1
A Review of the Application of Analytic
Hierarchy Process to the Planning and
Operation of Electric Power Microgrids
R. K. Rietz, Member, IEEE, S. Suryanarayanan, Member, IEEE
Abstract--This paper reviews literature that identifies the need
for decision-making associated with the design and operation of
electric power grids including microgrids. In particular, it
examines the current applications of analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) as the decision-making tool for electric power grids and
microgrids. AHP is a decision making tool based on expert
judgments that has been successfully applied in design and
operation for the power systems. One advantage of AHP is its
ability to incorporate subjective constraints. The current
application of AHP to grid connected power systems includes
selection of generating units, identifying protection system
vulnerability, prioritizing line maintenance, determining DG
deployment and configurations, analyzing energy planning under
uncertainty, locating and sizing of VAR sources, value based
budgeting, choosing dispatch scenarios, forecasting loads,
integrated resource planning, and determining combined active
and reactive dispatch AHP has been applied to islanded
microgrids for load shedding and optimizing cost. This paper
concludes with proposals for expanding the use of AHP for
decision-making for islanded microgrids.
Index Terms—analytic hierarchy process, decision-making,
microgrids
I. INTRODUCTION
A N electric power microgrid may be defined as a self-
contained subset of the electric grids with indigenous
generation (micro-sources), access to distribution assets,
control, protection, and ability to serve at least one end user
load in either the grid interconnected mode or an isolated
(islanded) mode. The proliferation of distributed generation
(DG), and consequently electric power microgrids, in the
interconnected electric grid, is being accelerated by: the need
for reliable electricity supply to end users; increased energy
savings; better power quality at the point of common coupling;
voltage controls and VAR support; reduction in system I2R
losses and demand charges, environmental emissions
improvement and possible opportunity for trading ancillary
services to the grid. However, interconnection of microgrids
may also impose several constraints on the electric distribution
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
Grant 0757956.
R. K. Rietz is with Stanley Consultants, Englewood, CO 80112, and
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401 (e-mail:
RietzRoy@stanleygroup.com).
S. Suryanarayanan is with Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401
USA (e-mail: ssuryana@mines.edu).
978-1-4244-4283-6/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
system, heretofore not observed in conventional electric power
systems [1]. Particularly, in the design, planning, and
operation of microgrids, there exist several instances involving
decision making subject to multi-criteria alternatives. It is in
this regard that this paper reviews the application of a popular
tool in decision-making studies, the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) to the planning and operation of microgrids. The paper
is organized as follows: Section II describes the need and the
use of some techniques for decision-making in microgrids;
Section III illustrates the AHP process in an algorithmic form;
Section IV reviews the application of AHP to decision-making
in power systems engineering, with particular focus on
microgrids; Section V explores some new avenues of possible
applications of AHP to the planning and operation of islanded
microgrids; Section VI concludes.
II. THE NEED FOR DECISION MAKING FOR MICROGRIDS
It is widely accepted that there is a multitude of issues
related to decision-making that need to be addressed in the
design, and operation of microgrids. Considerations in
architecture of microgrids related to applications, ownership,
benefits, operating modes, etc. may be incorporated in
decision-making analysis. Decisions related to the type and
location of the microsource (generation within the microgrid),
the network configuration best suited to address specific
needs, and optimum location of distribution assets such as
cables, capacitor banks and energy storage elements may
define the designs of microgrids. Decision-making also plays
an integral role in reequipping substations in light of the
proliferation of microgrids – in essence, defining the location
of intelligent controls in the microgrid. Another aspect of
microgrids that required decision-making is the economic
benefits to the owners and users of the microgrids. In this
section, a review of the application of some techniques to the
process of decision-making related to microgrids and DGs is
presented.
The deployment of grid connected DGs has been optimized
using a combination of decision-making tools such as ration
questioning technique, genetic algorithms (GA), multi-
attribute decision making, and AHP to determine the
placement and penetration level [2]. In [3], GA has been used
to optimize capacitor size and locations for reactive power
supply for a microgrid by maintaining voltage within system
limits in both grid connected and islanded modes. A number

of decision making techniques have been used for generation
expansion planning (GEP). GEP determines what generation
units should be constructed and when they should come on
line. The techniques used include expert systems, fuzzy logic,
neural networks, network flow, decomposition method,
simulated annealing, genetic algorithm, and AHP [4]. In a
microgrid scenario, in addition to the above considerations,
there are many other questions that must be considered in
decision-making including: 1. at what size does a microgrid
become economical? 2. how much solar or wind power can be
added to a microgrid without exceeding operating constraints?
3. how much more will customers pay for premium or green
power? [5]. Decision making for microgrids can be made
using expert judgments and opinions alone or in conjunction
with other decision-making techniques.
A Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) algorithm has been
proposed in [6] to determine the optimal reconfiguration of
existing networks into microgrids. The primary focus is the
benefits to the customer including economic benefits and
reliability improvements. The SMC algorithm considers 1)
the possible points of common coupling that could be used for
a sustainable microgrid in the existing distribution system and
the loads and available DGs on the lateral branches; 2) the net
savings to the customer which is the difference in cost
between being supplied by the utility and using the microgrid
resources as well as the sale of power from the microgrid to
the grid; and 3) the reliability improvements due to islanding
of the microgrid during distribution system disturbances.
Microgrids have the potential to provide not only primary
service (real power) but ancillary services as well [6].
The use of distributed energy resource power electronic
inverters has been proposed to provide nonactive-power-
related ancillary services. These services include voltage
regulation, reactive power compensation, power factor
correction, voltage and/or current imbalance compensation,
and harmonics compensation. The ancillary services are
provided by using the power electronic inverter controllers
using various operating algorithms to generate the desired
ancillary services. Some ancillary services, such as power
factor correction at to near unity power factor, may require
higher capacity inverters [7]. The power of decision-making
tools can be exploited in deriving the optimum operational and
economic benefit from the variety of ancillary services
available from a microgrid.
Constrained optimization has been used to minimize the
energy costs of running various DG units connected in a
microgrid [5]. Dynamic programming has been used to
optimize a microgrid for costs subject to reliability constraints.
This method determines optimal interconnection between
loads and sources based on location and available rights-of-
way [8]. [9] presents a fuzzy set analysis of decision-making
applied to system management in microgrids. Microgrids can
provide benefits to consumers, microsource owners, and
distribution operators using appropriate system management
which can be accomplished through a combination of a
microgrid central controller, microsource controllers, and load
controllers. In [9], a cost-benefit approach is used employing
2
fuzzy sets to model statistical distributions of costs, value of
the microsource output, and loads in the microgrid. The
benefits are a reduction in energy not delivered to the
consumer, revenue for the microsource, and reduced reliability
penalties and indices for the distribution operator. The
economic model used is one based on tariffs and penalties
appropriately designed to encourage microsource, especially
on an islanded microgrid [9]. In the next section, a brief
introduction to a popular decision-making tool, the AHP, is
provided in an algorithmic form.
III. ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
AHP is a framework for problem solving that organizes
judgments into a hierarchy of criteria that influence decisions.
AHP is based on the use of information and experience to
estimate relative magnitudes through paired comparisons. The
relative magnitudes are used to create ratio scales. The
comparisons are arranged in a hierarchic structure used to
organize judgments by breaking a problem down into
constituent parts [10].
AHP uses pair-wise comparisons of all elements of a
system arranged in a reciprocal matrix to determine relative
priorities among all elements of that system. The priorities of
the elements are the values of the eigenvector of the largest
real positive Eigen value. AHP is described in several sources
including the Analytic Hierarchy Process [10]. An
algorithmic approach to AHP is as follows:
1. Structure the problem as a hierarchy in the form of
Figure 1. The hierarchy begins at the top most level with an
overall objective to be attained. The next level under the
objective is the set of criteria that must be met in order to meet
the objective. The lowest level consists of the various
alternatives offered or available to meet the objective.
2. Elicit expert judgments on pairwise comparisons of
elements using a 1 to 9 scale shown in Table 1 and set up an
n×n reciprocal judgment matrix [A], where n corresponds to
the number of elements to be compared with each other
leading to n(n-1)/2 comparisons,
3. Calculate the largest positive real Eigen value, λmax, and
the corresponding eigenvector of the judgment matrix [A] by
solving (1).
4. Rank the matrix elements based on the corresponding
values in the Eigenvector.
5. Check the results for consistency and sensitivity to
changes in judgment. The consistency index, shown in (2), is
the average magnitude of the smaller Eigen values which
yields an appealing measure of the deviation of consistency in
the application of AHP [11]. Dividing the consistency index
by the random consistency index gives the consistency
ratio,(3), of the comparison matrix. The random consistency
index (Ri) varies by matrix size and is 0.52 for a 3×3 matrix to
1.58 for a 15×15 matrix. The interested reader is pointed to
[12] and [10] for obtaining further information about AHP.
AHP is considered a “soft” method since it does not solely
rely on mathematical analysis. “Hard” methods such as
evolutionary programming, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation,
neural network, and genetic algorithm (GA) depend on
 3

mathematical expression of historical data. The ‘hard’ dispatch, load shedding, and optimizing cost. These
methods do not consider popular aspects such as economic applications of AHP are briefly described below.
development and changes in such factors as industrial AHP/ANP (the analytic network process is an extension of
structure, life, and weather [13]. A ‘soft’ method like AHP AHP) has been used to select generating power units for
considers subjective and objective aspects – thus, providing a optimal price allocation and to verify the result against optimal
significant advantage over ‘hard’ methods. power flow requirements to correct the unit commitment
results in [14]. The use of AHP in this application deals with
OBJECTIVE preferences for different types of power generating units based
on policy considerations. Standard optimization techniques
for unit commitment are not capable of handling such
CRITERIA 2 CRITERIA 3
constraints [14]. AHP is used for generation expansion
CRITERIA 1
planning, which determines what generation units should be
constructed and when they should come on line. Other
methods used include expert systems, fuzzy logic, neural
ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5
networks, network flow, decomposition method, simulated
Figure 1. Typical AHP hierarchy structure [10]. annealing, and genetic algorithm [4]. AHP has been applied
to forecast system loads based on historical loads and seasonal
TABLE 1. AHP SCALE DIRECTLY TAKEN FROM [10] variations in weather [15]. The selection and design of HVDC
Intensity of Definition Explanation
Importance lines has employed AHP [16].
1 Equal Two activities contribute equally to AHP has been used to predict the impact of protection
Importance the objective scheme failures on the western electricity coordinating council
2 Weak
3 Moderate Experience and judgment slightly (WECC, formerly WSCC) system. The application described
Importance favor one activity over another in [11] uses a reduced model of the WECC system with 29
4 Moderate Plus generators and 179 busses. The analysis in [11] incorporates
5 Strong Experience and judgment strongly
Importance favor one activity over another expert opinions on the impacts of various faults on system
6 Strong Plus stability. The results of the AHP study are compared to the
7 Very Strong or An activity is favored very strongly results of the same system analyzed using detailed simulation
demonstrated over another; its dominance
importance demonstrated in practice analysis. The two methods of study produced similar results,
8 Very, Very validating the AHP approach. AHP has the advantage of
Strong
9 Extreme The evidence favoring one activity
simplicity and reduced processing requirements. [11]
Importance over another is of the highest possible provides a brief description of the AHP methodology as well.
order of affirmation AHP has been applied to the prioritization of power line
maintenance. Maintenance can be done on a periodic basis or
⎡ 1 a12 a13 " a1n ⎤ ⎡ w1 ⎤ ⎡ w1 ⎤ (1) a state condition basis. Periodic maintenance only considers
⎢1 / a 1 a 23 " a 2 n ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ w2 ⎥⎥ ⎢w ⎥ time, while state condition maintenance considers the actual
⎢ 12 ⎢ 2⎥ condition of the equipment. Maintenance decisions are
⎢1 / a13 1 / a 23 1 " a3n ⎥ ⎢ w3 ⎥ = λ ⎢ w3 ⎥ complex, and include factors such as network management,
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ security, and scheduling. [17] proposed using AHP to
⎢ # # # % # ⎥⎢ # ⎥ ⎢ # ⎥ determine the maintenance sequence for lines based on factors
⎢⎣1 / a1n 1 / a 2 n 1 / a3n " 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ wn ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ wn ⎥⎦ influencing reliability and economical efficiency. The factors
considered that influence reliability and economical efficiency
are power-off time, operating costs, equipment condition,
C i = (λ max − n ) / (n − 1) (2)
environmental affection, circuit grade, and consumer losses.
C i = (λ max − n ) / (n − 1) / Ri (3) Each line was rated on these six factors. AHP was found to be
an efficient method of ranking lines for maintenance [17].
Ri = 1.98(n − 2) / n (4)
An application to the deployment and configurations of
various types of DGs (wind, solar, gas turbine, biomass, and
IV. APPLICATION OF AHP IN THE DESIGN, OPERATION, AND bagasse) on the distribution network employing an AHP based
MARKET OPERATION OF POWER SYSTEMS INCLUDING data envelopment analysis (DEA) and comparing the result
MICROGRIDS with that of multi-attribute decision making (MADM) is
AHP has been used for a number of applications in power presented in [18]. AHP is used to determine the relative
systems engineering such as generating unit selection, importance of three factors: capital cost, energy not served per
protection systems, line maintenance, DG deployment and annum, and profits from injecting power into the grid at peak
configurations, analysis of energy planning under uncertainty, load. The AHP result is fed into both the DEA and MADM
locating and sizing of VAR sources, value based budgeting, tools. The process is described by the following steps: 1.
choosing dispatch scenarios, forecasting loads, integrated Identify stakeholders and attributes, 2. Use AHP to prioritize
resource planning, determining combined active and reactive those attributes, 3. Use tradeoff analysis to short list a feasible

set of DG configuration plans, 4. Compare the result to that of
MADM with the same input as that of the AHP study. A
composite utility function (CUF) is also proposed to identify
omitted plans that have good performance [18].
Ration questioning technique, genetic algorithm (GA),
MADM, and AHP have been employed to determine the
placement and penetration level to optimize the deployment of
grid connected DGs in [2]. The methodology uses GA to
select the best 600 out of 10,000 chromosomes, cross-over
technique to select the best 70% of the 600, and MADM with
AHP to rank the remaining choices. The base level of the
AHP hierarchy consists of capital cost, emission
(environmental, fuels, etc.) reactive power, voltage profile,
loads, and network congestion. The next level up consists of
public will, privatization, economical investment, and public
acceptance. The next level up (just below the goal of best
plan) is benefits to the public, utility, and consumer. The DGs
modeled have constant power factor or PQ mode [2].
Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) and AHP have been
compared and contrasted in their abilities to analyze local
energy planning problems in uncertain circumstances in [19].
MAUT uses a utility function to describe the preferences of
the decision maker. MAUT weighs the strength of
preferences and attitude towards risk for each criterion and
then measures tradeoffs between criteria separately. Several
methods have been proposed to adapt AHP to handle
uncertainty. Risk adjustment procedure is considered the most
likely to properly incorporate uncertainty. The risk adjustment
procedure first uses AHP to rank alternatives that are certain
based on performance, and then uses AHP to rank these
certain alternatives with other risky alternatives to obtain risk
adjustment factors. The “certainty AHP values” are then
multiplied by the risk adjustment factors to obtain the “risk
adjusted AHP values.” However, because of the many
additional comparisons required for risk adjustment procedure,
the probability distributions of the attributes were included in
the comparison of alternatives. The problem considered in the
comparison in [19] involves possible deployment of a
combined heat and power (CHP) plant and considers five
criteria: investment; operating cost; CO2 emissions; NOx
emissions; and heat dump from the CHP plant. Four grid-
connected alternatives are considered to supply increases in
local demand: reinforcing the local electrical grid; building a
CHP near an industrial site to serve industrial and residential
customers; building a CHP near a residential area serving that
area only; or building a larger CHP near a residential area
serving that area only and produce more electricity. The
conclusions of [19] are that both multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) methods lack generality. MAUT is only
valid for the attribute ranges assessed and AHP requires a new
set of comparisons for each new problem. AHP in general
form is not designed for uncertainties and in the problem
presented and the use of the probability distributions of the
attributes in the comparison of alternatives made comparisons
difficult. The use of the risk adjustment procedure would
likely be a better approach since it separates comparison of
attributes and risks. MAUT was found to be better at dealing
4
with uncertainties. However, problems easily arise when
determining preferences in terms of the multi-attribute utility
function [19].
Accelerated ant colony (AAC) has been used in
conjunction with AHP to determine where to install new VAR
sources to maintain system voltage stability and minimize the
voltage deviation at each bus in [20]. VAR planning using
heuristic or approximate techniques tends to lead to
optimization at the local level and not at the global level.
Techniques using simulated annealing (SA), GA, and tabu
search (TS) have been employed to optimize at both the local
and global levels. In [20], AHP is used to convert objective
functions for power loss and investment, security margin, and
voltage deviation into a single weighted objective function.
AAC is then used to resolve this objective function in [20].
The value based budgeting (VBB) process uses an
economic metric, AHP, and linear programming (LP) to
evaluate requirements of safety, reliability, profitability and
other factors to maximize benefits within budgetary
constraints applied to distribution systems investments [21].
AHP is used to prioritize elements in a benefits hierarchy.
Proposed projects are then evaluated against the hierarchy.
Once project benefit scores are calculated, LP is used to select
a subset with maximum benefit that meets budgetary
constraints [21].
Optimal dispatch scenarios have been selected using AHP
to rank alternatives based on agreed-upon preferences [22].
Dispatch scenarios with different constraints are considered
and compared using AHP. A base case where the line limit
constraint is ignored is calculated to provide reference values
for the analysis of the various scenarios [22].
Improved AHP has been used for medium to long term
electric power load forecasting in [13] that uses a fuzzy
complementary judgment scale in the AHP matrix. The fuzzy
complementary judgment scale uses five comparison levels
shown in Table II, taken directly from [13].
TABLE II. FUZZY COMPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT SCALE USED IN IMPROVED
AHP TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM [13]
aij Meaning of aij aji
0.5 Ai is same importance as Aj 0.5
0.6 Ai is a little more important than Aj 0.4
0.7 Ai is more important than Aj 0.3
0.8 Ai is very much more important than Aj 0.2
0.9 Ai is absolutely more important than Aj 0.1
In [13] AHP is used to rank the results of traditional
forecasting methods against criteria of highest fitting accuracy
for historical data, concordance with future economic
development, suitability of methods to actual state, and
believability of forecast results to arrive at a satisfactory load
forecast. Historical forecasting methods used are regression
analysis, elasticity coefficient, production value per unit
consumption, grey (GM), and neural network (NN) [13].
AHP is employed in [23] to prioritize local integrated
resource planning (LIRP), which is an efficient least cost
planning tool for distribution systems. The studies in [23]
examined the applicability of AHP to prioritize the use of DG
and demand side management (DSM) to allow for deferred

investment in the distribution system. MCDA is necessary to
evaluate criteria with tangible (economic) and intangible
(environmental, customer satisfaction, power quality) factors.
AHP is chosen to prioritize demand side resources which
includes evaluating priorities of customers, priorities of DG
versus DSM, and priorities of planning criteria (reliability,
environmental, voltage quality, and financial). Surveys were
conducted with the utility customer base (residential,
commercial and industrial) as well as with utility planners to
establish priority weights for the AHP matrix comparisons
[23].
Combined active and reactive dispatch (CARD), which is
used to achieve an overall objective of minimum generation
cost and improve the distribution of reactive power and
voltage subject to system security constraints, has been
accomplished with a combination of LP (sparse dual revised
simplex method with relaxation) and AHP in [24]. Here, AHP
is used to provide weights to five objective functions-
minimization of generation fuel costs; maximization of
reactive power reserve margins; voltage maximization;
avoidance of voltage collapse; and improving the ability of the
system to maintain higher loads- that are then resolved with
linear programming.
AHP has been shown to rank alternatives for integrated
resource planning (IRP) for electric utilities in [25]. Seven
scenarios were evaluated under high, medium, and low risk
conditions and the overall ranking of each scenario was
determined by the sum of the products of the scenario
rankings under each risk condition with the probability of the
risk condition. Validation for this approach was provided by
agreement of the AHP study results with actual utility
decisions [25].
In [26], AHP has been used to prioritize loads in an islanded
microgrid in order to allow for appropriate load shedding. The
vital, semi-vital, or non-vital nature of loads is weighed under
various circumstances such as cruising or combat to determine
priorities under those circumstances. The load priorities are
used by a control action module (CAM) to shed loads. The
CAM determines the optimal control actions to shed the low
priority load [26].
AHP has been used for cost optimization of a microgrid
using unit commitment in [27]. The unit commitment
strategies are: linear power sharing based on a frequency
droop scheme; nonlinear power sharing based on nonlinear
power deployment curves of each unit; dynamic power
sharing that uses different y-intercept frequencies for each unit
so they move independently; optimal power sharing that uses
“a highly nonlinear power sharing scheme” optimized for a
specific purpose. The optimal power sharing problem may be
a constrained optimization problem with requirements to meet
loads and minimize cost. One constraint is that the power
produced by the generators must meet demand. Other
constraints are reserve requirements and heat generation
requirements. The optimal operation of such a system will
likely require a communications infrastructure for the
microgrid [27]. Based on the above discussion on the
application of AHP to electric power systems engineering, it is
5
envisioned in this paper to provide some avenues of analogous
applications of the AHP to the islanded microgrid.
V. APPLICATIONS OF AHP IN THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF
ISLANDED MICROGRIDS
As seen from the above discussion, AHP is already a useful
tool in the design and operation of power systems. AHP could
be further employed for the same kinds of functions for an
islanded microgrid.
Firstly, priorities determined using AHP could be employed
in the process of determining an optimal mix of microsources
(generation) for powering an islanded microgrid with specific
constraints on operation and demand. This mix of generation
would need to minimize fuel consumption and meet
constraints of supplying the desired loads within the
capabilities of the selected microsources. As noted above, the
use of AHP for generation expansion planning has the
advantage of being able to account for policy considerations
that a standard optimization problem could not handle [34].
For example, AHP could include regulatory preferences for
particular types of DG such as wind or solar power. AHP
could also be used in selecting DGs capable of providing the
ancillary services required (or desired) of the microgrid.
Factors considered for selecting the mix of DGs in a microgrid
would include individual DG capacities, CHP requirements,
emission restrictions, DG limitations and dispatchability, and
deployment costs.
Secondly, AHP can be used to determine the configuration
of microgrids and allocation of distribution assets.
AHP determined priorities could be used in the planning
stages of changing a portion of a radial distribution system
into an interconnected (meshed) microgrid that can function
reliably in an islanded mode to support its end users. AHP
could be used to generate priority lists of new connections
required to establish network redundancy, assure adequate
system capacity, and increased reliability to end user. Factors
considered for new connections might include availability of
right-of-way, zoning restrictions, existing system capacity and
routes, load and DG distribution in the system, reliability,
stability, and N-1 contingencies. AHP could also be used to
determine to the location of system intelligence and the
sensory and communications network structures required for
the chosen configuration.
Thirdly, AHP has already been used to determine load
shedding priorities in an islanded system [26]. A similar
analysis could be incorporated into a candidate microgrid
controller and included in the global control scheme of the
microgrid that could consider the social, technical, and
economic benefits of serving a particular load during an
islanded scenario.
Fourthly, AHP could be used to determine the conditions
and procedures to island a microgrid. A variety of scenarios
could be analyzed using AHP and the results stored in a
database which is accessible by the microgrid system
controller. When particular situations arise, the controller
would select from the predetermined priority sets to determine
the optimum mode of operation. Factors considered would

include microgrid DG fuel costs, utility rates for the sale or
purchase of electricity, incentives from the utility and
electrical and market disturbances in the interconnected grid.
Finally, in addition to the applications suggested by
analogous grid connected scenarios, decision-making using
AHP may also be employed to determine the procedures for
selecting and trading primary ancillary services within an
islanded microgrid as well as between multiple instances of
islanded microgrids.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
AHP is a decision making tool based on expert judgments
that has been successfully applied in design and operation for
the power systems. AHP has the advantage over other
analytical methods of being able to incorporate subjective
constraints. AHP has been used in power systems for selection
of generating units, identifying protection system
vulnerability, prioritizing line maintenance, determining DG
deployment and configurations, analyzing energy planning
under uncertainty, locating and sizing of VAR sources, value
based budgeting, choosing dispatch scenarios, forecasting
loads, integrated resource planning, determining combined
active and reactive dispatch, load shedding, and optimizing
cost. In this paper, the applicability of the AHP as a candidate
decision-making tool for similar applications in the context of
islanded microgrid planning and operation is probed.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] S. Suryanarayanan, W. Ren, M. Steurer, P. Ribeiro, G. T. Heydt, “A
real-time controller concept demonstration for distributed generation
interconnection,” Proc. 2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, Montreal, QC, Canada, Jun. 06.
[2] S. Kamalina, S. Afsharnia, M. E. Khodayar, A. Rahimikian, M. A.
Sharbafi, “A Combination of MADM and Genetic Algorithm for
Optimal DG Allocation in Power Systems,” Proc. 42nd International
Universities Power Engineering Conference, 2007, pp. 1031-1035.
[3] S. A. Al-Askari, S. J. Ranade, J. Mitra, "Designing a Sufficient Reactive
Power Supply Scheme to Multi Islands in a Microgrid," Proc. 2006
IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, pp. 8.
[4] J. Zhu, M. Chow, “A Review of Emerging Techniques on Generation
Expansion Planning,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12,
No. 4, Nov. 1997, pp 1722-1728.
[5] H. Asanol, S. Bandol, "Economic Analysis of Microgrids," Proc. 2007
Power Conversion Conference, pp. 654-658.
[6] E. Ghiani, S. Mocci, F. Pilo, “Optimal Reconfiguration of Distribution
Networks According to the Microgrid Paradigm,” Proc. 2005
International Conference on Future Power Systems, pp. 6.
[7] Y. Xu, L. M. Tolbert, D. T. Rizy, J. D. Kueck, “Nonactive-Power-
Related Ancillary Service Provided by Distributed Energy Resources,”
Proc. 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, pp. 1-7.
[8] S. B. Patra, J. Mitra, S. J. Ranade, "Microgrid Architecture: A
Reliability Constrained Approach," Proc. 2005 IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, Vol, 3, pp. 2372- 2377.
[9] P. M. Costa, M. A. Matos, “Economic Analysis of Microgrids Including
Reliability Aspects” Proc. 9th International Conference on Probabilistic
Methods Applied to Power Systems, 2006, pp. 1-8.
[10] T. L. Saaty, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with
the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications: PA, 1994.
[11] K. A. Nigim, S. Suryanarayanan, R. Gorur, R. G. Farmer, “The
application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze the impact of
hidden failures in special protection schemes,” Electric Power Systems
Research, Dec. 2003, Vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 191-196.
[12] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill: New York,
1980.
6
[13] Z. Rnn-Jun, D. Xian-Zhong, “Optimal combined load forecast based on
the improved analytic hierarchy process,” Proc. 2002 International
Conference on Power System Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 1096- 1100.
[14] J. A. Momoh, J. Z. Zhu, “Application of AHP/ANP to Unit Commitment
in the Deregulated Power Industry,” Proc. 1998 International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 817-822.
[15] J. A. Momoh, J. Z. Zhu, “Optimal Generation Scheduling Based on
AHP/ANP,” IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics –
Part B: Cybernetics, Vol. 33, No. 3, June 2003, pp. 531-535.
[16] S. Wang, G. Tang, Z. He, “Comprehensive Evaluation of VSC-HVDC
Transmission Based on Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process,” 3rd
International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and
Restructuring and Power Technologies, 2008, pp. 2207-2211.
[17] Z. Lin, L. Gao, D. Zhang, P. Ren, Y. Li, “Application of Analytic
Hierarchy Process in Power Lines Maintenance,” 6th World Congress
on Intelligent Control and Automation, 2006, pp. 7596-7599.
[18] A. P. Agalgaonkar, S. V. Kulkarni, S. A. Khaparde, "Evaluation of
Configuration Plans for DGs in Developing Countries Using Advanced
Planning Techniques" IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, May 2006,
Vol. 21, No.2, pp. 973-981.
[19] E. Loken, A. Botterud, A. T. Holen, “Decision Analysis and
Uncertainties in Planning Local Energy Systems,” Proc. 2006
International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power
Systems, pp.1-8.
[20] R. Ghazi, A. Arabpour, “Optimal Multi-Objective VAr Planning Using
Accelerated Ant Colony and Analytical Hierarchy Process Methods,”
Proc. 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference &
Exhibition: Asia and Pacific, pp. 1-7.
[21] M. Sheehan, S. Williams, C. Brace, M. Sullivan, “Optimal allocation of
resources to distribution investments using the analytic hierarchy
process to balance the impacts of investments on safety, customer
interruption costs, levelized annual revenue requirement, contribution to
margin and other considerations,” Proc. 2000 IEEE Power Engineering
Society Summer Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 1311-1316.
[22] M. J. Alomoush, “Using performance indices and analytic hierarchy
process to select best dispatch option of energy markets,” Proc. 39th
International Universities Power Engineering Conference, 2004, Vol. 2,
pp. 999-1003.
[23] A. S. Malik, C. U. Sumaoy, “Demand-Side Resources Prioritization in
Distributed Local IRP,” Proc. 2000 International Conference on Power
System Technology, pp. 1245-1250.
[24] J. Z. Zhu, M. R. Irving, “Combined active and reactive dispatch with
multiple objectives using an analytic hierarchical process,” IEE Proc.
Generation, Transmission and Distribution , Vol. 143, No. 4, Jul. 1996,
pp. 344-352.
[25] R. R. Clark, “Choosing an Integrated Resource Plan for Electric
Utilities: An Analytic Hierarchy Approach,” Proc. 31st Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, IECE 1996, pp. 2197-
2201.
[26] Z. Ding, D. A. Cartes, S. Srivastava, “New Load Shedding Scheme for
Islanded Power Systems,” Proc. 2006 IEEE/SMC International
Conference on System of Systems Engineering, pp. 167-172.
[27] C. A. Hernandez-Aramburo, T. C. Green, N. Mugniot, “Fuel
Consumption Minimization of a Microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, Vol. 41, No. 3, May/June 2005, pp. 673-681.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Roy K. Rietz (M’05) works for Stanley consultants in Englewood Colorado.
He graduated with a BSEE in 1989 and in 1992 with a JD both from the
University of Nebraska Lincoln. He is a patent attorney and holds a Colorado
law license. He has over 10 years experience in Telecommunications
regulation and interconnection. He is currently a PhD student at the Colorado
School of Mines in electrical engineering.
Siddharth Suryanarayanan (S’00, M’04) holds the Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. He is currently an
Assistant Professor of Engineering at Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO,
USA where he is affiliated with the Power Systems Engineering Research
Center (PSerc, www.pserc.org). Previously, Dr. Suryanarayanan held research
positions in the faculties of Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL and
Arizona State University during 2004-2008.