10th IFAC Symposium on Control of Power and Energy Systems

10th IFAC Symposium on Control of Power and Energy Systems

Tokyo,
10th Japan,
IFAC September
Symposium on 4-6, 2018of Power and Energy Systems
Control
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
10th IFAC
Tokyo, Symposium
Japan, on 4-6,
September Control
2018of Power and Energy Systems
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190
Effect
Effect of
of Dynamic
Dynamic Line
Line Ratings
Ratings on
on Optimal
Optimal
Effect of
Dispatch Dynamic
ConsideringLine Ratings
Uncertainty on Optimal
Costs
Effect of
Dispatch Dynamic
ConsideringLine Ratings
Uncertainty on Optimal
Costs
Dispatch
due to Considering
Intermittent Uncertainty
Renewable Costs
Energy 
Dispatch
due to Considering
Intermittent Uncertainty
Renewable Costs
Energy
due to Intermittent Renewable Energy 
due to Intermittent Renewable Energy
Bonface O. Ngoko ∗∗ Hideharu Sugihara ∗∗ Tsuyoshi Funaki ∗∗
Bonface
Bonface O. O. Ngoko
Ngoko ∗ HideharuHideharu Sugihara Sugihara ∗ Tsuyoshi Tsuyoshi Funaki Funaki ∗
∗ ∗
Bonface
∗ O. Ngoko Hideharu Sugihara
∗ Division of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering,
Tsuyoshi Funaki ∗
∗ Division of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering,
Division
Osaka of Electrical,
University, Electronic, and
2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Information
Osaka 565-0871, Engineering,
Japan
Osaka
∗
Division
Osaka University,
of(e-mail: 2-1
Electrical,
University, Yamadaoka,
Electronic, and Suita,
2-1bngoko@ps.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp;
Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka
Osaka 565-0871,
Information Japan
Engineering,
565-0871, Japan
Osaka (e-mail:
University,
(e-mail: bngoko@ps.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp;
2-1bngoko@ps.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp;
Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
sugihara@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp; funaki@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp).
sugihara@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp; funaki@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp).
(e-mail: bngoko@ps.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp;
sugihara@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp; funaki@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp).
sugihara@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp; funaki@eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp).
Abstract:
Abstract: Dynamic Dynamic line line ratings (DLRs) provide a more flexible use of power transmission
Abstract:byDynamic line ratings
ratings (DLRs)
(DLRs) provideprovide aa more
more flexible
flexible use
use of of power
power transmission
transmission
networks
networks reducing
byDynamic
reducingline the conservativeness
the ratings
conservativeness of
of transmission
transmission line
line loadability
loadability constraints.
constraints. The
The
Abstract:
reduced
networks system
by congestion
reducing the due to (DLRs)
increased
conservativeness provide
loadability
of a
transmission more
of flexible
lines use
monitored
line of
loadability power
for DLR transmission
would
constraints. allow
The
reduced
networks system congestion
by reducing due
the due to increased
conservativeness loadability
of transmission of lines monitored for DLR would allow
reduced
for more system
economicalcongestion
generation toscheduling.
increased loadability
This paper linesline
ofanalyses loadability
monitored
the impact constraints.
for DLR
that would
DLR The
allow
would
for moresystem
reduced economical generation
congestion due toscheduling.
increased This paperofanalyses
loadability the impact
lines monitored that would
for DLR DLR would allow
for
have more
on economical
power dispatch generation
with a scheduling.
specific assessment This of paper the analyses
allowable the impact
uncertainty that DLR
levels due would
to IRE
have
for moreon power dispatch
economical with a specific
generation assessment
scheduling. This of paper the allowable
analyses uncertainty
impact levels
theoptimal that DLR due to IRE
would
have on power
generation in dispatch with a specific assessment of aathe allowable uncertainty levels dueproblem
to IRE
generation
have on in a
power
power
power network.
adispatch network.
with a
This
This is
specific
done
done using
isassessment using of the
solution
solution
allowable
of
of an
an optimal dispatch
uncertainty dispatch
levels due problem
to IRE
generation
that includes in costs
a powerdue network.
to This isofdone
uncertainty IRE using
sources a solution
and DLR ofofanmonitored
optimal dispatch
lines. problem
Simulation
that includes
generation in costs
a duenetwork.
power to uncertaintyThis isofdone
IRE using
sources a and DLRofofanmonitored
solution optimal lines. Simulation
dispatch problem
that includes
results carriedcosts duea to
out on uncertainty
benchmark testofsystem
IRE sources
show that and the DLRsavingsof monitored
occasioned lines.bySimulation
reduction
results
that carried
includes out on
duea benchmark test system show that the savings occasioned lines.by reduction
results
in carriedcosts
conventional out on a to
generation uncertainty
benchmark
costs due test
to ofDLRIRE can
system sources
show allow and
thatfor DLR
the of monitored
savings
increasing occasioned
the uncertaintybySimulation
reduction
levels
in conventional
results carried out generation
on awould costs duetest
benchmark to DLRsystem canshow allow thatforthe increasing
savings the uncertainty
occasioned levels in
by reduction in
in
powerconventional
networks generation
which costs due totoDLR
translate can
increased allow
use forIRE
of increasing
sources. the uncertainty levels in
power
in networks generation
conventional which would translate
costs due to toDLR
increased
can use of
allow for IRE sources.the uncertainty levels in
increasing
power networks which would translate to increased use of IRE sources.
© 2018,networks
power IFAC (International
which would Federation
translate of Automatic
to increased Control) use of Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
IRE sources.
Keywords:
Keywords: dynamicdynamic line line rating,
rating, intermittent
intermittent renewablerenewable energy, energy, optimal
optimal powerpower dispatch,
dispatch,
Keywords:
uncertainty dynamic
costs. line rating, intermittent renewable energy, optimal power dispatch,
uncertainty
Keywords: costs. line rating, intermittent renewable energy, optimal power dispatch,
dynamic
uncertainty costs.
uncertainty costs.
1. INTRODUCTION Recent changes in the operation of electricity networks
1.
1. INTRODUCTION Recent changes in
INTRODUCTION Recent
– including changes in the
increased
operation
operation of
the generation of electricity networks
by electricity
IRE sources networks
– are
1. INTRODUCTION –Recent
including changes increased
in the generation
operation by
of IRE
IRE sources
electricity –
networksare
Worldwide, the share of electric power supplied by inter- –motivating includingmodifications
motivating
increased generation
modifications
in systemby
in system
operation.
operation.
sources
One
One
– the
of
of
are
the
Worldwide, the
the share of
of electric power supplied by
by inter- –modifications
includingmodificationsincreased
is the usegeneration systemby IREratings
sources – the
are
Worldwide,
mittent renewable shareenergy electric
(IRE)power sources supplied
in power grids motivating
inter- modifications is the use
in dynamic
of
of dynamic
operation.
line
line
One(DLRs)
ratings
of
(DLRs)
mittent
Worldwide,
mittent renewable
the
renewable shareenergy
of
energy (IRE)
electric sources
power in
supplied power by grids
inter- motivating
modifications
that give a modifications
moreis the use
flexible in
ofusesystem
dynamic
of the operation.
line One
ratings
transmission of
(DLRs)the
system
is steadily increasing. The(IRE)REN21 sources
(2017)inglobalpowerstatus grids that give a more flexible use of the transmission system
is steadily increasing. The REN21 (2017) inglobal
powerstatus
mittent
is steadily
report renewable
cites increasing.
mitigation energyThe
of (IRE)
REN21
climate sources
(2017)reduction
change, global air modifications
grids
status
of that
(Fossgive
(Foss
anda Maraio,
and
moreis the
Maraio,
use ofuse
flexible
1990;
1990;
dynamic
Krontiris
lineal.,
et
ratings
of the transmission
Krontiris et
al.,
2010).
2010).
(DLRs)
system
DLR
DLR
report cites
is steadily
report mitigation
increasing.
citesconcerns
mitigation of
The
of climate
REN21
climate change, reduction
(2017)reduction
change, global of air
of air (Foss
status that
refers and give
to thea more
Maraio, flexible
periodic1990; use of the
Krontiris of
adjustment transmission
al., 2010).system
et transmission DLR
line
pollution,
pollution, concerns over
over energy
energy security,
security, and
and improving
improving refers to the periodic adjustment of transmission line
report citesconcerns
pollution, mitigation
cost-competitiveness of of
over IRE climate
energy change,as
security,
technologies reduction
andmajorimprovingof air refers
drivers (Foss and
ratings tobased Maraio,
the periodic
on the 1990; Krontiris
adjustment
real-time et transmission
of
monitoringal., 2010).
of the DLR line
cost-competitiveness of IRE technologies as major drivers ratings
refers
ratings to based
the
based on the
periodic
on the real-time
adjustment
real-time monitoring
of of
transmission
monitoring of the
the line
line
pollution, concerns
cost-competitiveness over
for the rapid growth of renewables. energy security,
IRE technologies In Japan and
as major improving cooling conditions. The temperature
drivers cooling conditions. The temperature of a conductor which
for example, of a conductor which
line
for the rapid growth of renewables. In Japan for example, ratings based on the real-time monitoring of the line
cost-competitiveness
for
the the rapid capacity
installed growth of IRE technologies
ofrenewables.
renewable In Japan
energy as major
for example,
(excluding large cooling
drivers dictatesconditions.
dictates
its current/power
its
The temperature
current/power rating is
of a conductor
rating is strongly
strongly
dependent
dependent
whichon
on
the installed
for the
the rapid
installed capacity
growth of
capacity of renewable
renewables.
ofmore
renewable energy
In Japan
energy (excluding
for example,
(excluding large
large cooling
dictates
the ambient conditions.
its current/power The temperature
weather conditions, of
rating isespecially a conductor
strongly dependent which
the ambient on
hydro)
hydro) has
has increased
increased more than
than five-fold
five-fold over
over the
the last
last the ambient weather conditions, especially the ambient
the installed
hydro)
decade capacity
to standofmore
has increased
alone renewable
at GW energy
50than five-fold
in 2016 (excluding
over
(ISEP, last the
large
the2016) dictates ambient
temperature its current/power
weather
and wind rating is(Uski,
conditions,
velocity strongly
especially dependent
the If
2015). ambient on
these
decade alone to stand at 50 GW in 2016 (ISEP, 2016) temperature
the ambient
temperature and
weather
and wind
wind velocity
conditions,
velocity (Uski,
especially
(Uski, 2015).
the
2015). If these
ambient
If these
hydro)
decade
and thealonehas increased
rapidtoupwardstand atmore
trend than
50 GW five-fold over
in 2016to(ISEP,
is expected the
continue last
2016) ambient conditions are monitored,
in ambient conditions are monitored, the measured values the measured values
and
decade
and the rapid
thealone
rapid toupward
stand
upward trend
at
trend is
is expected
50 benefits
GW in 2016
expected to continue
to(ISEP,
continue 2016)in
in temperature
ambient
can be used and
conditions wind velocity
are monitored,
to periodically (Uski, 2015).
the lineIf values
the measured
re-calculate these
rating
the years to come. While the of IRE sources are can be used to periodically re-calculate the line rating
the years
and years
the to
the rapid come.
upward
tooperational
come. While
While the
trend benefits
is expected
the benefits of IRE
of IRE to sources
continue
sources due are
in can
are ambient
which conditions
beis used
typically are
to periodically monitored,
higher than the the
re-calculate measured values
the line rating
more conventional static
numerous,
numerous, operational challenges
challenges still
still exist
exist especially
especially due which is typically higher than the more conventional static
thetheir
yearsvariable
numerous,
to tooperational
come.andWhile the benefits
challenges
uncertain of IRE
still (Wang
nature exist etsources
especially
al., 2014). are which
due can be
line is used
rating typically to periodically
(SLR) higher
that than re-calculate
the
is calculated more using the“worst-case”
line rating
conventional static
to their variable and uncertain nature (Wang et al., 2014). line
which
line rating
is
rating (SLR)
typically
(SLR) that
higher
that is
than
is calculated
the
calculatedmore using “worst-case”
conventional
using static
“worst-case”
numerous, operational challenges still exist especially
to their variable and uncertain nature (Wang et al., 2014). weather conditions. due weather conditions.
Uncertainty
to their variable
Uncertainty refers
andto
refers the
the characteristic
touncertain nature (Wang
characteristic of
of largeet al.,
large errors
2014).
errors in
in line weather rating (SLR) that is calculated using “worst-case”
conditions.
Uncertainty
IRE forecastsrefers to the
especially when characteristic
compared with of large errors in The
the relatively weather
The
potential benefits of DLRs have been demonstrated in
conditions.
potential benefits of
IRE forecasts
Uncertainty especially
refers to when
the compared
characteristic with
of the
large relatively
errors in The
various potential
literature.benefits
Uski of DLRs
DLRs havehave been
been demonstrated
demonstrated in
in
IRE
lowerforecasts
lower
forecasting
forecasting
especially
errorswhen
errors in
compared
in system
system
with the
demand.
demand.
relatively
Large
Large
fore- various literature.
fore- The potential Uskiof(2015)
benefits (2015)
DLRs
shows
showsbeen
have
that DLR
DLR could
could in-
thatdemonstrated in-
in
IRE forecasts
lower
casting errorsespecially
forecasting IRE when
for errors compared
in system
sources withthe
demand.
necessitate theLarge
operationfore- various
relatively
crease
literature. Uski
crease area-to-area
area-to-area
(2015) shows
transmission
transmission
capacity
capacity
thatthereby
DLR could
thereby
impact-
impact-
in-
casting
lower
casting errors
forecasting for IRE
for errors
errors reserves IRE withsources
in system
sources necessitate
demand.
necessitate the operation
theLarge
operationfore- crease various
ing electricity literature.
area-to-area Uski (2015)
pricestransmission
and benefiting shows
capacitythat DLR
thereby
electricity could
impact-
consumers. in-
of fast
fast acting fast
fast ramping
ramping characteristics ing electricity prices and
of
casting
of
so fast
acting
errors
as toacting
maintain
reserves
for IRE
reserves
with
sources
the with fastnecessitate
characteristics
the
ramping characteristics
load-and-generation operation
balance in a ing crease
Simms area-to-area
electricity
and Meegahapola and benefiting
pricestransmission
(2013) capacity
benefiting electricity
illustrates thereby
electricity consumers.
impact-
an consumers.
increase in
so
of
so as
fast
as to
to maintain
acting
maintain the
reserves
the load-and-generation
with fast ramping
load-and-generation balance
characteristics
balance in
in aa Simmsing
Simms
the
and
electricity
and
utilization
Meegahapola
prices
Meegahapola
of wind andpower
(2013)
benefiting
(2013)
owing
illustrates
toelectricity
illustrates
increased
an
an increase
consumers.
increase
loadability
in
in
power system (Rejc and Cepin, 2014). Such reserves are the utilization of wind power owing to increased loadability
power
so as to system
maintain (Rejc
(Rejcthe and Cepin, 2014).
andload-and-generation Such reserves
Suchbalance area the Simms
of autilizationand Meegahapola
of wind
line power (2013) illustrates
owingtotoaincreased an increase
loadability in
power
typically system
relatively expensiveCepin, when2014).compared to the in
reserves are
cost of
transmission
aautilization
transmission line
connected
connected to
wind farm.
aaincreased
wind farm.
Similar
Similar
typically
power
typically relatively
system (Rejc
relatively expensive
and Cepin,
expensive when
when2014).compared
Such IRE
compared to the
reserves
to the cost the
of transmission of wind
line power
connectedowing
are results are reported by Xu et al. (2013) who demonstrate
cost toto wind loadability
farm. Similar
of conventional generation. Therefore, while sources results are
of conventional
typically
of therelatively
conventional
reduce
generation.
expensive
generation.
net system demand
Therefore,
when
Therefore,
and hence
while
compared
while
costs
IRE
to
IREof the
sources
cost results
sources
conven- of
that moreare reported
a transmission reported
wind powerlineby Xu et al.
byconnected
Xu
canet be
(2013)
to a wind
al. integrated
(2013) who
whointodemonstrate
farm. Similar
demonstrate
the grid
reduce the net system demand and hence costs of conven- that
results
that more
moreare wind
reported
wind power
powerby can
Xu
can et be
al.
be integrated
(2013)
integrated who into the
demonstrate
into the grid
grid
of conventional
reduce the net generation.
system demand Therefore,
and hencewhile
costs IREof sources
conven- with reduced
tional generation, they add costs related to extra reserves with reduced load and IRE generation curtailments. Other load and IRE generation curtailments. Other
tional generation, they add costs related to extra reserves that more wind power can be integrated into the grid
reducegeneration,
tional the netbysystem
necessitated theydemand
their add costs
uncertain and henceto
related
nature. costs
extra
Such ofcosts
conven-
reserves are with potential
potential
reduced load and
benefits
benefits of
IRE generation
of DLR
DLR
including curtailments.
including
emergency control
emergency
Other
control
necessitated
tional generation,
necessitated by their
they uncertain
add costs nature.
related toSuch
extra costs
reserves are
costs are and with
potential reduced load
benefits and
of IRE
DLR generation
including
congestion management are demonstrated in Banakar curtailments.
emergency Other
control
referred to in by thistheir
paperuncertain nature. Such
as IRE uncertainty costs. and congestion management are demonstrated in
referred
necessitatedto
to inin bythis paper
thistheir as
as IRE
paperuncertain IRE uncertainty
nature. Such costs. costs are and potential
et al. congestion
(2005) benefits of DLR including
management are emergency
demonstrated in Banakar
control
Banakar
referred uncertainty costs. et
and al. (2005) and
congestion and Alguacil
Alguacil et
management
al.
al. (2005).
et are (2005).
demonstrated in Banakar
referred
 to in this paper as IRE uncertainty costs. et al. (2005) and Alguacil et al. (2005).
 This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JP-
This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JP- et al. (2005) and Alguacil et al. (2005).

MJCR15K1, Japan.
This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JP-
MJCR15K1, Japan.
 This work Japan.
MJCR15K1, was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JP-
MJCR15K1,
2405-8963 © Japan.
2018, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 185 Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
2018 responsibility
IFAC 185Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 185
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.699
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 185
IFAC CPES 2018
186
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Bonface O. Ngoko et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190

This paper analyzes the effect of DLRs on optimal gen- 5.0

eration dispatch considering uncertainty costs due to IRE expected value of p

Probability Density, f (pr)

r
sources. This is done through the formulation and solution 4.0 if pr < Pr
scheduled IRE
of an optimal dispatch problem that incorporates IRE output, P
r
3.0
uncertainty costs in the objective function and DLR in
expected value of pr
the transmission line loadability constraints. By solving 2.0
if p > P
r r
the resulting optimization problem under SLR and DLR
of heavily loaded lines, an assessment of how the reduced 1.0 pro pru
conservativeness in line rating offered by DLRs affects the
uncertainty levels allowed in the network is carried out. 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Simulations on a standard test system show that savings IRE output pr [fraction of generation capacity]
from congestion relief by DLR can allow more uncertainty
in the system and hence more use of IRE sources. Fig. 1. Probability distribution of IRE generation illustrat-
ing expected values of overestimation and underesti-
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: The nature mation for a particular scheduled value.
of the costs related to IRE uncertainty is elaborated in
section 2. Section 3 describes the DLR and its potential in

IRE Uncertainity Cost, C u( Pr ) [p.u.]

0.7
increasing line loadability. In Section 4, the optimization E[p ] = 0.4, std. dev = 0.1
r
0.6 E[p ] = 0.4, std. dev = 0.2
problem with IRE uncertainty and DLR is formulated. r
E[p ] = 0.6, std. dev = 0.1
0.5 r
Numerical simulations are discussed in section 5 and E[pr] = 0.6, std. dev = 0.2

research conclusions are drawn in Section 6. 0.4

0.3
2. UNCERTAINTY DUE TO IRE SOURCES 0.2

0.1
Generation scheduling is usually done prior to operation
0.0
based on expected system demand so as to achieve a secure
−0.1
and economic operation of the system. If line transmis- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
sion constraints are considered, the optimal dispatch is Scheduled IRE output, Pr [fraction of generation capacity]
obtained by solving the optimal power flow (OPF) problem Fig. 2. IRE uncertainty cost curves (κo = 1 and κu = 0.1).
(Lubin et al., 2017). Optimal dispatch of conventional gen-
eration is based on the cost characteristics of the thermal
generators; the most important component being the fuel Cr = κo pro + κu pru (1)
costs. IRE sources are however characterized by near zero where pro and pru are the expected values of the IRE
fuel costs since their inputs (solar irradiation or blowing overestimate and underestimate respectively i.e.:
wind) are free. Therefore, based on the fuel costs, all r
P
available power from IRE sources should be utilized. The (Pr − pr ) f (pr ) dpr
main operating cost relating to IRE sources then arises pro = 0 (2)
from the fact that the available IRE power may be less r
P
f (pr ) dpr
than scheduled due to unpredictability. The uncertainty 0
of the IRE sources has to be covered by reserve generation and
that is typically more expensive than the conventional max
Pr
generation. In a manner similar to the fuel costs of thermal (Pr − pr ) f (pr ) dpr
generators, the cost of covering for IRE uncertainty can be Pr
pru = (3)
used to decide on an optimal value for the scheduled IRE max
Pr
generation. f (pr ) dpr
Pr
The approach proposed in Hetzer et al. (2008) is used to
model the IRE uncertainty costs in this paper. Let f (pr ) Consider an IRE resource whose probability distribution
be the probability distribution of the actual output pr is as shown in Fig. 1. The values of pro and pru for a
of an IRE source and Pr be the scheduled value. If the scheduled value Pr will be as shown. The variation of
actual IRE generation is lower than the scheduled value IRE uncertainty costs with scheduled IRE generation for
(pr < Pr ), generation reserves have to be operated to cover different values of the mean IRE forecast and forecast error
for the shortfall due to the overestimation which will incur standard deviation will be as shown in Fig. 2. The IRE
an associated IRE overestimation cost. On the other hand, uncertainty cost curves depend on the cost coefficients κo
if at the time of operation, actual IRE generation is higher and κu as shown in Hetzer et al. (2008).
than the scheduled value (pr > Pr ), the system operator
may have to either curtail the extra IRE power due to 3. DYNAMIC LINE RATING OF OVERHEAD
underestimation, or by fast re-dispatch reduce the amount CONDUCTORS
of power bought from thermal generation incurring a
penalty cost for loss of revenue for generation companies. The conductor current carrying capacity (ampacity), Imax ,
These actions can be modeled by an IRE underestimation is defined as the maximum current that a conductor can
cost (Hetzer et al., 2008). If a constant unit cost for IRE carry without its temperature exceeding a maximum al-
overestimation κo is assumed and similarly, a constant lowable limit; where the maximum allowable limit refers
unit cost for IRE underestimation κu is assumed, then the to the conductor temperature that would result either in
expected cost due to IRE uncertainty Cr will be given by: excessive sag or in significant loss of the conductor’s tensile

186
 IFAC CPES 2018
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Bonface O. Ngoko et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190 187

3.5 conductor temperature being higher than the maximum

allowed temperature even when the conductor carries the
Line rating [fraction of SLR]

3.0
SLR current. The dynamic line rating (DLR) is a less
2.5
conservative approach in which the ambient weather condi-
2.0
tions around a conductor are monitored and the real-time
1.5 Ta = 0 C
o
weather conditions are used to periodically re-evaluate the
T = 10oC
1.0
a
T = 20 C
o
ampacity of the line. Since the ambient weather conditions
SLR a

0.5 Ta = 30 C
o are usually better at cooling the conductor than the worst-
T = 40 C
a
o
case conditions used to calculate the SLR, the DLR is
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 typically much higher than the SLR. Fig. 4 shows a typical
wind speed [m/s]
DLR duration curve calculated using actual measured
Fig. 3. Variation of line rating with ambient weather values of weather conditions for a location in Osaka, Japan
conditions. (Ngoko et al., 2017).

3.0 4. OPTIMAL DISPATCH CONSIDERING IRE

DLR
SLR UNCERTAINTY AND DLR
Line Rating [fraction of SLR]

2.5

2.0 The IRE uncertainty costs and overhead conductor DLR

1.5 are incorporated in a generation dispatch optimization
problem as:
1.0  
min Cgi (Pgi ) + Crj (Prj ) . (6)
0.5 Pgi , Prj
i∈G j∈R
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 subject to:
Percent of Time

Fig. 4. Line rating duration curve. 

Pgi + Pri − Pdi = bij θj , ∀i ∈ N (7)
strength (Foss and Maraio, 1990; CIGRE Working Group j∈N

B2.36, 2012). The maximum current value can be easily −Pk,max ≤ hki (Pgi + Pri − Pdi )
converted to a maximum MW or MVA value using the i∈N
transmission line voltage. Mathematically, Imax is calcu- ≤ Pk,max , ∀k ∈ L (8)
lated from the overheard conductor heat balance equation
Pgi,min ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgi,max , ∀i ∈ G (9)
corresponding to the maximum allowable conductor tem-
perature Tmax as: 0 ≤ Prj ≤ Prj,max , ∀j ∈ R (10)

2 In (6)–(10), i and j are bus indices, N is the set of

Rac (Tmax )Imax + PS = PC (Tmax ) + PR (Tmax ) (4) indices of all the buses, while G and R are the sets of
so that, bus indices with connected thermal and IRE generators
 respectively. k is a network branch index, and L is the set
PC (Tmax ) + PR (Tmax ) − PS of all branch indices. Pgi , Pri , and Pdi are the scheduled
Imax = (5) thermal generation, scheduled IRE generation, and power
Rac (Tmax ) demand respectively at bus i 1 . θi is the voltage angle at
In (4) and (5), Rac (Tmax ) is the ac resistance at the bus i. bij is the element of the dc power flow B matrix
maximum conductor temperature so that Rac Ic2 is the heat corresponding to bus i’s row and bus j’s column. hij is the
gain due to the conductor ohmic losses (Joule heat gain), element of the dc power flow power transfer distribution
PS is the heat gain due to solar heating, PC is the heat factor (ptdf) matrix corresponding to branch k’s row and
loss due to convective cooling, and PR is the heat loss due bus i’s column (Zimmerman et al., 2011).
to radiative cooling (CIGRE Working Group 22.12, 2002). The objective function (6) is a sum of the generation cost
Detailed expressions for Rac , PS , PC , and PR can be found of thermal generators and the total uncertainty cost due
in CIGRE Working Group 22.12 (2002). to the IRE sources. The IRE-source uncertainty cost for a
The solar heating, convective cooling, and radiative cool- generator at bus i is given by (1), while a quadratic cost
ing terms in (5) are strongly dependent on the ambient function is assumed for the thermal generators as:
2
weather conditions i.e. ambient temperature, wind speed, Cgi (Pgi ) = a0i + a1i Pgi + a2i Pgi , (11)
wind direction, and solar radiation. Thus, Imax is also where a0i , a1i , and a2i are the cost function coefficients for
dependent on the ambient weather conditions used to cal- the thermal generator connected to bus i.
culate the ampacity value. Fig. 3 shows a typical variation
of line ampacity with wind speed and ambient temperature Constraints (7) represents the active power balance at
for an overhead conductor. each bus while constraint (8) represents the loadability
constraint for branch k where Pk,max is the maximum
A conservative approach to determine line loadability is to allowed power flow in branch k given by:
calculate ampacity for worst-case weather conditions i.e. √
low wind speeds, high solar radiation, and high ambient Pk,max = 3Vk Ik,max (12)
temperature. Such a rating referred to as the static line 1 If there is no thermal generator, IRE source, or load at bus i then

rating (SLR) ensures a very low probability of the actual the respective value of Pgi , Pri , or Pdi is zero

187
IFAC CPES 2018
188
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Bonface O. Ngoko et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190

Table 3. Optimal generation schedules [MW]

SLR DLR Diff.

Pg1 62.13 47.04 −15.09

Pg2 78.20 60.90 −17.29
Pg13 26.96 17.63 −9.33
Pg22 6.60 23.05 +16.45
Pg23 10.89 17.63 +6.74
Pg27 26.11 37.87 +11.75

Total Pg 210.90 204.13 −6.77

Pr5 17.65 16.43 −1.21

Pr14 34.34 32.86 −1.48
Pr24 39.84 49.29 +9.46

Total Pr 91.82 98.59 +6.77

Table 4. Optimal costs [$/h]

Fig. 5. Modified IEEE 30-bus Test System. SLR DLR Diff.

Thermal generation cost 3399.54 3112.38 −287.16

Table 1. Thermal Generator Data†
IRE uncertainity cost 725.31 823.30 +97.99
Bus No. 1 2 13 22 23 27
Objective Function Value 4124.85 3935.68 −189.17
a1i [$/MWh] 10 8.75 15 5 15 16.25
a2i [$/MW2 h] 0.1 0.0875 0.125 0.3125 0.1 0.0417
Pgi,max [MW] 120 120 60 75 45 80 Table 5. Line 21-22: power flows and line
† For all units, a0i = $0/h and Pgi,min = 0 MW ratings [MW]
SLR DLR Diff.
Table 2. IRE Sources Data‡
Power Flow [MW] 26.82 40.48 +13.66
Bus # 5 14 24
Line Rating [MW] 26.82 41.95 +15.13
Pr,mean [MW] 15 30 45
Pr,std.dev. [MW] 4 8 12
Pr,max [MW] 30 60 90 and branch data can be found in the archive at Univ. of
‡ Washington (2017). In addition to the six conventional
For all units, κo = $40/MWh and κu = $5/MWh
generators whose cost characteristics are given in Table
1, three IRE sources are added to the network at buses 5,
and Vk is the line voltage of branch k. 2 With DLR, the 14, and 24. The mean values and standard deviation of the
value of Ik,max is calculated from the ambient weather forecast errors for the IRE sources are given in Table 2. For
conditions around line k using equation (5). Constraints simplicity, the IRE forecast errors are assumed to follow a
(9)–(10) represent the physical limits for each of the normal distribution though other probability distributions
decision variables. may be used. In the simulations, the same IRE uncertainty
cost coefficients κo = $40/MWh and κu = $5/MWh are
5. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS used for all IRE sources. The conductors are assumed to
be 160mm2 ACSR overhead conductors with a SLR of 470
The optimal power dispatch problem with IRE uncertainty A (corresponding to 107.3 MW for the 132kV lines and
costs and DLR described in section 4 is solved in MATLAB 26.8 MW for the 33 kV lines). The system load is scaled
using the Matlab interior point solver (MIPS) from the up by 50% from the values given in Univ. of Washington
MATPOWER package (Zimmerman et al., 2011). In this (2017) so as to simulate a more heavily loaded system.
section, the obtained optimal solutions under DLR are Under these simulation conditions, the transmission line
compared to the solutions under SLR. connecting buses 21 and 22 (shown in red in Fig. 5) is the
most heavily loaded and is therefore chosen for DLR. A
5.1 Test System wind speed value of 2 m/s and an ambient temperature of
25◦ C are used in the DLR calculations.
Simulations are carried out on a modified version of the
IEEE 30-bus test system which is shown in Fig. 5. Load 5.2 Simulation Results
2 In practice, branch k will have multiple circuits implying that the
maximum power carried by each circuit will be Pk,max divided by Table 3 shows the obtained optimal generation dispatch,
the number of circuits. This ensures that each circuit would be able for both thermal and IRE generation, corresponding to
to carry Pk,max should, for any reason, all the other circuits be out SLR and DLR. The corresponding costs are shown in Table
of service. 4. As seen from these results, the optimal generation costs

188
 IFAC CPES 2018
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Bonface O. Ngoko et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190 189
35
DLR
30 SLR
25
LMP [$/MWh]
20
15
10
5
0 800
1 2 13 22 23 27 5 14
Bus Number
Fig. 6. Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) at buses with
thermal generators (in blue) and IRE sources (in red).
are reduced with DLR as compared to the SLR. The reduc-
tion in the objective function value is due to a reduction in
the thermal generation costs. The IRE uncertainty costs
however increase but the magnitude of this increase is
lower than the reduction in thermal generation costs hence
an overall reduction in the objective function value. The
increase in IRE generation costs corresponds to an increase
in the scheduled IRE generation as seen from Table 3.
The interpretation is that, under DLRs, the system allows
for more uncertainty in costs due to IRE sources i.e. the
thermal generation cost savings realized by DLR allows for
more utilization of power from IRE sources.
The optimal solutions shown in Tables 3 and 4 are ex-
plained by the resultant power flows in line 21-22 as shown
in Table 5 and the locational marginal prices (LMPs)
at the buses with either a thermal generator or an IRE
source shown in Figure 6. Under SLR, the optimal dispatch
results in the maximum allowed power flow (26.82 MW) in
line 21-22. This congestion constraint restricts the outputs
of the cheaper thermal generators at buses 22, 23 and
27 while increasing the dispatch of the more expensive
generators at buses 1, 2 and 13. This result is reflected in
the LMP plots of Fig. 6 corresponding to the SLR which
show the nodal prices at buses 22, 23 and 27 being lower
than the nodal prices at buses 1, 2 and 13. With DLR,
the loadability of line 21-22 is increased to 41.95 MW
allowing more generation by the units at buses 22, 23 and
27 replacing generation by the thermal units at buses 1, 2
and 13. The LMPs at the various buses also level out as
seen from Fig. 6.
The scheduled generation at the buses with IRE sources
also change in a manner similar to the conventional gen-
eration. The scheduled IRE generation at buses 5 and 14
reduce as the LMPs at these buses are reduced while the
scheduled IRE generation at bus 24 increases as the LMP
at this bus increases. The magnitude of the increase in IRE
schedule at bus 24 is however larger than the reductions
at buses 5 and 14 which results in an overall increase in
scheduled IRE generation.
The variation of the obtained optimal dispatch with am-
bient weather conditions around the monitored line was
analyzed by solving the optimization problem under vary-
ing levels of ambient weather conditions. The obtained
relationship is shown in Fig. 7. As expected, the objective
function value reduces as the conductor cooling conditions
improve i.e. as the wind speed increases and the ambient
1000 4200
DLR Ctotal (Ta = 15oC) Crtotal (Ta = 15oC)
SLR
Ctotal (Ta = 25oC) Crtotal (Ta = 25oC)
objective function value [$/hr]
IRE uncertainity costs [$/hr]
Ctotal (Ta = 35oC) C (T = 35oC)
950 rtotal a 4150
900 4100
850 4050
4000
24 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Wind Speed [m/s]
Fig. 7. Variation of IRE uncertainty costs and total costs
with ambient weather conditions around line 21-22.
temperature reduces. Also, above a wind speed of about 3
m/s, the transmission line capacity is fully increased, the
conductor thermal constraint is no longer binding, and no
reduction in the objective function value is observed even
as cooling conditions improve.
6. CONCLUSION
This paper evaluates the effect that dynamic line ratings
have on the optimal generation dispatch in a system with
a significant proportion of generation from intermittent
renewable energy sources. The optimal dispatch problem
thus includes a cost term in the objective function that
accounts for the cost of covering for IRE uncertainty while
the line loadability limits for heavily loaded lines are varied
based on ambient weather conditions i.e. DLRs. Results
from simulation carried out on a typical test system show
that the savings from the reduced system congestion due
to DLRs can be used to accommodate more uncertainty
in power generation due to IRE sources.
REFERENCES
Alguacil, N., Banakar, M.H., and Galiana, F.D. (2005).
Electrothermal coordination part II: Case studies. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 20(4), 1738–1745.
Banakar, H., Alguacil, N., and Galiana, F.D. (2005). Elec-
trothermal coordination part I: Theory and implemen-
tation schemes. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
20(2), 798–805.
CIGRE Working Group 22.12 (2002). Thermal behaviour
of overhead conductors.
CIGRE Working Group B2.36 (2012). Guide for applica-
tion of direct real-time monitoring systems. 1–77.
Foss, S.D. and Maraio, R.A. (1990). Dynamic line rating
in the operating environment. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 5(2), 1095–1105.
Hetzer, J., Yu, D.C., and Bhattarai, K. (2008). An
economic dispatch model incorporating wind power.
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 23(2), 603–
611.
ISEP (2016). Renewables 2016 Japan Status Report.
Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies.
Krontiris, T., Wasserrab, A., and Balzer, G. (2010).
Weather-based loading of overhead lines – consideration
of conductor’s heat capacity. In 2010 Modern Electric
Power Systems, 1–8.
Lubin, M., Dvorkin, Y., and Backhaus, S. (2017). A
robust approach to chance constrained optimal power
189
IFAC CPES 2018
190
Tokyo, Japan, September 4-6, 2018 Bonface O. Ngoko et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-28 (2018) 185–190
flow with renewable generation. In 2017 IEEE
Power Energy Society General Meeting, 1–1. doi:
10.1109/PESGM.2017.8274507.
Ngoko, B., Sugihara, H., and Funaki, T. (2017). Method-
ology for the determination of real-time dynamic line
ratings for secure operation of overhead conductors. In
2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), 1–6.
Rejc, Z.B. and Cepin, M. (2014). Estimating the additional
operating reserve in power systems with installed renew-
able energy sources. International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, 62(Supplement C), 654 – 664.
REN21 (2017). Renewables 2017 Global Status Report.
Paris: REN21 Secretariat.
Simms, M. and Meegahapola, L. (2013). Comparative
analysis of dynamic line rating models and feasibility
to minimise energy losses in wind rich power networks.
Energy Conversion and Management, 75, 11 – 20.
Univ. of Washington (2017). Power system test
case archive. URL http://www.ee.washington.edu/
190
research/pstca/.
Uski, S. (2015). Estimation method for dynamic line rating
potential and economic benefits. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 65(Supplement
C), 76 – 82.
Wang, R., Wang, P., Xiao, G., and Gong, S. (2014).
Power demand and supply management in microgrids
with uncertainties of renewable energies. International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 63, 260
– 269.
Xu, B., Ulbig, A., and Andersson, G. (2013). Impacts of
dynamic line rating on power dispatch performance and
grid integration of renewable energy sources. In IEEE
PES ISGT Europe 2013, 1–5.
Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sanchez, C.E., and Thomas,
R.J. (2011). Matpower: Steady-state operations, plan-
ning, and analysis tools for power systems research and
education. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26(1),
12–19.