You are on page 1of 8

Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122

Expected energy production cost of two area interconnected
systems with jointly owned units
K.R. Khan
a,∗
, Q. Ahsan
b
, M.R. Bhuiyan
c
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA
b
Department of Electrical & Electronic, Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh
c
Department of ECpE, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
Received 8 May 2003; accepted 21 August 2003
Abstract
Joint ownership of generation is an alternative solution to meet the huge investment for the construction of a new generating unit. This
paper develops the methodology to evaluate the expected energy production cost of two area-interconnected systems with a jointly owned
unit as well as a conventional unit. The methodology is also capable of evaluating the export by the individual unit. It is an extension of
the segmentation method. The methodology is applied to evaluate the expected energy generation and the expected export of a two area
interconnected system.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Interconnected systems; Jointly owned units; Costs; Power generation; Convolution
1. Introduction
For the optimal use of the global cheaper resources, the
neighbouring utilities, power system companies are usually
interconnected. Joint ownership of generation in the gen-
eration sector is an alternative solution to meet the huge
investment for the construction of a new generating unit.
The generation expansion analysis essentially requires the
evaluation of the expected energy production cost.
The technique [1,2] to evaluate the expected energy pro-
duction cost of a two area interconnected system with the
conventional generating unit, a generating unit owned by a
single utility, is well established. The methodology [3,4] is
also available for the reliability analysis even with jointly
owned units (JOUs). However, to authors’ knowledge the
methodology to evaluate the expected energy production
cost of a two area interconnected system with JOUs has not
yet been reported in the literature.
This paper presents a methodology to evaluate the ex-
pected energy production cost of a two area interconnected
system with JOUs, located in the interconnected utilities. It

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-212-650-6553.
E-mail address: shishir@hotmail.com (K.R. Khan).
is also capable of evaluating the expected production cost
for the conventional units. The methodology is based on the
extension of the segmentation method [2]. Some aspects of
the proposed method are different from those presented in
[2]. The basic reasons are the dual use of the tie line, one
for export/import and other for transfer of share and the
possibility of export/import without involving the tie line
in case of a JOU. The proposed technique considers only
a single tie line for each segment instead of two tie lines
as in [2]. The proposed methodology also keeps track of
the export/import with and without using the tie line, which
would help to settle the financial issues between the inter-
connected systems. In this approach, the convolution pro-
cess shifts the original distribution instead of shifting the
modified parameters, evolved due to export/import, of the
segments.
The method [5] is applied to a realistic two area intercon-
nected system with JOUs to show its application.
2. Methodology
The proposed methodology presents the technique to eval-
uate the expected energy generation of a two area intercon-
nected system with a JOU as well as a conventional unit.
0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2003.08.002
116 K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122
The major differences of the proposed technique with that
of [2] are
(i) it is capable of evaluating the expected energy genera-
tion with JOUs;
(ii) it keeps track of the expected export;
(iii) it considers a single tie line instead of two.
The proposed technique, like [2], also requires the forma-
tion of two-dimensional segments. The X-axis of the load
plane is attributed to one of the two interconnected systems
and the Y-axis is attributed to the other system. The load
plane is divided into segments, grids, of two dimensions of
equal size. The dimension of each side of a segment is equal
to the highest common factor of generating unit capacities
of both the systems. Each axis extends up to a length equal
to the sum of installed capacity and the peak load of the
system to which the axis belongs. Each segment contains
three rows. The number in the first row represents the zeroth
moment of load (equivalent load) initially obtained by sum-
ming the joint probabilities of the load samples of the two
interconnected systems spanning that segment. The second
row contains two numbers, the first number in the row cor-
responds to the first moment of the load or equivalent load
of the system, to which the X axis is attributed and other
number corresponds to the first moment of the load of other
system. The number in the last row represents the first mo-
ment of the residual tie line capacity obtained initially by
multiplying the tie line capacity with the zeroth moment of
that segment.
The evaluation of the expected energy generated by a unit
in the proposed methodology requires the following steps:
(i) Evaluate the expected share transfer from a JOU to
the system where the unit is not located. Accordingly
modify only the tie line capacity.
(ii) Evaluate the expected export. Modify the demands of
the exporting and the importing systems as well as the
tie line capacity.
(iii) Obtain the expected unserved energy. If the committed
unit is a JOU the evaluation of unserved energies of
both the systems is required.
(iv) Convolve the unit.
(v) Recalculate the unserved energy after the convolution
of the unit.
(vi) Calculate the expected energy generation by the unit
from the two unserved energies evaluated in steps (iii)
and (v).
Note that the step (i) of the above procedure is not required
for a conventional unit.
The methodology developed in what follows considers
that X and Y are two interconnected systems (utilities). It
also considers that the JOU is located in the geographical
region of system Y. In case of a conventional unit, it is
considered that the committed unit belongs to system Y. The
location of the JOU in system X or the conventional unit
belongs to system X requires only the replacement of Y by
X and vice versa in the mathematical model.
2.1. Share transfer
The amount of share to be transferred from a JOU to its
shareholder utility where the unit is not located depends on
three factors:
(a) Unserved demand of the system where the share would
be transferred.
(b) The residual tie line capacity.
(c) The capacity of the share.
The residual tie line capacity is the one, which is obtained
after modification. Note that in what follows, the superscript
X and Y correspond to systems X and Y, respectively. The
share transfer for the Kth JOU to system X corresponding
to any segment (i, j), CT
X
i,j
, may be expressed as
CT
X
i,j
= min(TR1, TR2, TR3) (1)
Where,
TR1 = m
X
i,j
(EL) −(C
X
t
P
i,j
+TJC
X
i,j
) (2)
TR2 = m
i,j
(RTC) (3)
TR3 = SH
X
K
P
i,j
(4)
Considering the total number of already committed JOUs as
SJ the total committed capacity in system X in the (i, j)th
segment corresponding to all committed JOUs, TJC
X
i,j
, may
be given as
TJC
X
i,j
=
SJ

K=1
CT
X
(i,j)
K
(5)
Note that CT
X
(i,j)
K
= SH
X
K
P
i,j
if the JOU is located in sys-
tem X. Considering C
K
as the capacity of any conventional
unit K and S
X
as the total number of already committed con-
ventional units of system X, C
X
t
of Eq. (2) may be given as
C
X
t
=
S
X

K=1
C
K
(6)
The capacity transfer requires only the modification of the
residual tie (tie) line capacity. The modified residual tie line
capacity due to share transfer may be expressed as
ˆ m
i,j
(RTC) = m
i,j
(RTC) −CT
X
i,j
(7)
2.2. Export or import
The export from the share of a JOU may be through the tie
line or without using the tie line. The tie line is used to export
from the share to the system where the JOU is not located.
The involvement of the tie line is not required if the share is
exported to the system where the JOU is located. The use of
a tie line is a must for the export from a conventional unit. A
K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122 117
system becomes an exporting one when the committed unit,
conventional one, belongs to that system. In that case, the
other interconnected system is the importing one. However,
if a JOUcommits any systemof the interconnected ones may
be exporting or importing system depending on the surplus
capacity.
Export using tie line: the export from one interconnected
system to other depends on
(i) surplus capacity of the exporting system;
(ii) the residual tie line capacity;
(iii) the demand of the importing system.
Corresponding to the segment (i, j) the export fromsystem
Y to system X, e1
(i,j)
, using tie line may be evaluated as
e1
i,j
= min(Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
), but e1
i,j
≥ 0 (8)
Where
Z
1
= C
Y
t
P
i,j
+TJC
Y
i,j
+CC
Y
K
P
i,j
−m
Y
i,j
(EL) (9)
Z
2
= m
i,j
(RTC) (10)
Z
3
= m
X
i,j
(EL) −(C
X
t
P
i,j
+TJC
X
i,j
+CT
X
i,j
) (11)
Note that CT
X
i,j
and TJC
X
i,j
of Eq. (11) and TJC
Y
i,j
of Eq. (9)
will be zero in case of a conventional unit. In Eq. (9), CC
Y
K
can be written as
CC
Y
K
=
_
SH
Y
K
if the committed unit is a JOU
C
Y
K
otherwise
_
(12)
C
Y
T
, TJC
Y
i,j
of Eq. (9) may be expressed as
TJC
Y
i,j
=
SJ

K=1
CT
Y
(i,j)
K
(13)
C
Y
t
=
S
Y

K=1
C
K
(14)
The export requires the modification of load of both ex-
porting and importing system as well as the residual tie line
capacity. That is,
ˆ m
X
i,j
(EL) = m
X
i,j
(EL) −e1
i,j
(15)
ˆ m
Y
i,j
(EL) = m
Y
i,j
(EL) +e1
i,j
(16)
ˆ m
i,j
(RTC) = m
i,j
(RTC) −e1
i,j
(17)
Export without using tie line: the export from the share of
system X to system Y does not require the tie line since the
JOU is located in system Y. The amount of export without tie
line corresponding to any segment depends on the expected
unserved demand of system Y and the portion of share
which has not been transferred to system X and it may be
evaluated as
e2
i,j
= min(Z
4
, Z
5
), but e2
i,j
≥ 0 (18)
where
Z
4
= m
Y
i,j
(EL) −(C
Y
t
P
i,j
+TJC
Y
i,j
+CC
Y
K
P
i,j
) (19)
Z
5
= SH
X
K
×P
i,j
−CT
X
i,j
(20)
The capacity transaction due to this export requires the mod-
ification of only the demand of system Y (importing sys-
tem). The demand of system Y is modified by subtracting
e2
i,j
since it is an import from the share. That is
ˆ m
Y
i,j
(EL) = m
Y
i,j
(EL) −e2
i,j
(21)
2.2.1. Expected energy generation
The expected energy generation by each share of the JOU
or by a conventional unit is obtained by evaluating the un-
served energies of the corresponding system before and af-
ter convolving the unit. The difference of these two energies
is the energy generated by the share or by the conventional
unit. The energy generated by the JOU is the sum of the
energies generated by each share. The unserved energy of
system Y before convolution is given as
USE
Y
K

=T

i,j
__
m
Y
i,j
(EL) −
_
C
Y
t
P
i,j
+TJC
Y
i,j
__
+
_
e2
i,j
−e1
i,j
_
q
K
_
(22)
but
{m
Y
i,j
(EL) −(C
Y
t
P
i,j
+TJC
Y
i,j
)} ≥ 0 (23)
Note that in case of a conventional unit e2
i,j
will be zero.
The unserved energy of system X before convolution may
be expressed as
USE
X
K

=T

i,j
__
m
X
i,j
(EL) −
_
C
X
t
P
i,j
+TJC
X
i,j
__
+ e1
i,j
q
K
_
(24)
but
{m
X
i,j
(EL) −(C
X
t
P
i,j
+TJC
X
i,j
)} ≥ 0 (25)
To evaluate the expected unserved energy after convolution
the capacity of the committed conventional unit or the share
transferred from the JOU, in case of system Y share transfer
is equal to its share, must be added. Therefore, the expected
unserved energy after convolution corresponding to system
X and Y may be expressed as
USE
Y
K
=T

i,j
_
m
Y
i,j
(EL)

_
C
Y
t
P
i,j
+TJC
Y
i,j
+CC
Y
K
P
i,j
__
(26)
USE
X
K
=T

i,j
_
m
X
i,j
(EL)

_
C
X
t
P
i,j
+TJC
X
i,j
+CT
X
i,j
__
(27)
118 K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122
The expected energy generation by Kth unit or by each share
of Kth unit is given by
ES
Y
K
= USE
Y
K

−USE
Y
K
(28)
ES
X
K
= USE
X
K

−USE
X
K
+T

i,j
e2
i,j
(1 −q) (29)
Note that if the JOU is located in system X the last term in
Eq. (29) will be zero and in Eq. (28) the similar term will be
added. Also note that in case of a conventional unit e2
i,j
of
Eq. (29) will be zero and either Eq. (28) or Eq. (29) will be
evaluated depending on the committed unit to which system
it belongs.
Finally the production cost for Kth unit is given by
EC
K
= λ
K
ES
K
(30)
where λ
K
is the average incremental cost of Kth unit.
2.3. Convolution
The convolution process in the proposed method requires
the shifting of the parameters of each segment in the appro-
priate direction as the generating unit, in the loading order,
is committed. In case of a conventional unit the direction of
shift depends on the system. If the committed unit belongs
to system X, then the parameters will be shifted towards
that axis to which system X is attributed. In case of a JOU,
the parameters will be shifted in both directions simultane-
ously. The amount of shift is equal to the capacity or shares
of the committed unit. The proposed methodology requires
the shifting of the original distribution unlike the shifting of
the modified distribution as in [2]. That is, the procedure of
the convolution is as follows:
1. Modify the segment’s distribution to accommodate the
export/import and multiply the modified parameters of
each segment by the availability (1 −q) of the unit.
2. Shift the unmodified (original) distribution of the segment
and multiply the shifted parameters by the FOR = q of
the unit.
3. Sum the two previous results for each segment to obtain
the final parameters after commitment of the generating
unit.
3. Numerical evaluation
The proposed technique is applied to a realistic two-area
interconnected system. X and Y are the two systems (util-
ities) forming the interconnection. System X resembles
the IEEE reliability test system (IEEE-RTS) [6] with a
slightly modified installed capacity of 3400 MW and sys-
tem Y is a hypothetical one with an installed capacity of
3100 MW.
For the load model, IEEE-RTS hourly data is used. For
system Y the hourly loads of 13 summer weeks, May to
August, are considered. The peak and base loads during
this period are 2566 and 1000.566 MW, respectively, and
the energy demand is 3965.66 GWh. For system X, 13 win-
ter weeks, November to February, are assumed to occur
during the months May to August. The peak and the base
loads during this period are 2850 and 1102.592 MW, respec-
tively, and the energy demand is 4163.48 GWh. The loads
of the two systems are considered to be correlated in the
study.
Table 1 shows the expected energy and the corresponding
export of each individual unit of all the generation units of
the two utilities. In this case, the considered tie line capacity
is 100 MW. The units in Table 1 are arranged according to
their position in the merit order of loading. Table 2 presents
the comparison of the expected energy generation of base
case with those of the interconnected system with a JOU at
different tie line capacities. The base case is referred to a
two area interconnected system without any JOU. This table
also presents the expected export of each utility for different
tie line capacities.
The comparison of global expected energy generation of
the base case with that of the system with JOU is depicted
in Figs. 1 and 2 presents the variation of global export with
different tie line capacities.
It is observed from Table 1 that capacity transaction (ex-
port) starts after the meeting the base load. For example, the
base load of system X is 1102.592 MW, and the commit-
ted total capacity of system X upto 12th unit in the load-
ing order is 1100 MW. Upto this loading order position,
none of the units exports energy to system Y and only the
export starts when the 150 MW unit of system X, in the
13th loading order position, commits. The amount of ex-
pected export reduces at the higher loading order position
as in these positions the system demand reduces. It is also
observed from this table that the export from the share of
system X corresponding to the JOU is higher than that by
the share of system Y. The reasons are that the JOU is lo-
cated in system Y and already committed capacity of sys-
tem X, upto this loading order position, is more than its
base load. On the other hand the committed capacity of sys-
tem Y becomes higher than its base load only when JOU is
committed.
The salient observation of Table 2 is that the expected
energy generation of the individual system in two cases, base
case and the interconnected system with JOU, is not same
at even zero MW tie line capacity.
The reason is the JOU. In case of the conventional gener-
ating units there is no scope of capacity transaction between
the interconnected systems when the tie line does not exist.
However, in this case as the JOU is located in system Y, the
tie line is not required to export from the share of system X
to system Y.
As the tie line capacity increases the expected energy gen-
eration of system X and its export decrease. The share of
system X from the JOU cannot be transferred when the tie
line capacity is zero. As the tie line capacity increases the
K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122 119
Table 1
Expected Energy generation as well as expected export of individual unit committed in loading order with a tie line capacity of 100 MW
Loading order Committed unit
of system
Capacity (MW) Total expected energy
generation by the unit (GWh)
Expected export
by the unit (GWh)
1 X 50 108.11 0.0
2 X 50 108.09 0.0
3 X 50 108.11 0.0
4 X 50 108.12 0.0
5 X 50 108.11 0.0
6 X 50 108.11 0.0
7 Y 100 216.22 0.0
8 Y 100 216.21 0.0
9 Y 100 216.20 0.0
10 Y 500 950.05 0.0
11 X 400 771.34 0.0
12 X 400 773.94 0.0
13 X 150 314.40 2.32
14 X 150 307.81 8.55
15 X 150 285.85 13.18
16 X 150 257.18 16.42
17 JOU 600 1141.92 530.03 + 0.003
18 Y 400 547.84 0.33
19 Y 400 401.81 1.58
20 X 80 109.71 1.24
21 X 80 99.29 0.22
22 X 80 90.98 0.30
23 X 80 83.34 0.29
24 Y 350 200.95 1.74
25 X 200 163.07 0.44
26 X 200 103.67 1.05
27 X 200 55.71 1.52
28 X 100 15.49 0.62
29 X 100 9.88 0.54
30 X 100 6.04 0.41
31 X 10 0.47 0.04
32 X 10 0.44 0.03
33 X 10 0.41 0.03
34 X 10 0.38 0.03
35 X 10 0.36 0.03
36 Y 350 90.68 0.25
37 Y 200 25.78 0.13
38 Y 200 13.70 0.11
39 X 20 0.56 0.008
40 X 20 0.47 0.007
41 X 20 0.41 0.008
42 X 20 0.35 0.01
43 Y 50 2.10 0.01
44 Y 50 1.72 0.01
45 Y 50 1.42 0.01
share transfer from system Y to system X utilizing the tie
line increases. Thus the export from the share of system X
without using the tie line decreases. Also the export from
system X to system Y through the tie line is very limited
since the tie line is mostly engaged in transferring share. As
a result the energy generation of system X decreases. This
continues upto the tie line capacity of 350 MW, which is
equal to the share of system X. The increase in expected en-
ergy generation as well as in the expected export of system
X in case of the interconnected system with JOU is clearly
observed from 500 MW to onward. The reverse conditions
are observed, as expected, in case of expected energy gen-
eration as well as in the export of system Y of the intercon-
nected system with JOU.
As expected, the increase in the global expected energy
generation with the increase of the tie line capacity is clearly
observed in Fig. 1 for the base case. This characteristic is
not clear in case of the system with a JOU. However, the
global expected energy generation of the system with JOU
is mostly lower than that of the base case, except at zero
and 100 MW tie line capacities where system X is forced to
export its share from the JOU failing to transfer due to low
tie line capacities. At a very high tie line capacity the impact
of the JOU on the global energy generation is negligible.
120 K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122
Table 2
Variation of energy generation and export with tie line along with the base case
Tie-line capacity (MW) Base case Two area interconnected system with JOU
Expected energy generation
(GWh)
Expected energy generation
(GWh)
Expected export (GWh)
System X System Y System X System Y System X System Y
0.0 4171.13 3947.51 4820.30 3304.94 654.60 0.0
100 4292.88 3831.39 4741.39 3385.66 577.40 4.20
200 4406.85 3720.83 4666.89 3459.87 504.43 6.67
300 4506.59 3623.33 4602.84 3521.86 440.75 7.11
400 4586.93 3544.59 4580.44 3543.98 424.82 13.61
500 4645.83 3486.90 4600.07 3526.64 452.96 22.32
600 4688.37 3445.12 4616.15 3510.22 473.93 25.59
700 4719.45 3414.56 4630.44 3494.72 491.73 26.80
2000 4804.88 3332.08 4745.85 3388.86 606.44 30.52
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
8.115
8.120
8.125
8.130
8.135
JOU
Base Case
G
l
o
b
a
l

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
W
h
)
Tie line capacity (MW)
Fig. 1. Variation of global expected energy generation with tie line capacities.
Fig. 2 shows the higher values of global export at low
and high tie line capacities. At lower tie line capacities the
incapability of transferring share increases the global export.
This is reduced as the tie line capacity increases.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
G
l
o
b
a
l

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

e
x
p
o
r
t

(
G
W
h
)
Tie line capacity (MW)
Fig. 2. Global expected export vs. tie line capacity.
Further increase of tie line capacity increases the global
export by reducing the impact of JOU.
4. Conclusion
A methodology to evaluate the expected production cost
of a two area interconnected system with JOUs is proposed.
The proposed method keeps track of the export/import of
energy by the individual unit. The inclusion of a JOU in the
system reduces the global capacity transaction at a higher
tie line capacity; however, the higher capacity transaction is
observed at lower tie line capacities.
Appendix A
System X resembles the IEEE-RTS and system Y is a
hypothetical one. Some of the unit capacities of systemXare
rounded off. Generation and load data of these two systems
for the numerical evaluation are given in Tables A.1 and A.2.
K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122 121
Table A.1
Generation and load data of system X
Type of
units
Unit size
(MW)
No. of
units
FOR Incremental cost
(US$/MWh)
Nuclear 400 2 0.12 5.592
Coal 150 4 0.04 11.160
Coal 350 1 0.08 11.400
Coal 80 4 0.02 14.882
Oil 200 3 0.05 19.870
Oil 100 3 0.04 20.080
Oil 10 5 0.02 28.558
Oil 20 4 0.10 37.500
Hydro 50 6 0.01 0.0
Demand data for system X: 48–52 and 1–8 weeks of IEEE-RTS hourly
load. Peak load: 2850 MW; base load: 1102.592 MW. Energy demand:
4163.489 GWh.
A.1. List of symbols
C
K
capacity of kth conventional
generating unit
C
X
t
, C
Y
t
total committed conventional
generating unit capacities of system
X and Y, respectively
e1
i,j
export using tie line corresponding to
(i, j)th segment
e2
i,j
export without using tie line
corresponding to (i, j)th segment
EC
K
Expected production cost
corresponding to Kth unit
EL equivalent load
ES
X
K
, ES
Y
K
expected energy generation by
Kth unit of systems X and Y,
respectively
JOU jointly owned unit
q forced outage rate
m
i,j
first moment or expected value
corresponding to (i, j)th segment
P
i,j
joint probability of (i, j)th segment
RTC residual tie line capacity
SH
X
, SH
Y
the shares of system X and Y,
respectively
Table A.2
Generation and load data of system Y
Type of
units
Unit size
(MW)
No. of
units
FOR Incremental cost
(US$/MWh)
Nuclear 500 1 0.13 4.5
Coal 400 2 0.13 14.3
Coal 350 1 0.13 15.1
Coal 250 1 0.08 18.6
Oil 350 1 0.14 30.4
Oil 200 2 0.10 35.0
Oil 50 3 0.1 43.2
Hydro 100 3 0.01 0.0
Demand data system Y: 18–30 weeks of IEEE-RTS hourly load. Peak load:
2565 MW; base load: 1000.556 MW. Energy demand: 3965.661 GWh.
S
X
, S
Y
total number of conventional
generating units already committed
of systems X and Y,
respectively
SJ total number of JOUs already
committed
TJC
X
i,j
, TJC
Y
i,j
corresponding to (i, j)th segment the
total expected capacities in system
X and Y, respectively, for already
committed jointly owned units
USE
X
K

, USE
Y
K

expected unserved energies of system
X and Y, respectively, before
committing Kth unit
USE
X
K
, USE
Y
K
expected unserved energies of system
X and Y, respectively, after
committing Kth unit
References
[1] L.R. Noyes, Two-area probabilistic production costing by the method
of bi-variant cumulates, IEEE Trans. PAS-102 (2) (1983) 433–
443.
[2] Q. Ahsan, K.F. Schenk, Two-area production cost evaluation by
the segmentation method, IEEE Trans. PAS-104 (8) (1985) 2140–
2146.
[3] C. Singh, N. Gubbala, No, Reliability Evaluation of Interconnected
Power Systems including Jointly Owned Generations, Paper No.
WM 181-8 PWRS, IEEE-PES, Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH,
1993.
[4] Q. Ahsan, Reliability of two interconnected systems with jointly
owned units, Int. J. Electrical Power Energy Syst. 17 (6) (1995) 363–
370.
[5] K. R. Khan, An Approach to evaluate the expected Energy Generation
of Two Area Interconnected System with Jointly Owned Units located
in one of the Areas, M.E. Thesis, BUET, Dhaka, 1997.
[6] IEEE Committee Report, IEEE Reliability Test System, IEEE Trans.
PAS-98 (6) (1979) 2047–2054.
K.R. Khan was born in Bangladesh in 1970. He graduated in elec-
trical engineering from Bangladesh Institute of Technology (BIT), Ra-
jshahi in 1992. He did M.E. in 1997 from Bangladesh University of
Engineering & Technology (BUET) after that he worked as an assis-
tant divisional engineer of Telegraph & Telephone Board of Bangladesh
(BTTB). He obtain M.S.E.E. degree from The University of Texas at
El Paso (UTEP). Currently, He is working for the Ph.D. in electrical
engineering in City University of New York. His present research inter-
est is free space laser communication and telecommunication network
planning.
Q. Ahsan was born in Bangladesh in 1951. He graduated from the
University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1975.
Dr. Ahsan did his M.Sc. Engineering from the same university in 1980
and Ph.D. from the University of Ottawa, Canada in 1984. Dr. Ahsan
joined in the Department of Electrical Engineering of the University of
Engineering & Technology, Dhaka as a lecturer in 1976. He became a
full professor in 1988. He worked as a visiting faculty in the University
of Bahrain from 1991 to 1994. He has published more than 50 technical
papers in the fields of power system planning, power system reliability,
load management and renewable energy. He is also an author of a book
on computer science. Dr. Ahsan has supervised nine postgraduate theses
including a Ph.D.
122 K.R. Khan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 115–122
M.R. Bhuiyan was born in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1964. He received
the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical and Electronic Engineering
from BUET, Dhaka in 1986 and 1988, respectively. He earned his Ph.D.
degree in Electrical Engineering from University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology (UMIST), UK in 1993. He has been serving
the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at BUET as
faculty since 1986. Currently, he is on leave from BUET and working at
Iowa State University at Ames, Iowa, USA as a postdoctoral researcher.
His fields of interest are power system planning, reliability and security.
He is a member of IEEE.