5 views

Uploaded by Elvin Digno Dulce

1-s2.0-S0378779603002049-main.pdf

save

You are on page 1of 8

**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.

- UntitledUploaded byGenability
- Portland-General-Electric-Co-Large-Nonresidential-Standard-Service-(31---200-kW)Uploaded byGenability
- Uni Sourcce Energy - Large General Service TOUUploaded byGenability
- UntitledUploaded byGenability
- Brochure_April-2011Uploaded bymurad_ce
- BUET MSc Circular April 2017Uploaded byNahin Amin
- Sumter-Electric-Member-Corp-Large-Power-Time-of-Use-ServiceUploaded byGenability
- Residential ServiceUploaded byGenability
- rayhan.docUploaded bydristy_9
- Admission Into Postgraduate Programs at BUET in April 2013Uploaded bymissilemission
- April 2016Uploaded bySamin Afnan
- Rocky-Mountain-Power-Residential-ServiceUploaded byGenability
- Oncor-Electric-Delivery-Company,-LLC-Oncor-TariffsUploaded byGenability
- Hawaiian-Electric-Co-Inc-Standby-ServiceUploaded byGenability
- cso roughUploaded byNi Shi
- Watthour Unit of Energy HP72.pdfUploaded byAnonymous HcNZ4JDASV
- PECO-Energy-Co-Rate-GS---General-ServiceUploaded byGenability
- Southern-California-Edison-Co-Schedule-AL-2-DA---Outdoor-Lighting-Service---MeteredUploaded byGenability
- Wright - Commercial Rate SheduleUploaded byGenability
- steel4-6Uploaded byHizbar Arsjad
- UntitledUploaded byGenability
- Lea-County-Electric-Coop,-Inc-Small-Irrigation-ServiceUploaded byGenability
- Chapter4 OptUploaded byAsifur Rahman
- City-of-Elizabeth-City-RS2-Residential-Service-Time-of-UseUploaded byGenability
- City-of-Union-IndustrialUploaded byGenability
- Best Practice Manual-transformers 27Uploaded bysunny_nsec
- Columbia Water & Light - October 2016 Small General Electric Service RateUploaded byGenability
- North-Georgia-Elec-Member-Corp-RatesUploaded byGenability
- 7.5 Elecrical Energy 09Uploaded bymamansugawa
- Matanuska-Electric-Assn-Inc-RATES-2013-3rd-QuarterUploaded byGenability

- part10aUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 06 Ceat Thesis Format Guidelines Final Revised (5th Edition) 100616Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- Final Exam Schedule 2nd Sem 2017-2018Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- part9Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 12.17.2013Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 2011-Power-Plants-Luzon.pdfUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- part101Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- IEEE007(1).pdfUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 2014-02-10 News Release_NGCP Anticipates Power Demand Growth Through Grid Operation AnalysisUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- part10.pdfUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 1-s2.0-014206159090042A-mainUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 3218interconnection_module5Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- piUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- Ee200a GuidelinesUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- Ee181 Handout 1Uploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- 2013.04 NGCP Rate ScheduleUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- A Simple Rotating Loop Between Curved Pole FacesUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- Ee41 Class RecordUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- EE41 Final GradesUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- LINEAR DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF ORDER ONE.pdfUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce
- IntroductionUploaded byElvin Digno Dulce