposed
A 401.1183 451.2022 377.6660 314.3436
B 52.9393 82.8125 63.1979 79.2000
C 113.1920 29.0625 105.7042 174.3698
Total 567.2496 563.0772 546.5681 567.9134
** Load has been cultured in ref. [17] for the line limit satisfaction but in proposed method load is not cultured. The total
system demand is fixed for both cases.

IV. CONCLUSIONS network of computers”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.

This paper presents a multi-area OPF algorithm which
makes possible the independent dispatch of each area while
achieving a multi-area optimum. The algorithm is based on
the Interior point based optimization procedure. This
algorithm is of particular interest in a multi-utility setting
where coordination achieves substantial saving but where
dispatching independence has to be maintained and its own
profits independently, with the help of system information
announced by the operator. The results of IEEE 30-bus
system have demonstrated the effectiveness of the suggested
method. Therefore, the new method is physically more
transparent and attractive than the conventional OPF
approach the comparison with an existing method reveals
that the proposed technique produced higher benefit.
V. REFRENCES
[1] Yong-Hua Song and Xi- Fan Wang, “Operation of
market-oriented power system”, Springer-Verlag
London limited, 2003.
[2] X. Wang, and Y.H. Song, “Advanced Real-Time
Congestion Management through both Pool Balancing
market and Bilateral market”, IEEE Power
Engineering Review, Feb 2000, 20(2), pp.47-49.
[3] Richard D. Christil, “Transmission management in
deregulated environment”, pro. IEEE, Feb 2000, 88(2),
pp.170-195.
[4] H. Singh, S. Hao, and A. papalexopoulos,
“Transmission congestion management in competitive
Electricity markets”, IEEE trans. on Power System, vol
13, No. 2 May 1998, pp, 672-679.
[5] Sudipta Dutta and S. P. Singh, “Optimal rescheduling
of generators for congestion management based on
particle swarm optimization” , IEEE trans. on Power
System, vol 23, No. 4 Nov. 2008, pp, 1560-1569.
[6] Bakirtizs A.G., Biskas P.N., “A decentralized solution
to the DC-OPF of interconnected power systems”,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18. no. 3, pp. 1007-13.
Aug. 2003.
[7] Bakirtizs A.G., Biskas P.N., “A decentralized
implementation of DC optimal power flow on a
20.no. 3, pp. 25-33. Aug. 2005.
[8] A.J. Conejo, J.A. Aguado, “Multi area coordinated
decentralized DC optimal power flow”, IEEE Trans.
on Power Systems, vol. 13, No.4,Nov. 1998,pp. 1272-
1278.
[9] S. Hao, “Decentralized approach to inter congestion
management”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20. no.2,
pp. 675-683. May. 2005.
[10] S. Hao and D. Shirmohammadi, “Congestion
management with Ex Ante Pricing for decentralized
electricity markets”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17.
no.4, pp.1030-1036, Nov. 2002.
[11] Kai Liu, Yixin Ni, F.F. Wu and T.S. Bi “Decentralized
congestion management for mulilatral transactions
based on optimal recourse allocation ”, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 22. no.4, pp. 1835-1842. Nov. 2007.
[12] F.Nishimura, Richard D. Tabors, M.D. llic,
J.R.Lacalle-Melero, “Benefit optimization of
centralized and decentralized power systems in a multi
area environment”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8.
no. 3, pp. 1180-1186. Aug. 1993.
[13] P.R. Gribik, G. A. Angelidis, and R. R. Kovacs,
“Transmission access and pricing”, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 14. no. 3, pp. 865-876. Aug. 1999.
[14] P. N. Biskas and A.G. Bakirtzis, “Decentralized
congestion management of interconnected power
systems”, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. Gen., Trans., Distrib.,
vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 432-438, Jul. 2002.
[15] X. Wang, Y. H. Song, and Q. Lu., “Lagrangian
decomposition approach to active power congestion
management across interconnected regions”, Proc.
Inst. Elect. Eng. Gen., Trans., Distrib., vol. 148, no. 5,
pp. 497-503, Sep. 2001.
[16] A. Huang, Sung-Kwan J., K. Bin Song, Jin- Ho Kim
and K. Lee, “Asynchronous decentralized method for
interconnected electricity markets”, Electric power
system research, vol.30, pp.283-290, 2008.
[17] P. Wei,Y.Ni and F.F. Wu, “Decentralized approach for
congestion management and congestion price
discovering”, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol.
149, no.6,Nov.2002.
 7

[18] Hamdy A. Taha, “Operation Research: An

Introduction”, Pearson Education (Singapore) Inc.,
2002.
[19] N. Karmarkar, “A new polynomial-time algorithm for
linear programming”, Combinatorica,vol. 4, no. 4, pp.
373-395, 1984.