554
1, FEBRUARY 2004
A Zonal Congestion Management Approach Using
Real and Reactive Power Rescheduling
Ashwani Kumar, S. C. Srivastava, Senior Member, and S. N. Singh, Senior Member
Abstract—In a deregulated electricity market, it may always
not be possible to dispatch all of the contracted power transac-
tions due to congestion of the transmission corridors. System op-
erators try to manage congestion, which otherwise increases the
cost of the electricity and also threatens the system security and
stability. In this paper, a new zonal/cluster-based congestion man-
agement approach has been proposed. The zones have been deter-
mined based on lines real and reactive power flow sensitivity in-
dexes also called as real and reactive transmission congestion dis-
tribution factors. The generators in the most sensitive zones, with
strongest and nonuniform distribution of sensitivity indexes, are
identified for rescheduling their real power output for congestion
management. In addition, the impact of optimal rescheduling of
reactive power output by generators and capacitors in the most
sensitive zones has also been studied. The proposed new zonal con-
cept has been tested on 39-bus New England system and a 75-bus
Indian system.
Index Terms—Congestion zones, transmission congestion distri-
bution factors, transmission congestion management.
I. INTRODUCTION
I N a competitive electricity market, congestion occurs when
the transmission network is unable to accommodate all of
the desired transactions due to a violation of system operating
limits. Congestion does occur in both vertically bundled and
unbundled systems but the management in the bundled system
is relatively simple as generation, transmission, and, in some
cases, distribution systems are managed by one utility. The man-
agement of congestion is somewhat more complex in competi-
tive power markets and leads to several disputes. In the present
day competitive power market, each utility manages the conges-
tion in the system using its own rules and guidelines utilizing
a certain physical or financial mechanism. Various congestion
management schemes suitable for different electricity market
structure have been reported in literature. But there is still a need
for an efficient and more reliable method to solve this problem
[1].
Hogan proposed the contract path and nodal pricing approach
[2] using spot pricing theory [3] for the pool-type market. Chao
and Peck [4] proposed an alternative approach, which is based
on parallel markets for link-based transmission capacity rights
and energy trading under a set of rules defined and administered
by the system operator (SO). These rules specify the transmis-
sion capacity rights required to support bilateral transactions
Manuscript received March 20, 2003.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India (e-mail: ashwa@iitk.ac.in;
scs@iitk.ac.in; snsingh@iitk.ac.in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821448
0885-8950/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO.
and are adjusted continuously to reflect the changing system
conditions.
Several optimal power flow (OPF)-based congestion manage-
ment schemes have been proposed. An approach for relieving
congestion using the minimum total shift in the transactions
is presented in [5]. A willingness-to-pay premium [6] has also
been suggested to avoid curtailment of the transactions. Mar-
ginal cost signals are used in [7] for generators to manage con-
gestion. A similar approach is proposed in [8], where the con-
gestion cost is bundled with the marginal cost at each bus in a
pool model and a congestion cost minimization is adopted in bi-
lateral model. With the help of flexible ac transmission systems
(FACTS), transmission network capability is utilized in a better
way and congestion can be managed in an efficient manner [9],
[10].
A congestion clusters-based method, which identifies the
group of system users according to their impact on transmis-
sion constraints of interest, has been proposed in [11]. These
clusters based on congestion distribution factors are termed as
clusters of type 1, 2 and higher, where type 1 cluster represents
users with strongest and nonuniform effects on transmission
constraints of interest. The proposed clustering-based method
has been used to create an efficient congestion management
market, where the readjustment of transactions in the most
sensitive cluster can help in eliminating congestion. However,
this method is based on dc load flow involving the assumptions
of lossless system and unity voltage magnitudes at all of the
buses.
The optimal reactive power support in the system plays a very
important role in maintaining an acceptable system voltage pro-
file and helping in managing the congestion more effectively.
However, reactive power cannot always be delivered from a
source to an electrically remote sink. The local nature of the
reactive power also implies that the generator may provide the
reactive power support for a number of transactions even if that
particular generator is not involved in the real power dispatch.
The allocated contributions of the individual generator’s reac-
tive power output to a particular transaction can be negative or
positive [15]. Thus, the Var support requirement from genera-
tors and capacitors to manage congestion along with real power
rescheduling poses a great challenge to SO in an open-access
electricity market.
In this paper, a new zonal/cluster-based congestion manage-
ment approach has been proposed. The proposed method uti-
lizes two sets of sensitivity indexes termed as real transmission
congestion distribution factors (PTCDFs) and reactive transmis-
sion congestion distribution factors (QTCDFs) for congestion
management in competitive power markets where selection and
KUMAR et al.: A ZONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT APPROACH USING REAL AND REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING 555

participation of generators/sources, not only depend on their rel- The coefficients appearing in (7) and (8) can be obtained
ative sensitivity, but also on their bid price for up/down regula- using the partial derivatives of real and reactive power flow (1)
tion to alleviate congestion. The most sensitive zones have been and (2) with respect to variables and as
identified as the union of most sensitive zones obtained on the
basis of real and reactive line flow sensitivity indexes separately. (9)
The impact of optimal rescheduling of generators and capacitors (10)
has been demonstrated in congestion management. The effec- (11)
tiveness of the proposed method has been tested on 39-bus New (12)
England system and a 75-bus Indian system.
(13)
(14)
II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
The real power flow and reactive power flow in
a line- connected between bus- and bus- can be written as (15)
(16)
(1) For determination of TCDFs, the following Jacobian relation-
ship has been used:

(2) (17)

where and are the voltage magnitude and angle at bus- . Neglecting and coupling, (17) can be simplified
and are magnitude and angle of th element of as:
matrix. is the shunt charging admittance of line- .
(18)
A. Transmission Congestion Distribution Factors (TCDFs) (19)
Real and reactive transmission congestion distribution factors From (18) and (19), we get
(TCDFs) denote how much active and reactive power flow over
a transmission line would change due to change in real and re- (20)
active power injections, respectively. The real PTCDF’s are de- (21)
fined as the change in the real power flow in a trans-
mission line- connected between bus- and bus- due to unit Equations (20) and (21) can be rewritten in the following
change in the power injection at any bus- . Mathemati- form:
cally, the PTCDFs for line- can be written as
(22)
(3)
(23)
Similarly, the QTCDFs are defined as the change in the reac-
tive power flow in a transmission line- connected be- where is the number of buses in the system and is the slack
tween bus- and bus- due to unit change in the reactive power bus.
injection at bus- and can be written as It is assumed that the impact of change in the bus voltage on
real power flow and bus angle on reactive power flow is negli-
gible and, therefore, (7) and (8) can be rewritten as
(4)
(24)
Using, Taylor series approximation, (1) and (2) can be written (25)
(ignoring second and higher order terms) as
Substituting (22) into (24) and (23) into (25), we get

(5) (26)

(6)
(27)
Equations (5) and (6) can be rewritten as
or
(7)
(8) (28)
556
(29)
Equations (28) and (29) can be rewritten as
(30)
(31)
where
are the real and reactive transmission congestion distribution
factors corresponding to a bus- and a line- connected between
bus- and bus- .
The Jacobian utilized for computing the TCDFs, in the
present work will change for any change in the system oper-
ating condition. However, the suggested method is quite fast
and can be utilized for updating the TCDFs and, hence, the
cluster of buses (zones) for congestion management.
B. Zonal-Based Transmission Congestion Management
There are two broad methods for congestion management in
a deregulated market. The first one is based on “price signal,”
which may be in the form of change in locational marginal price
due to congestion or in the form of zonal price as practiced in the
California market. The second approach is based on readjust-
ment of transactions, which have been considered in the present
work. The concept of congestion zone in this work is different
from that used in the “California market.” In the present work,
congestion zones are nothing but a cluster of buses, selected
based on sensitivity of flow in the congested line.
The TCDFs have been utilized for identifying congestion
clusters (zones) for a given system. The congestion zone/cluster
of type 1 has been defined as zone having large and nonuniform
TCDFs, and the congestion zones of type 2 and higher have
been defined as those having small or similar TCDFs. There-
fore, the transactions in the congestion zone1 have critical
and unequal impact on the line flow. The congestion zones
of type 2, 3 and higher are farther from the congested line
of interest [11]. Therefore, any transaction outside the most
Minimize
subject to
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2004
sensitive zone 1 will contribute very little to the line flow.
Thus, the identification of congestion zones will reduce the
computational burden, considerably, in both redispatching and
physical curtailments necessary for the transmission loading
relief (TLR) in case of emergency and the adjustment of system
users themselves under normal conditions.
The congestion zonal-based method is also applicable if more
than one transmission line congestion conditions are present in
the system. The congestion clusters/zones for a multicongestion
case can be obtained by superimposing the clusters/zones cor-
responding to the individual line congestion.
The paper assumes that only one system operator is managing
the complete system. However, in case of several system opera-
tors, the clusters/zones will be defined separately to manage the
congestion in their operating area.
C. Selection of Generators and Optimal Location of
Capacitors for Reactive Power Support
The proper management of reactive power support in the net-
work improves the system voltage profile and also helps in man-
aging congestion up to some extent. It is important to identify
the generators and capacitors required to provide reactive power
support in congestion management. In the present paper, the re-
active support of generators and capacitors, in addition to the
rescheduling of real power generation, has been considered to
manage the congestion.
Based on the QTCDFs, the SO identifies the most sensitive
zones and optimally selects the generators for their reactive
power rescheduling. However, the optimal placement of a
capacitor has been considered at a bus having the most negative
reactive power flow sensitivity indexes with respect to the
congested line.
D. Transaction Redispatch for the Congestion Management
The redispatch of transactions for congestion management in
a pool model is formulated as a nonlinear programming problem
and has been solved using the GAMS/CONOPT solver [13].
The optimization problem is formulated as: [See equations (32)
and (33) at bottom of page]
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(32)
(33)
KUMAR et al.: A ZONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT APPROACH USING REAL AND REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING 557

and The number of participants in the transmission congestion

market will be generally much smaller than the number
of active participants in the electricity market. The congestion
cost can be determined for the hybrid type of market structure
in which bilateral and multilateral transactions are also taking
(38) place along with pool demands. Pool model formulation can
be modified to incorporate the additional equality constraints
representing the bilateral and multilateral contracts.

E. Modeling Bilateral/Multilateral Contracts

The conceptual model of bilateral dispatch is that sellers and
(39) buyers enter into transactions where the quantities traded and
the associated prices are at the discretion of these parties and
not a matter of SO. These transactions are then brought to the
where is the number of generators participating in con-
SO with a request that transmission facilities for the relevant
gestion management, is the MVA flow limit of a line
amount of power transferred to be provided. If there is no static
connected between bus- and bus- , and are the total
and dynamic security violation, the SO simply dispatches all
real and reactive power loss, which have been expressed using
of the requested transactions and charges for the transmission
exact loss formula [14]. is the set of capacitors and are
service.
the number of buses in the system. and are the orig-
In a practical system, not all of the sellers have bilateral con-
inal real and reactive power flow in line- (between bus- and
tract with buyers and vice-versa. Mathematically, each bilateral
bus- ) caused by all of the transactions requesting the transmis-
transaction between a seller at bus- and power purchaser at
sion service. is the real power adjustment of generator at
bus- satisfies the following power balance relationship:
bus- . is the change in the voltage due to
change in the reactive power injection. is the incremental or (42)
decremental price bids submitted by generator- . These are the
prices at which generators are willing to adjust their real power The bilateral concept can be generalized to be multilateral
outputs. The second term in the objective function is the oppor- case where the seller (for example, a generation company) may
tunity cost of the generator defined as [15] inject power at several nodes and the buyers also draw load at
several nodes. Unlike pool dispatch, there will be a transaction
power balance in that the aggregate injection equals the aggre-
(40) gate draw off for each transaction. The contracted demands of
where is the cost of active power generation and is modeled load buses to be provided by generator- have to be shared in
by a quadratic function as a proportion decided optimally by SO. Mathematically, a mul-
tilateral contract- involving more than one supplier and/or one
consumer can be expressed as

where , , and are predetermined costs coefficients of (43)

generator and is the nominal apparent power of gen-
erator and is the profit rate of active power generation taken
between 5 and 10% [15].
The third term in the objective function is the equivalent cost
for return on the capital investment of the capacitors, which is
expressed as their depreciation rates (the life span of capacitors
is assumed as 15 years)
(41)
where is the average usage rate of capacitors taken as
(in per unit at 100-MVA base). Equation (39) is a
linear cost function with a slope of
where and stand for the power injections into the
seller bus- and the power taken out at the buyer bus- . is
the total number of contracts.
III. SYSTEM STUDIES
The proposed concept of congestion zone-based congestion
management system utilizing the real and reactive TCDFs has
been illustrated on a 39-bus New England system [16] and
75-bus Indian system [17]. The 39-bus system is a simplified
representation of the 345-kV transmission system in the New
England region having ten generators and 29 load buses.
The 75-bus Indian system represents a reduced network of
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board’s network comprising of
400-kV and 220-kV buses with 15 generators, 24 transformers,
and 97 lines.

The second and third terms in (38) and (39) incorporate the A. Thirty-Nine-Bus System (Single Congestion Case)
change in the losses in the system occurring due to redispatch For this system, the congestion zones based on the real power
of the generators and capacitors. flow sensitivity for a line 34-14, which is considered as con-
558 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2004

Fig. 1. Congestion zones based on PTCDF for 39-bus New England system.
Fig. 2. Congestion zones based on QTCDF for the 39-bus New England
system.
TABLE I
ZONES (BUS NO., PTCDF) FOR 39-BUS NEW ENGLAND SYSTEM
TABLE II
ZONES (BUS NO., QTCDF) FOR THE 39-BUS NEW ENGLAND SYSTEM

gested line, are shown in Fig. 1. The congestion zones are de-
cided on the basis of PTCDFs and accordingly the SO selects
most sensitive congestion zones for managing congestion. The
PTCDFs for the congested line 34-14 corresponding to each bus
are given in Table I for the four different zones.
The zone 1 is the most sensitive zone with larger magnitude
and strongest nonuniform distribution of PTCDFs. The magni-
tudes of PTCDFs in zone 4 are higher than zone 2 and zone 3
but due to uniform distribution of PTCDFs, the zone 4 is consid-
ered as the least sensitive zone. Fig. 2 shows the zones based on
the QTCDFs for the congested line 34-14. The reactive power
flow indexes are given in Table II. The combined zones based on
both real and reactive power flow sensitivity indexes are shown
in Fig. 3. The most sensitive combined zone (zone-1) has been
taken as the union of the most sensitive zones obtained from the
real and reactive power flow sensitivity indexes, separately.
The next sensitive zones (zones 2, 3, and higher) have been Fig. 3. New combined congestion zones for the 39-bus New England system.
formed, in sequence, by taking union of the remaining buses in
the respective zones obtained from the real and reactive power C4: pool model with one bilateral contract between bus
flow sensitivity indexes. Since the sensitivity of both real and re- 8–21 and multilateral contract between 3–35, 36;
active power sources is with respect to the flow in the congested C5: pool model with two bilateral contracts between buses
line, the zones (clusters of buses) formed are almost overlap- 8–21, 10–23 and multilateral contract between buses
ping. 3–35, 36.
Different combinations of market structures comprising pool In the present study, the full capacities of generations at a
model and mix of pool plus bilateral and multilateral contracts bus have been assumed to participate either in pool or in a bi-
taken for study are lateral/multilateral contract. For example, in a market structure
P: pool model without bilateral and multilateral contracts; type-P, it is assumed that the full capacity of all the generators
C1: pool model with one bilateral contract between buses bid only in the pool, whereas in type C1, the full capacity of
3–35; all the generators bid in the pool except the generator at bus 3
C2: pool model with two bilateral contracts between buses whose full capacity is assumed to participate only in the bilateral
3–35 and 8–21; contract. However, the problem formulation is quite general and
C3: pool model with one multilateral contract between can consider the participation of any of the generators simulta-
buses 3–35, 36; neously in pool as well as in bilateral/multilateral contracts.
KUMAR et al.: A ZONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT APPROACH USING REAL AND REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING
TABLE III
CONGESTION COSTS (DOLLARS PER HOUR) FOR 39-BUS NEW ENGLAND
SYSTEM FOR DIFFERENT CASES
Fig. 4. Congestion costs for the 39-bus New England system.
Fig. 5. Change in P-generation for the 39-bus system (case 1).
The congestion cost has been determined for a pool-based
market model and a mix of pool, bilateral, and multilateral con-
tracts as given above considering the reactive support provided
by the generators and the optimally placed capacitors apart from
real power scheduling of generation in each case. The different
cases taken for the study are:
Case 1) without reactive power support from generators and
capacitor;
Case 2) with generators reactive support;
Case 3) with capacitor reactive support;
Case 4) with generators and capacitor reactive support.
It has been assumed that the SO selects generators G3, G8,
and G10 from the most sensitive zones to participate in the con-
gestion management based on the qualifying bids. The capacitor
has been located optimally on bus 14 based on its most nega-
tive reactive power flow sensitivity index value as highlighted
in Table II.
The congestion costs for all of the cases are presented in
Table III and Fig. 4. The congestion cost for case 1 has also
been determined with dc method [11] and shown in Table III for
559
Fig. 6. Change in P-generation for the 39-bus system (case 2).
Fig. 7. Change in P-generation for the 39-bus system (case 3).
Fig. 8. Change in P-generation for the 39-bus system (case 4).
comparison. It is observed that the cost with proposed method is
much smaller compared with the method proposed in [11]. It can
also be seen that capacitors reactive support is more effective
in reducing congestion cost as compared to generator reactive
support. This may be due to the fact that the optimal placement
of capacitors meets the reactive power requirement of the zone
directly without involving the flow of reactive power through
lines. The congestion cost is found to be minimum with both
generator and capacitors giving reactive support in the system.
Figs. 5—8 show the optimal change in real power (P) output
of generators G3, G8, and G10 in per unit for different market
models considering four different cases. Comparing Figs. 5—8,
it is found that the generators are subjected to a lower magnitude
of rescheduling in the presence of reactive support provided by
the generators and capacitors.
The reactive power support from capacitor at bus-14 (C14)
and the change in reactive power output of generators for all
transactions (in per unit) are given in Table IV. The reactive
560
TABLE IV
REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING (IN PER UNIT) FOR CASES 2 AND 3
TABLE V
REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING (IN PER UNIT) FOR CASE 4
Fig. 9. Combined congestion zones for the 75-bus system.
power support from capacitor and change in reactive power out-
puts of generators for the case 4 are given in Table V.
From Tables IV and V, it is observed that capacitors are re-
quired to generate less MVAR when generators are also pro-
viding additional reactive support in the system. The generators
are subjected to lower reschedule of reactive power generation
when the capacitor is supporting the reactive power requirement
in the system.
B. Seventy-Five-Bus Indian System
For this system, the combined congestion zones based on the
real and reactive power flow sensitivity indexes for a line of in-
terest 26–41 are shown in Fig. 9. The system has been divided
into three zones with zone 1 as the most sensitive zone. It has
been assumed that SO selects generators G3, G12, and G13 from
the most sensitive zone 1 to participate in the congestion man-
agement based on their qualifying bids in an open market.
Different combinations taken for the study are:
P: pool model without bilateral and multilateral contracts;
C1: pool model with one bilateral contract between buses
3–27;
C2: pool model with three bilateral contracts between
buses 3–27, 12–24, and 13–55;
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2004
Fig. 10. Congestion cost for 75-bus Indian system.
Fig. 11. Change in P-generation for the 75-bus Indian system (case 1).
Fig. 12. Change in P-generation for the 75-bus Indian system (case 2).
C3: pool model with one multilateral contract between
buses 12–27, 73;
C4: pool model with one bilateral contract between bus
13–55 and multilateral contract between 12–27, 73;
C5: pool model with two bilateral contracts between buses
3–24, 13–55, and multilateral contract between buses
12–27, 73.
The changes in real power output of generators have been
determined for the two cases:
Case 1) without reactive support from generators;
Case 2) with reactive support from generators.
The congestion costs for the general market model structure
having pool, bilateral, and multilateral transactions are shown in
Fig. 10 along with the congestion costs for case 1 with dc model
[11]. Figs. 11 and 12 show the change in real power output of
generators for the above two cases.
KUMAR et al.: A ZONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT APPROACH USING REAL AND REACTIVE POWER RESCHEDULING
TABLE VI
CHANGE IN REACTIVE GENERATION (IN PER UNIT) (CASE 2)
Fig. 13. Multicongestion case of 39-bus system.
From Fig. 10, it is found that the congestion cost is less for
case 2 compared with case 1 and the congestion costs are quite
less as compared to those obtained from dc model [11]. From
Figs. 11 and 12, it is observed that the generators are subjected
to lower real power rescheduling in the presence of reactive sup-
port from the generators. The change in reactive power output
of generators for all of the transactions for case 2 is given in
Table VI.
C. Multicongestion Case
In a power system network, there may be more than one
line getting congested simultaneously. The studies for the mul-
ticongestion cases were carried out for both 39-bus and 75-bus
system. However, the results for only 39-bus system are being
presented. For the simulation of a multicongestion case (case
mc), it is assumed that two lines 34–14 and 36–21 are congested
simultaneously. The combined zones based on real and reactive
TCDFs are shown in Fig. 13. The zone 1 and the zone 2 are
the most sensitive zones. For managing the congestion, genera-
tors 3, 8, 10 were selected from zone 1 and generators 4 and 6
were selected from zone 2, based on their qualifying bids in the
market. The congestion costs for the multicongestion case along
with those for case 1 are shown in Fig. 14 for the transactions P,
C1 to C5. It is observed that the congestion cost is significantly
high for the multicongestion case. The change in optimal real
power generation of the generators participating in the conges-
tion management is shown in Fig. 15.
D. Computational Time
In order to compare the computational time taken by the pro-
posed ac distribution factors-based method with the dc distri-
bution factors based method, CPU times were computed on a
Pentium IV, 1.9-GHz, 512-RAM computer. The CPU time for
calculation of TCDFs (only real power TCDF in the dc method
561
Fig. 14. Congestion cost for multicongestion case for the 39-bus system.
Fig. 15. Change in P-generation for multicongestion case for the 39-bus
system.
TABLE VII
CPU TIMES IN SECONDS
whereas both real and reactive power TCDFs in the proposed
method) and the OPF utilized for congestion management are
presented in Table VII.
It is observed that the CPU time required by the proposed
method is quite close to that with the dc-based method [11].
IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a new zonal-based congestion management ap-
proach has been presented. The zones have been formed based
on the combined effect of real and reactive line power flow sen-
sitivity indexes. An optimal power flow model minimizing the
congestion cost for redispatch of generators and capacitors con-
sidering a general market structure with pool, bilateral, and mul-
tilateral contracts has been studied. The test results on a 39-bus
New England system and 75-bus Indian system reveal the fol-
lowing.
• The congestion costs in all of the cases based on the pro-
posed method are found to be quite less compared with
those obtained from a dc model [11].
• The congestion costs for cases employing reactive power
support from generators and capacitors are considerably
less than the cases without any reactive support.
562
• The reactive power support utilized from an optimally lo-
cated capacitor in the system is more effective in reducing
congestion cost as compared to additional reactive power
support taken from the generators.
• The amount of rescheduling of real power transactions is
reduced in the presence of reactive support considered in
the system for congestion management.
The proposed approach is computationally efficient and
simple as it utilizes the sensitivity factors, which can be easily
updated.
REFERENCES
[1] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Regional Transmis-
sion Organizations, Washington, DC, Dec. 20, 1999.
[2] W. W. Hogan, “Contract networks for electric power transmission,” J.
Regul. Econ., vol. 4, pp. 211–242, Sept. 1992.
[3] F. C. Schweppe, M. C. Caramanis, R. D. Tabors, and R. E. Bohn, Spot
Pricing of Electricity. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1988.
[4] H. Chao and S. Peck, “A market mechanism for electric power transmis-
sion,” J. Regu. Econ., vol. 10, pp. 25–29, July 1996.
[5] F. D. Galiana and M. Ilic, “A mathematical framework for the analysis
and management of power transactions under open access,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 681–687, May 1998.
[6] R. S. Fang and A. K. David, “Transmission congestion management in
an electricity market,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, pp. 877–883,
Aug. 1999.
[7] H. Glavisch and F. Alvarado, “Management of multiple congested con-
ditions in unbundled operation of power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1013–1019, Aug. 1998.
[8] H. Singh, S. Hao, and A. Papalexopoulos, “Transmission congestion
management in competitive electricity markets,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, pp. 672–680, May 1998.
[9] S. C. Srivastava and P.Perveen Kumar, “Optimal power dispatch in
deregulated market considering congestion management,” in Proc.
Int. Conf. Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power
Technologies, vol. 4–7. London, U.K., Apr. 2000, pp. 53–59.
[10] S. N. Singh and A. K. David, “Optimal location of FACTS devices for
congestion management,” Int. J. Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 58, pp.
71–79, 2001.
[11] C.-N.Chien-Ning Yu and M. Ilic, “Congestion clusters-based markets
for transmission management,” in Proc. 1999 IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
Winter Meeting , New York, Jan. 1999, pp. 1–11.
[12] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugi, Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems. Piscataway, NJ:
IEEE Press, 2000.
[13] A User’s Guide, GAMS Development Corp., 1999.
[14] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation and
Control. New York: Wiley, 1996.
[15] Y. Dai and Y. X. Ni et al., “A study of reactive power marginal price in
electricity market,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 57, pp. 41–48, 2001.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2004
[16] K. R. Padiyar, Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control. New
York: Wiley, 1996, p. 601.
[17] S. N. Singh and S. C. Srivastava, “Corrective action planning to achieve
optimal power flow solution,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. C, vol. 142, pp.
576–582, Nov. 1995.
Ashwani Kumar received the B.Tech degree in electrical engineering from
G.B. Pant University, Pant Nagar, India, in 1988, and the M.Tech. degree in
power systems from Punjab University, Chandigarh, India, in 1994. He is cur-
rently pursuing the Ph.D degree under Quality Improvement Program (QIP)
in the electrical engineering department at the Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, India.
Currently, he is a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Na-
tional Institute of Technology (NIT)-Kurukshetra, Haryana, India. His research
interests include power system deregulation optimization and power system dy-
namics.
S. C. Srivastava (SM’91) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
Currently, he is a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India. His research interest includes en-
ergy management system, power system optimization, security analysis, voltage
stability, and power system deregulation.
Dr. Srivastava is a Fellow of the Indian National Academy of Engineering
(INAE), Institution of Engineers (India), and Institution of Electronics and
Telecommunication Engineers (IETE) [India].
S. N. Singh (SM’02) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India, in 1995.
Currently, he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical En-
gineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. He was with the De-
partment of Electrical Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, China, and was Assistant Professor with the Energy Program at
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand. His research
interests include power system restructuring, flexible ac transmission systems
(FACTS), power system optimization and control, security analysis, and power
system planning.
Dr. Singh is a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers (India). He has received
several awards including Young Engineer Award 2000 of Indian National
Academy of Engineering, Khosala Research Award, and Young Engineer
Award of CBIP New Delhi (India).