You are on page 1of 6

Reliability assessment of a restructured power system using reliability network equivalent techniques

P. Wang and R. Billinton Abstract: Power system deregulation has introduced some fundamental problems regarding system reliability management. This paper presents a technique used for the reliability evaluation of restructured power systems. A reliability model for each market player in a restructured power system is introduced in which a generation company is represented by an equivalent multistate generation provider and the transmission system is represented by an equivalent multistate transmission provider using reliability network equivalent techniques. Demand-side reliability is considered in the analysis. The concept of nonuniform reliability is presented and customer choices regarding reliability can easily be implemented using the new technique. A test deregulated power system is used to illustrate the application of the technique.

1

Introduction

The main objective of power system restructuring and deregulation is to introduce competition in the power industry and to allow customers to select their suppliers based on price and reliability. Restructuring and deregulation result in the functional segregation of the vertically integrated utility consisting of generation, transmission and distribution into distinct utilities in which each performs a single function. Economic segregation and service unbundling have changed the conventional mechanism of system planning and operation from cost-based to price-based planning and operation. The provision of back-up supply in the event that a generating company (Genco) cannot meet its energy obligations is not the responsibility of other power producers unless it has reserve agreements with others. Transmission facilities in a power system are usually owned and maintained by different transmission companies (Transcos). A transmission system should be accessible to all power producers without discrimination. Although the contracts among market players are settled in a financial power market, energy transactions are physically implemented through the same transmission network. Therefore, stability and reliability problems such as voltage constraints, congestion and load shedding are controlled and co-ordinated by the transmission administrator or independent system operator (ISO). These changes have created some fundamental problems [1–5] regarding system reliability management. The wide range of reliability assessment techniques developed for use in conventional vertically integrated systems needs to be extended and reconsidered for use in restructured power systems.
r IEE, 2003 IEE Proceedings online no. 20030723 doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:20030723 Paper first received 29th April 2002 and in revised form 1st May 2003. Online publishing date: 13 August 2003 P. Wang is with the School of Electrical Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798 R. Billinton is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoun, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A9 IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

Reliability equivalent techniques [6], which recognise the structural characteristics of a deregulated power system, can be used to evaluate the reliability of the new system. To manage and price reliability, the equivalent multistate service provider [6] used to represent the composite system is further divided into separate generation companies and transmission system. In this approach, a Genco is represented by an equivalent multistate generation provider (EMGP) and the transmission system is represented by an equivalent multistate transmission provider (EMTP). Customer choices on transmission are considered in determining the delivery reliability of an EMTP. A distribution company (Disco) and its customers are represented by an equivalent bulk load point (EBLP). A test deregulated power system is used to illustrate the application of these techniques. 2 Reliability network equivalent in a deregulated power system The three basic functions of a power system are power generation, transmission and distribution. In a restructured power system, the generation and distribution functions are provided by different independent Gencos and Discos, respectively. The transmission facilities are owned and maintained by Transcos. The power exchange (PX) is the market in which power system players buy and sell electric power, ancillary services and transmission rights. The responsibility of the ISO is to co-ordinate economic transactions through the physical transmission network. In order to clearly define the responsibility of each player towards customer reliability, Gencos, Discos and the transmission system are represented by different equivalent components.

2.1

Equivalent multistate generation provider

A Genco usually owns one or more generating units and provides the services of real and reactive power generation and generating capacity reserve. Failures of generating units in a Genco can affect the generation capacity available to its customers. The reliability associated with a Genco can
555

The parameters of the DCPT are determined using contingency enumeration and load flow techniques considering customer delivery reliability demands. 1 Generation system and EMGP Fig. and Pil is the line real power flow allowed for line. Distrib. Vol. and yijk ¼ yij À yik. Transm. No. line flow constraints : Plmin 2. which shows all the contingency states.. The state probability Phi and the frequency Fhi for the state i can be determined using the following equations assuming that there are M units in service and N units out of service. Phi ¼ M Y j¼1 M X j¼1 consists of the following steps:  Step 1: Select contingency state i of transmission network. Vij is the bus voltage at bus j. respectively. the available generation capacity. 2.be calculated and provided to its customers and to the ISO. the transmission system between an EMGP and a specified bulk load point can be represented by an EMTP as shown in Fig. The capacity that can be transferred is designated as the deliverable generating capacity (DGC) in this paper.2 Equivalent multistate transmission provider Electrical energy is delivered from the EMGP to the customers through the transmission network. respectively. Vij+yij is the bus voltage.  Step 6: Go to step 9 if the network violations are eliminated without shedding loads. respectively.  Step 3: Check the following network constraints: voltage constraints : Vjmin Vij Pil Vjmax Plmax ð 6Þ ð 7Þ Fhi ¼ Phi à lhi where Aj and lj are the availability and the failure rate of unit j. the equivalent available generation capacity AGChi for state i can be calculated using the total available generating capacity minus the transmission losses. The procedure used to determine the parameters of the DCPT 556 where Vjmin and Vjmax are. Failures of transmission network components can affect the capacity that can be transferred from EMGPs to their EBLPs. 1 EMGP1 EMGP2 EMGPm G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 transmission network EBLP1 to power pool EBLP2 equivalent EBLPm equivalent EMGPi EMGP EMTP1 EMTP2 EMTPm EMGPj EMGPk to power pool EBLP1 EBLP2 EBLPm Fig. To consider the individual effect of the transmission network on the reliability of the bulk load points.  Step 7: Calculate the state probability Phi and frequency Fhi for each EMTP h Phi ¼ M Y j¼1 Aj  N Y k ¼1 Uk ð 8Þ lhi ¼ M X j ¼1 lj þ N X k ¼1 mk ð 9Þ IEE Proc. Plmin and Plmax. 150. and the probability and frequency for each state. 5. A Genco can be represented by an EMGP as shown in Fig.  Step 2: Solve the following load flow equations using a load-flow calculation technique: For each PQ or PV bus j X ðGijk cos yijk þ Bijk sin yijk ÞVik ð4Þ DPij ¼ Pijsp À Vij k 2j For each PQ bus j sp À Vij DQij ¼ Qij X k 2j ðGijk sin yijk À Bijk cos yijk ÞVik ð 5Þ Aj à N Y k ¼1 Uk ð 1Þ lhi ¼ lj þ N X k ¼1 mk ð 2Þ ð 3Þ where DPij and DQij are the real and reactive power sp and Qsp mismatches. are the minimum and maximum line real power flow allowed for line l.  Step 4: Go to step 1 if the network constraints are not violated. September 2003 . The reliability model of an EMTP can be represented by a deliverable generating capacity probability table (DCPT). Pij ij are the specified real and reactive power injections. respectively. and lhi is the total departure rate from state i. For a EMGP h with N+M generating units.  Step 5: Apply corrective actions to remove the network violations. the minimum and maximum bus voltages allowed at bus j. 2 Transmission system and EMGP The reliability model of an EMGP can be represented by an available generating capacity probability table (ACPT).-Gener. Gijk+jBijk is the admittance between bus j and k. Uk and mk are the unavailability and the repair rate of unit k.

150. In the case of the failures occurring in an EMGP. The transmission system for each EBLP is represented by the corresponding EMTP as shown in Fig. 4. a customer or a group of customers (EBLP) can select its EMGP and EMTP based on reliability and price demands. The generation adequacy of an EMGP to the corresponding EBLP for each state depends on the overall installed capacity. 3 General procedure for reliability assessment where Pj is the state probability of outage event j. and LC is the set of contingencies leading to load curtailment. The general procedure consists of the following steps:  Step 1 : Identify the EMGPs and EMTPs based on power market structure. lj and mk are the failure rate and the repair rate for lines j and k. The ISO can utilise this information to make suitable operating decisions to alleviate system problems caused by failures in the generation and transmission network. One example is that of a generation shortage in a Genco having no reserve agreements with other producers which results in load curtailment to its customers. 2 40 MW 1 20 MW G1 1 10 MW bus 1 L1 L6 L4 bus 3 230 kV BLP3 (85 MW) L5 L8 bus 4 BLP2 BLP4 (40 MW) EMTP4 BLP4 equivalent L3 1 40 MW 4 20 MW 2 5 MW 230 kV BLP2 (20 MW) L2 L7 EMTP2 EMGP1 EMGP2 G2 230 kV bus 2 EMTP3 BLP3 bus 5 L9 230 kV bus 6 BLP5 (20 MW) There is a wide range of indices used by different utilities throughout the world to measure the reliability of a power system. the reserve agreements with other producers and the transmission losses. respectively.. Because all the financial contracts are implemented physically through the same transmission network. capacity sold in the market. injecting reactive power. The delivery reliability of an EMTP to the corresponding EBLP is dependent not only on the configuration of the transmission network but also on customer demands on transmission reliability. 5.3 Implementation of nonuniform reliability In a restructured power system. 3.  Step 8: Determine the deliverable generating capacity DGChi for each EMTP h considering system security constraints.Fhi ¼ Phi  lhi ð10Þ where M is the number of transmission lines in service. In this case. rescheduling generation and shedding loads can be used to mitigate constraint violations. EBLP3 selects EMGP1 as its generation provider and there are no reserve agreements among the EMGPs. Lkj is the load curtailed at bus k due to contingency j. corrective action decisions are made by the system operator. It has been assumed that the equivalent bulk load points 2. 3.  Step 4: Calculate the load point indices caused by the EMGP by combining the ACPT of an EMGP with the load of the corresponding EBLP.-Gener. Load point reliability is usually measured by the loss of load probability (LOLP) and the expected energy not supplied (EENS). In the restructured power system. Customers usually have minimal choices regarding their reliabilities and prices. only the isolated bulk load points are affected and the deliverable generating capacity from the EMGP to the EBLP is zero. There are two basic types of transmission failures which affect deliverable generation capacity. corrective actions such as phase shirting. Transm. N is the number of transmission lines out of service and lhi is the total departure rate from state i. The second type of failure is that which results in network and operating constraint violations such as congestion. changing transformer taps. This will result in nonuniform reliability for different customers. Distrib. The system configuration data and the component reliability parameters are given in [7].  Step 2: Determine the ACPT for each EMGP. Load point indices can be determined using the reliability network equivalent techniques described above. 3 Single line diagram of RBTS 557 . September 2003 BLP5 (20 MW) EMTP5 BLP5 EMTP6 BLP6 Fig. The generating system is divided into two independent generating companies EMGP1 and EMGP2 as shown in Fig. 5 and 6 select EMGP 2 as their generation provider. The first type of failure is that which causes the isolation of bulk load points from the contract EMGP. are more concerned with their individual load point reliability than with total IEE Proc. system reliability.  Step 3: Determine the DCPT for each EMTP. 3. Customers’ choice regarding their power providers. In this case. Distribution systems and customers are represented by five EBLPs. 4 System analysis A test system designated as the RBTS [8] is used to illustrate the technique. No. In a vertically integrated system. Customers in a restructured power system. load priorities and transmission right.  Step 9: Stop the procedures when all contingencies are considered otherwise go to step 1. Vol. These indices for load point k can be calculated using the following equations: X Pj ð11Þ LOLPk ¼ j2LC EENSk ¼ 8760 X j2LC Pj Lkj ðMWh=yrÞ ð12Þ 2. The single-line diagram of the RBTS is shown in Fig. the ISO must make the load shedding and dispatch decisions based on the transactions settled by the bilateral contracts or spot market. therefore.  Step 5: Calculate the load point indices caused by the EMTP by combining the DCPT of an EMTP with the load of the corresponding EBLP. deliverers and distributors makes nonuniform reliability possible in the deregulated power industry. the implementation of nonuniform reliability and reliability pricing are very complicated procedures. the ISO can incorporate customer choices into the load shedding procedure [7] used to remove the network violations.

0000382 0. two cases of the equal and nonequal customer transmission rights are illustrated in this analysis.000188 Table 5: DCPT of EMTP5 for case 1 State i DGC5i . The reliability of an EBLP caused by the corresponding EMGP can be calculated by combining the ACPT of the EMGP with the load at the EBLP.067427 0. EMTP4.0774902 0.0000266 0.002253 Table 6: DCPT of EMTP6 for case 1 State i DGC6i .0003982 0.0826228 0.0000029 0.0000056 0. MW Z40 35. 3.8796290 3. Transm.000334 0.00 P5i F5i. Tables 1 and 2 show the available capacity probability tables for EMGP1 and EMGP2.001122 0.0224150 0.409214 0.0009002 0.0000000 0. MW Z20 17. EBLP2 is connected directly to EMGP2 and therefore the EMTP for this load (EMTP2) is considered to be 100% reliable.0000029 41. occ/yr 1 2 3 4 0. In case 2.0958482 0.045902 4. respectively. occ/yr 1 2 3 4 0.46 0.5689341 0. occ/yr technique used in the analysis considers up to second-order line failures and involves an AC load flow technique. EMTP5 and EMTP6 for case 1 are shown in Tables 3–6.0000226 0.0000230 0.0000923 0.0213024 0.0183476 0. To illustrate the impact of customer choice on delivery reliability.361131 0. The EMTP for each EBLP is shown in Fig.9988164 0.0197102 0.0000029 0.8990300 0.0000265 0.9080282 4.0000382 0.46 0.0000176 0.34 37. occ/yr 1 2 0.1009704 0.00 P6i F6i.3 Determination of EBLP reliability The power system in terms of the respective equivalents is shown in Fig.0000003 15.0129434 0.005067 Table 2: ACPT for EMGP2 State i AGC2i .0011864 0.0023552 0. Transmission loss is considered in the analysis. 3.0171981 0.0212968 0.75266 0. MW 130 125 120 110 105 100 90 85 80 70 65 60 50 45 30 P2i CP2i F2i . The state selection 558 The reliability parameters of EMTP3.0069674 0. No. EBLP3 has paid for the transmission right of lines 1 and 6.012105 0. MW Z85 70.1 Determination of EMGP parameters The reliability parameters of each EMGP depend on the total installed generation capacity and the reliability parameters of each unit.0011884 0.0000005 18.461919 0. The shortage of available generation capacity in each EMGP will only affect its IEE Proc.0034901 0. 4. All the states with the same available capacity in each Table are aggregated together.0000000 0.003157 3.2 Determination of the EMTP parameters The reliability parameters of an EMGP associated with the corresponding EBLP depend on the network configuration between the EMGP and the EBLP.0011349 0. MW 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 P1i CP1i F1i .000071 0. 4.1895914 11. all other EBLPs except EBLP3 will first be cut to release the violation.92 P4i F4i. 150.75491 0.9999564 0.-Gener.00892 3. It has been assumed in case 1 that a load shortage is proportionally allocated the same priority among the affected loads when transmission line overloads occur due to transmission line failures.0011368 0.0230521 0. Table 3: DCPT of EMTP3 for case 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 0.0000402 0. and the transmission right purchases.0000005 0.75491 0.0000013 41.0000003 1.70901 0.067427 0.6 9.0550752 0.0000029 41.0014259 0.9041519 0.0595707 0.0008600 0. September 2003 . EMTP5 and EMTP6 for case 2 are shown in Tables 7–10.0000005 1. Table 1: ACPT for EMGP1 State i AGC1i .005067 1.0000496 0.3414002 0.146225 0.9999577 0.0004705 0. occ/yr 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.0011126 0.011821 0.0000382 0.84 P3i F3i.8639826 0. EMTP4.9999577 0. It has been assumed in this analysis that all the EBLPs operate at the peak loads shown in Fig.0000020 0.0011413 40.0000257 0.0556101 0. Vol. 5.005067 Table 4: DCPT of EMTP4 for case 1 State i DGC4i .005067 0. Distrib.6 9..4.037714 9. respectively.0000001 0.374806 0.067427 0.0003506 State i DGC3i .0182657 0.0000008 0.17 18.4550949 0.6225109 0. If lines 1 and 6 are overloaded due to failures in the transmission system or due to system peak load.0591002 0. occ/yr 1 2 3 0.0775825 0. respectively.0000382 0.067427 0.0009293 0. MW Z20 17.883288 0. The reliability parameters of EMTP3.0000291 0.0015866 0.0000221 0.

0000029 41. No. IEE Proc.0000411 0.0533 510.0213024 0.0596118 0. It can be seen from the Tables that EBLP6 has the lowest delivery reliability in both cases.005067 Table 9: DCPT of EMTP5 for case 2 State i DGC5i .0000382 0. The LOLP and EENS of each load point for case 1 are shown in Table 14.0000029 and the EENS decreases from 6. This is caused by transmission line 9.002253 Table 10: DCPT of EMTP6 for case 2 State i DGC6i .0000029 41.005067 0. occ/yr EBLP6 1 2 3 0. Transm.04 18.02 9. The total LOLP and EENS of each EBLP can be estimated by adding the individual LOLP and EENS caused by the EMGP and the EMTP.045902 Table 12: LOLP caused by EMTP EBLP EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6 Case 1 0.0000013 41.0011820 BLP2 (20 MW) BLP4 (40 MW) EMTP2 EMGP1 EMTP4 Table 13: EENS caused by EMTP EBLP Case 1 6.02 9.0000382 0.198053 3.46 0.75491 0.0000029 0.005067 1.067427 0.0213435 0.0000411 0.0000424 0. MW Z40 30.00 P6i F6i. This indicates that customers should buy more generation reserve rather than buy transmission rights to significantly increase their total reliability.46 0.0266 Case 2 1. September 2003 EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6 . The LOLP and EENS for each EBLP caused by the EMGP are shown in Table 11. occ/yr Table 11: EBLP reliability indices caused by EMGP EBLP LOLP EENS. occ/yr 1 2 3 4 0.70901 0.0595707 0.316 1022.0213448 0.0000411 to 0. The LOLP decreases from 0.067427 0. This is a slight overestimation due to neglecting the intersection of the EMGP and EMTP events. Vol.75266 0.9999577 0.161986 201.625 511. 1 2 3 4 0. MW Z85 37.9988164 0.-Gener. Tables 12 and 13 show the LOLP and EENS of each EBLP for the two cases.212 1020.107 510.0213024 0. Comparing Table 11 with Table 13 it can be seen that the EENS caused by EMGP are much larger than those caused by EMTP.9999564 0.Table 7: DCPT of EMTP3 for case 2 State i DGC3i .298635 201.0533 1 2 0. 5. Distrib.0213024 Table 8: DCPT of EMTP4 for case 2 State i DGC4i . MW Z20 15.0000029 0.0533 9539.151789 1.3519 711. MW Z20 15.9999959 0.0213024 0.0000411 0.82234 0.0224844 EENS 510. 4 Network equivalent of system EBLPs due to the assumption of no reserve agreements among the EMGPs.0213024 0.84 P3i F3I.92 P4i F4i.0799 559 Fig.005067 EBLP2 EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 0. It can be seen from Table 11 that EBLP3 has the lowest generation reliability compared to the other bulk load points.0000382 0.868451 2..0011413 40.8900 EMGP2 EMTP3 EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6 BLP3 (85 MW) EMTP5 EMTP6 BLP5 (20 MW) BLP6 (20 MW) Table 14: EBLP reliability indices for case 1 EBLP EBLP2 LOLP 0. occ/yr The deliverable generating capacity probability tables for the corresponding bulk load points can be combined with the load at the bulk load points to give the reliability caused by the EMTP.0533 9545.00 P5i F5i.067427 0.104 MWh/yr to 1.0000424 0.0011820 Case 2 0.198 MWh/yr when EBLP3 has obtained the transmission right of lines 1 and 6. 150. MWh/yr 510. respectively.103758 2.0000029 0.

R. et al. P. and McCalley. Compared with conventional techniques. Generating facilities can be represented by an EMGP and a transmission system by an EMTP. 1708–1714 2 Ilic. L. and Oteng Adjei. (3). pp. Transm.. Read. 2001) 4 Harris.. M.: ‘Restructured power system operation.J. Gener. R. Transm.. 51–56 8 Billinton. IEEE Trans. Khan. Power Syst. IEEE Power Eng. 1999. P. trading and volatility’.. K. The cost associated with backup supply should therefore be incorporated when considering the economics associated with purchases from different generating stations. Galiana. The EBLP reliability will improve if the generation suppliers agree to assist each other in times of need. 1997. select a delivery reliability service level which can be used by the ISO to shed load to alleviate line overloads due to line failures. J. and Fink.G. S. (1). Distrib. 4. bulk load points can.: ‘Power system restructuring: engineering and economics’ (Kluwer Academic.. P. 2000. P. M. W. It is extremely unlikely in the new regime that anyone will be prepared to overcontribute to system reliability without receiving appropriate compensation. September 2003 .. Chu. E. 25–30 7 Wang.: ‘Reliability issues in today’s electric power utility environment’. (1).K. 4–14 6 Billinton.: ‘Optimal load shedding technique to reduce the total customer interruption cost in distribution system’. Kumar... Distrib. Boston. 146. the new approaches can provide more detailed reliability information about each individual supplier. to help the ISO to make optimal decision regarding systemwide operation and reserve management. N.. 150. Transm.. 2000. Kos.. (12).. 6 References Reliability network equivalent techniques are introduced in this paper to evaluate the load point reliability in a deregulated power market.-Gener. R. pp. Distrib. IEE Proc. pp. (10). K. New York.: ‘A reliability test system for educational purposes-basic data’. F. Goel.. 12. Vol. Power Syst..: ‘Deregulated power system planning using a reliability network equivalent technique’.. G.. 147. Nonuniform bulk load point reliability can be implemented through demand-side 1 Billinton. L. L.. The new techniques can be used to price the unreliability contribution from each market component. IEEE Trans.. however. M. Chowdhhury. 1998) 3 Shahidehpour.. Nourbakhsh.. IEE Proc. pp. The reliability parameters of the generation and transmission providers can be separately calculated and presented to system customers.Based on customer willingness to pay for higher delivery reliability. Rev. Rev. 5 Conclusions EMGP and EMTP selections. and Wang. Salvaderi. L. Gener.: ‘Impacts of deregulation on the electric power industry’. (4). I... No agreements were assumed to exist in the relatively simple analyses described above. and Newman. and Billinton. 1238–1244 560 IEE Proc.D.. (Marcel Dekker. The provision of back-up supply in the event that a generating company cannot meet its energy obligations is also not the responsibility of other generation providers unless agreements have been made to provide assistance. No. and to help customers to select different generation and transmission services based on their reliability and price demand... 1989. 5. pp.J. 1999. 19. pp.. 20. 4–6 5 Wallace S. and Alomoush. Debnath.: ‘Reliability in the new market structure (Part I)’. J.. IEEE Power Eng.