IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO.

2, MARCH 2015 1035

Low Carbon Oriented Expansion Planning

of Integrated Gas and Power Systems
Jing Qiu, Member, IEEE, Zhao Yang Dong, Senior Member, IEEE, Jun Hua Zhao, Member, IEEE,
Ke Meng, Member, IEEE, Yu Zheng, Student Member, IEEE, and David J. Hill, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—As a clean fuel source, natural gas plays an important Capital cost of added gas pipeline .
role in achieving a low-carbon economy in the power industry. Operation cost of gas compressor .
Owing to the uncertainties introduced by increasing utilization of
natural gas in electric power system, gas system and electricity Operation cost of the coupled gas and power
system should be planned in an integrated manner. When consid- system.
ering these two systems simultaneously, there are many emerging Annual operation cost in the base case.
difficulties, e.g., increased system complexity and risk, market
timeline mismatch, overall system reliability evaluation, etc. In Annual operation cost in a planned case.
this paper, a novel expansion co-planning (ECP) framework Annual cost of carbon emission in the base
is proposed to address the above challenges. In our approach,
case.
the planning process is modeled as a mixed integer nonlinear
optimization problem. The best augmentation option is a plan
Annual cost of carbon emission in a planned
with the highest cost/benefit ratio. Benefits of expansion planning case.
considered are reductions in operation cost, carbon emission cost, Internal diameter for gas pipe .
and unreliability cost. By identifying several scenarios based on Dimensionless friction factor for gas pipe
statistical analysis and expert knowledge, decision analysis is used
to tackle market uncertainties. The operational and economic
.
interdependency of both systems are well analyzed. Case studies Specific gravity ratio.
on a three-bus gas and two-bus power system, plus the Victorian Gas volume under normal and other
integrated gas and electricity system in Australia are presented to conditions for gas pipe .
validate the performance of the proposed framework.
Constant determined by the air constant .
Index Terms—Co-optimization, expansion planning and deci-
sion analysis, natural gas systems.
Length for gas pipe .
Power for compressor ( ).
Generated active and reactive power at
NOMENCLATURE generator .
Active and reactive power demand at .
First, second, and third order coefficient of
the operation cost of compressor . Curtailed power demand until no violations
First, second, and third order cost coefficient of network constraints.
of power generator . Reactive power demand at .
Capital cost of added power line . Gas load of GPGs at .
Capital cost of added GPG at . Load that can be mutually transferred between
Capital cost of added compressor at . electricity and gas.
Gas supplied at .
Manuscript received March 19, 2014; revised July 02, 2014 and July 02, Gas consumed at .
2014; accepted October 28, 2014. Date of publication December 10, 2014;
date of current version February 17, 2015. This work was supported in part by Gas output at gas producer .
CSIRO Future Grid Flagship Grant Project 2 co-planning and optimization of
gas and electricity networks and in part by National Natural Science Foundation Gas constant ( , ).
of China (51107114, 51177145). Paper no. TPWRS-00274-2014. Gas flow and power flow between branch
J. Qiu, J. H. Zhao, K. Meng, and Y. Zheng are with the Center for Intelligent
Electricity Networks (CIEN), The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, .
Australia (e-mail: qiujing0322@gmail.com; andy.zhao@newcastle.edu.au; Gas volumetric flow rate at compressor .
kemeng@ieee.org; zhy9639@hotmail.com).
Z. Y. Dong is with the School of Electrical and Information Engineering, the Time and total planning horizon.
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia (e-mail: zydong@ieee.org). Bus voltages with angles , at and ,
D. J. Hill is with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and also with the School of Elec- respectively.
trical and Information Engineering, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, New and old self admittance for power line
Australia (e-mail: dhill@eee.hku.hk). .
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
New and old mutual admittance for power
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2369011 line .

0885-8950 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1036
Gas constant compressibility factor.
Risk-free rate.
Binary decision variables for power line and
gas pipeline respectively between . and physical characteristics of gas could significantly affect
Binary decision variable for GPG at .
Binary decision variable for compressor at .
Carbon emission coefficient of generator .
Angle of admittance element.
Gas pressure under normal and other
conditions.
Gas pressure at and .
Outlet, inlet pressures of a compressor.
Gas density under normal and other
conditions.
Gas temperature under normal and other
conditions.
Heat rate of natural gas.
Polytropic exponent of empirical equations.
Overall efficiency of compressor .
New circuit admittance of power line . In the literature, there are some works studying the integrated
Gas production cost coefficient.
Initial linepack between gas pipe . concept of energy flows for simulating operation planning [3],
Linepack at time .
Power system admittance matrix.
Capacity factor of power generator .
Capacity factor of gas producer .
Capacity factor of gas compressor .
Carbon price.
Value of customer reliability.
Expected unserved energy in the base case.
Expected unserved energy in a planned case.
Upper and lower limits
Set for nodes.
Set for nodes with gas-fired power generation.
Set for nodes with power generators.
Set for nodes with gas compressors.
Set for nodes with dual energy consumption
capability.
Set for nodes with gas producers.
I. INTRODUCTION
A S one of the major emission sources, electric power
sector should take significant responsibility to achieve a
low-carbon economy. Owing to the impacts of carbon policies,
the power generation mix would move towards the use of
less carbon-intensive fuels [1]. Among traditional fossil fuels,
natural gas is expected to play an increasingly important role
in power generation due to the distinct advantages of gas-fired
power generation (GPG) units, such as low capital investment,
fast response capability, low carbon emission, etc. The gas
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015
pipelines and power transmission networks are coupled by
GPG units, which can be considered as consumers in gas
networks and suppliers in electricity networks. The economic
the power system planning practices towards a low-carbon
economy.
Many problems would arise when determining the location
and timing of GPG development, taking into account the limits
of gas production, gas transmission and electricity transmission
[2]–[4]. Given the strong interdependency between gas and
power systems, the gas and electricity transmission networks
should be considered as a combined energy infrastructure [5].
For example, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
operates both national electricity and gas markets. AEMO
owns no network infrastructure, but it regulates the third parties
who maintain and augment the network infrastructure [6].
Meanwhile, AEMO provides planning advices on network
constraints, capability and augmentation proposals, but leaving
investment decisions to market participants [6]. Therefore, it
is urgent to formulate a strategic expansion co-planning (ECP)
framework for the integrated gas and electricity network.
modeling of gas and power networks, in order to achieve an op-
timal operation of the coupled energy system. An example is the
[4], [7]–[10]. Commonly used constraints for the coupled model
are nodal balance, nodal voltage and pressure limits, thermal
limits, generation limits in active and reactive power, gas flow
limits in pipes, compressor working constraints, and gas con-
tracts and reserves [4], [11]–[13]. Those technical constraints
are essential for ensuring safe and reliable energy supply in a
coupled energy market. A few studies have been conducted on
the integrated power system generation and transmission expan-
sion planning (EP), but failed to consider the fuel availability
of the primary energy supply and the fuel network operating
conditions [14]–[16]. The authors of [5] proposed an approach
to model the integrated EP of electricity and gas systems as a
long-term, multi-area, multi-stage problem. However, they only
studied system value chain and the optimal dispatch of existing
and new facilities, but did not define clear system performance
criteria, e.g., reliability.
By contrast, this paper proposes an expansion planning
framework which can take into account the market interac-
tions among various stakeholders, including gas transmission
companies, power generation companies, power transmission
companies, and independent system operator (ISO). The pro-
posed expansion planning model can consider GPGs' access
to cheap fuels and the bottlenecks in power transmission. The
proposed model is formulated as a co-optimization problem
from the viewpoint of the ISO, which reflects the dynamic,
nonlinear, and non-convex nature of integrated energy net-
works. The objective is to maximize cost/benefit ratios of
different augmentation options, while enhancing the economic
efficiency of assets and achieving a low-carbon economy in the
power industry through the planning practice. Network com-
ponents considered in our planning model are gas pipelines,
compressor stations, GPG plants, and power transmission lines.
The market uncertainties involved in the planning process are
QIU et al.: LOW CARBON ORIENTED EXPANSION PLANNING OF INTEGRATED GAS AND POWER SYSTEMS
tackled through decision analysis. We used the cost/benefit
ratio method to compare augmentation alternatives in terms
of the capital investment, cost reduction and market benefits
(e.g., enhancing market competition). The proposed model is
formulated as a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the gas
system model. Section III gives a detailed mathematical formu-
lation of the ECP, subject to a range of technical constraints. The
application of the proposed approach to the coupled energy sys-
tems is presented in Section IV. Finally, Section V concludes
the work.
II. NATURAL GAS SYSTEM MODEL
A. Overview of Gas Network Model
Gas networks comprise nodes (gas producers, LNG termi-
nals, gas compressors, gas load centers, underground storage
elements, etc.) and branches (gas pipelines). Gas can be eco-
nomically stored in large quantities. Typical storage elements
are underground storage, LNG terminals and linepack [17],
[18]. Linepack (LP) is the pressurized gas stored in pipelines
throughout the gas networks [19], [20]. Storage elements are
modeled as either suppliers or consumers depending on their
operating conditions. Operating a gas network involves a
variety of technical constraints, such as nodal balances, nodal
pressure limits, pipe capacity limits, compressor working
limits, etc. Nodal gas pressures, which are analogy to power
voltages, are key variables in gas flow calculations. Gas pres-
sures decline along with the transport distance, as a result of
frictional resistance [11]. Gas compressors can compensate gas
pressure losses, so as to ensure required pressure at end users'
sites.
B. Linepack Equations
LP is proportional to the average pressure in a pipe [13]. Note
that it makes no sense to measure gas volume if gas pressure is
not defined. For simplicity, gas flow and load can be measured
by TJ/hour. Increasing the average pressure of a pipe can in-
crease the linepack, and vice versa. Gas states in pipes can be
described by four variables, which are given by the Boyle's law
as (1) and (2) [9]:
(1)
(2)
The four variables are gas pressure (kPa), volume ( ),
density ( ) and temperature (K). and are a gas
constant ( ) and the gas constant compressibility factor.
, , , are gas pressure, volume, density and temper-
ature under normal conditions. The steady state average pres-
sure of a pipe can be expressed as .
In a pipe, gas volume is equal to the pipe volume capacity, i.e.,
. , are internal diameter and length for
pipe . In a steady state, the initial LP measured in volume
( ) ( denoted by ) under normal conditions is calcu-
lated by (1) and (2) [9]:
(3)
1037
In dynamic situations, based on the law of conservation of
mass, LP changes with the initial gas stored in pipes, the net
difference between the supplied and consumed gas
in a pipe. Note gas suppliers include many market participants,
such as gas producer in gas wells/reserves, LNG regasification
terminals and gas storage. Gas consumers are compressor loads,
non-electric gas loads, GPG gas loads and gas storage. Dynamic
LP is described by (4) [9]:
(4)
C. Flow Equation
Gas flows in a steady state can be modeled by the Weymouth's
formula [7]. Gas flows and directions are dependent on nodal
pressure differences. The steady-state pipeline flow equation for
a horizontal pipeline is given as [3]
(5)
(6)
if
(7)
if
where is an air constant . denotes the specific gravity
ratio as (usually , ) [3]. ,
is the pressure at nodes or . is the dimensionless friction
factor depending on [3], [4].
D. Compressor Station Equation
Compressors consume around 3%–5% of the transmitted gas
[21], [22]. The power required by a compressor depends on the
amount of gas flows, and the difference between outlet and inlet
gas pressures, as shown in an empirical (8) [13]. The nonlinear
and non-convex nature of compressors leads to the complexity
of modeling a gas system. The operation cost of gas compressors
can be expressed as (8)–(9) [9], [18]:
(8)
(9)
E. Interaction Between Gas and Electricity
Because of technical reasons, gas production plants generally
operate at a fairly constant injection rates throughout the day,
with variations due to rescheduling [21]. For example, in the
Australia gas market, normal gas scheduling is performed on a
daily basis, with four supply reschedules at 10.00 AM, 2.00 PM,
6.00 PM, and 10.00 PM in the next day. The dispatch interval of
the Australia National Electricity Market (NEM) is five minutes
[23]. The timeline mismatch between gas and electricity mar-
kets would have great impacts on the fuel availability in GPG,
affecting the reliability of the entire system consequently. Dy-
namic power load fluctuations result in rapid gas demand vari-
ations, those variations have to be balanced by gas storage ele-
ments [9]. Among all gas storage elements, linepack plays the
1038
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for natural gas and power systems expansion co-planning.
most important role. Linepack varies considerably throughout
the day. When injections exceed demands, linepack is replen-
ished; when demands exceed injections, linepack is consumed.
Because of insufficient linepack, pressures may fall below the
critical operational level, which can potentially lead to supply
failures. Market operators require that the system linepack is
equal at the beginning of each day. This criterion is defined as
the beginning-of-day (BOD) linepack target [24].
III. EXPANSION CO-PLANNING FORMULATION
Given the interdependency between gas and power systems,
an ECP framework is proposed, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The
framework aims to assess planning assumptions including gas
supply, power generation developments and load growth, and
to establish the system planning criteria/operating system per-
formance requirements. Afterwards, based on the defined ob-
jectives, the preferred augmentation option can be identified to
enable safe and reliable energy supply over the outlook period.
The two networks are coupled by two means: 1) coupled load
centers, where energy load can be mutually transferred between
gas and electricity in some circumstances, for example heating;
2) coupled generation centers, where GPG is one form of gas
loads and is also one form of power supplies. It is worth men-
tioning that the coupling between the gas and power systems
by GPG implies twofold: 1) GPG is a gas consumer in the gas
system ; 2) the gas availability (i.e., subject to gas pipeline trans-
mission constraints and/or contingencies) and price in the gas
system will influence the power outputs and competitiveness of
GPG [25], and the operation of the power system consequently.
At the expansion planning stage, four components are consid-
ered in planning process in this paper: gas pipelines, compressor
stations, GPG plants, and power transmission lines.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015
A. Expansion Co-Planning Model
We use the benefit/cost ratio as attributes to measure expan-
sion plans. Attributes are measures of goodness of a plan, and
they are the calculation results with inputs of planning options
and uncertainties [26]. Costs are the capital costs of plans, in-
cluding three components, i.e., power lines, GPG plants and gas
pipelines. Potential benefits of network augmentation are: in-
creasing energy transfer capability, enhancing market compe-
tition, saving operation and fuel costs, etc. In this paper, the
concept of low-carbon economy has been incorporated into our
planning model [27]. The benefit/cost ratio is defined as the
benefit of the reduction in operation , unreliability
costs and carbon emission costs of power gen-
erators against the capital cost of an expansion plan.
Afterwards, planning alternatives can be ranked by comparing
benefit/cost ratios. In addition, in order to evaluate the long term
effects of expansion planning, costs and benefits are represented
by net present value (NPV), i.e., costs and benefits are dis-
counted by a risk free rate, as seen in (10) [28]. Moreover, opera-
tion costs of power generators, gas producers and gas compres-
sors are scaled by their capacity factors. The scaled operation
costs are only an estimate, and could be replaced by more accu-
rate operation costs with the yearly load profile [28]. Note that
an alternating current (AC) flow power system model is used
for reaching higher accuracy. Voltage and reactive are simply
taken into account as physical constraints of modelling a power
system [29]–[32]. The proposed co-planning model is
(10)
QIU et al.: LOW CARBON ORIENTED EXPANSION PLANNING OF INTEGRATED GAS AND POWER SYSTEMS 1039

At each simulated time period , (10) is subject to (34)

(35)

(11) (36)

(37)

(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(12)
(43)
(13)

(44)
(14)

(15) (45)

(46)
(16)
As seen, capital costs are obtained by (11). , ,
, denote binary decision variables (“1” means aug-
(17) mentation; “0” means doing nothing) for power lines, GPG
plants, compressors and power lines, respectively. The depen-
dencies of constraints to the four decision variables are given
in (22), (25), (34), and (41). We assume that the capital costs
(18) of planning components are proportional to either their lengths
(i.e., for gas pipeline and power lines) or their capacities (i.e.,
(19) for compressor stations and GPG plants). The reduction in
operation, carbon emission and unreliability costs is obtained
(20)
by the cost difference between the base case and a planned
(21) case, as shown in (12)–(16). Note that operation costs are
scaled by capacitor factors of power generators, gas producers
(22) and gas compressors. The operation cost in (12) consists of
(23) power generation cost, gas production cost and compressor
(24) operating cost. As seen, in the first term, , , and are
cost coefficients of power generator ; in the second term, is
(25)
the gas production cost coefficient and is the gas output
(26) at gas producer ; in the third term, the compressor operating
(27) cost has been explained in (9). The cost of carbon emission
is quantified by the carbon price , and is the carbon
(28) emission coefficient of generator , whose unit is ton/MWh.
As seen in (14)–(16), with notation of subscripts and ,
is the annual operation cost in the base case, and
(29) is the annual operation cost in a planned case.
(30) Likewise, and , and denote
the annual cost of carbon emission and the annual amount of
EUE in the base case and a planned case respectively. We
(31) use the value of customer reliability (VCR) to quantify the
Expected Unserved Energy (EUE) cost.
(32) AC Power flow constraints are denoted by (17)–(30). ,
are real and reactive power outputs of generator . ,
if are the forecasted real and reactive power demand. is
(33)
if the angle of admittance element in . are bus volt-
1040
ages with angles , respectively. Power flows along
are denoted by . are new and old self admittance, , inadequate generation/production and transmission capacities.
are new and old mutual admittance. is the new circuit
admittance of branch . denotes the load that can
be mutually transferred between electricity and gas (i.e., dual
energy consumption capability at coupled load centers) [33].
The generation capacity of GPGs who might be affected by gas
availability is denoted by (30). The gas availability constraint in
(30) implies that GPGs' outputs are subject to gas transmission
constraints and/or gas supply interruption due to pipeline con-
tingencies or pressure losses in gas networks. is the heat rate
of gas, is gas load of GPGs at .
Gas flow constraints are denoted by (31)–(42). Gas nodal bal-
ance at is combined with gas flows, flow to compressors, sup-
plies and consumptions as shown in (31). Note gas linepack can
be obtained by (1)–(4), depending on the difference between
gas supply and consumption in (31). Gas flows are obtained
by (32)–(34). Equation (35)–(41) are technical constraints of
gas compressors, including the upper compressor pressure ratio
, inlet and outlet compressor pressures, compressor
flow , compressor consumed power , etc. Gas produc-
tion limits of gas producers are (42).
Equations (43)–(46) are the reliability criterion measured by
expected unserved energy (EUE). Note that when violations
of network constraint are identified, load curtailment is re-
quired. For each violation, an optimization process is involved,
aiming to minimize the total curtailed power load, as shown in
(44)–(45) [34].
, , , , , and denote sets for nodes,
nodes with GPGs, nodes with all power generators, nodes with
compressors, nodes with dual energy consumption capability
and gas producers, respectively.
B. Market Uncertainties
There are many uncertainties in a deregulated environment
for the combined natural gas and electricity market: 1) load fore-
cast uncertainty; 2) installation and closure of other transmis-
sion facilities; 3) transmission expansion costs; 4) fuel avail-
ability and cost; 5) market behaviors of participants; 6) public
opinions; 7) interest and inflation rates, etc. [29], [35].
In this paper, we apply the decision analysis to check the
robustness of different planning options under a range of un-
certainties, which are represented by futures/scenarios. The ex-
posed risks due to uncertainties are measured by regret. A robust
plan should be optimal for all futures, which means its regret is
zero for all futures. When there is no robust plan, we have to
make a choice among various plans, such as by minimizing the
maximum regret, or by minimizing the average regret, or by
maximizing the maximum benefits etc. [26].
C. System Reliability
The network security criterion is widely used for an
electric power system. A natural gas system does not have such
a strict security criterion for operation, because the stored gas
can be used during pipeline contingencies. However, system ad-
equacy evaluation is essential for both gas and electricity trans-
mission networks. We propose the use of EUE as the adequacy
criterion for our expansion co-planning problem. The EUE is the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015
amount of energy (gas and electricity) that is not satisfied due to
Only the compromised end-users' energy demand is considered,
which means that under the gas supply constraints the curtailed
gas demand of GPG is not included.
D. Solution Method
Since the expansion co-planning in a combined gas and elec-
tricity market is basically a mixed integer nonlinear optimiza-
tion problem. This problem cannot be easily solved by conven-
tional optimization tools. The fuzzy particle swarm optimization
(FPSO) is proposed to search the maximum benefit/cost plan-
ning solution region. More details about FPSO can be found in
[36]. The programming is undertaken on a PC with a 3.10-GHz
CPU (Intel Core i5–2400) and 4 G of RAM.
IV. CASE STUDIES
The proposed system ECP model has been tested on a
three-bus gas and two-bus power system, plus a simplified
Victorian gas and electricity transmission network in Australia.
The results have verified the effectiveness and the real applica-
bility of the proposed planning methodology. Uncertainties are
represented by different scenarios. The results are compared
with the separated gas and electricity expansion planning (EP).
A. Experiment Setting
Considering the timeline mismatch between gas and elec-
tricity markets, it is essential to simulate daily linepack varia-
tions. It should be noted that the beginning-of-day (BoD) and
end-of-day (EoD) linepack are equal in a gas system. The daily
gas dispatch interval is from 6 AM to 6 PM. The gas injec-
tion profiles are assumed to be flat (injected at constant rate).
The energy density of gas is 40 . Corresponding to 1
MW (around 1340 horsepower), each candidate compressor unit
has a compression ratio of 5 to 1. For gas pipeline candidates,
the transmission capacity, diameter, pressure obligation are 50
TJ/day, 500 mm, and 10 600 kPa. The electricity transmission
line candidates are 330 kV with the capacity 100 MVA. The an-
nualized investment costs of GPG unit, gas compressor, elec-
tricity line and gas pipeline are $100 000/MW, $80 000/MW,
$45 000/km, and $50 000/km. The carbon emission coefficient
of candidate GPG unit is assumed to be 0.65 ton/MWh. The
carbon price is $23/ton. The system EUE criterion and VCR are
0.02% and $106 570/MWh, respectively.
B. Three-Bus Gas and Two-Bus Power System
This case study is a simple system that can be solved intu-
itively. Moreover, we make an assumption that a static co-plan-
ning model is used for this case study, i.e., we only consider
the worst day of planning period. The system diagram is shown
in Fig. 2. Three scenarios are identified for this case study: the
system load level is expected to increase by 5%, 10% and 15%,
denoted by S1, S2, and S3, respectively. The existing power
generation capacity is 100 MW at bus 1, including 50 MW
coal fired with emission coefficient 1.05 ton/MWh and 50 MW
gas fired with emission coefficient 0.65 ton/MWh. We use the
QIU et al.: LOW CARBON ORIENTED EXPANSION PLANNING OF INTEGRATED GAS AND POWER SYSTEMS 1041

TABLE II
COST AND BENEFIT FOR EP AND ECP UNDER THREE
SCENARIOS ON ANNUAL BASIS (MILLION $)

Fig. 2. Three-bus gas and two-bus power system.

TABLE I
GAS LOAD (TJ/HOUR) AND ELECTRICITY LOAD (MW)
OVER ONE DAY FOR THE CASE STUDY

hourly load profile in a peak load day. In order to reflect a

worst-case situation, we assume the BoD linepack is 20% below
the target. For example, the normal linepack is 80 TJ; in this case
the BoD linepack is 64 TJ. The candidate GPG unit capacity is
50 MW, and the capacity of existing and candidate transmission
line is 100 MW each and with a reactance of 0.15 p.u and a dis-
tance 100 km. The lengths are gas pipelines are also 100 km.
Note 1 TJ is around 270 MWh, and 1 MWh is 0.0036 TJ. There
are three existing compressor units, so the existing compression
ratio limit is 125. The gas production unit is located at bus 1.
The gas and electricity loads are at bus 3 and bus 2, as shown in
Table I (this gas load excludes GPG gas load).
We use two planning options for comparing the results of
EP and ECP: 1) EP option includes candidates C2, G1, P2 and
T1; 2) ECP option includes candidates C1, G2, P1 and T1.
The option 1 reflects the fact that the two networks tend to be
augmented following their own interests (e.g., meeting nodal
load growths), if they are not coordinated by a joint planning
strategy. In addition to that, gas power plants are likely to be
constructed near gas source.
The comparison results are shown in Table II. As seen, ben-
efit/cost ratios of ECP are higher than EP in separated gas and
power sectors. The higher load growth rates, the higher ben-
efit/cost ratios. This indicates that ECP has higher investment re-
turn rates and higher energy infrastructure utilization efficiency.
Firstly, since GPGs' access to cheap and reliable gas supply is
guaranteed, the reduction in the operation cost for ECP is greater
than those for gas and power sectors in EP. Moreover, since
a clean GPG unit is proposed at bus 2 to satisfy the increased
Fig. 3. Linepack simulation results for EP and ECP in scenario 3.
power load, the benefits in carbon reduction for ECP are no-
ticeable for all three scenarios. The ECP can better facilitate the
proliferation of clean GPGs by determining the appropriate lo-
cations and ensuring fuel supply for them. Our co-planning ap-
proach can achieve a low-carbon economy in the system oper-
ation. Also, the benefits of reliability improvement of ECP are
greater than EP. When gas and electricity networks are planned
together, the overall reliability can be enhanced.
Increased gas demand from GPG during power load peaks
will result in rapid gas load variations. This presents new chal-
lenges to the daily linepack management. The linepack simula-
tion results in scenario 3 are illustrated in Fig. 3. For EP, there is
a linepack depletion delay during peak load hours, because G1
(bus 1) does not consume the linepack.
In order to better understand the reliance of power systems on
gas systems, we simulate the consequences of gas contingencies
for ECP candidates. As shown in Fig. 4, if gas pipeline P1 fails,
1042 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015

Fig. 4. Power generation at two buses and electricity load shedding when gas
pipe P1 fails.
Fig. 6. Linepack variations for EP and ECP on peak demand day.

Fig. 5. Power generation at two buses and electricity load shedding when gas
compressor C1 fails.

GPG's output at bus 2 will be compromised at 34.68 MW be-

tween 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Besides, at this period of time,
gas and power loads peak simultaneously. As a result, electricity
load shedding will occur during this period of time. According
to Fig. 5, if gas compressor C1 fails, the power output constraint
of GPG at bus 2 is not as obvious as that in Fig. 4. At energy
peak hours, electricity load has to be shed due to pressure losses
in gas pipelines. To sum up, a contingency or pressure loss in
gas pipelines will significantly constraint the GPG outputs and
then jeopardize the power system security/reliability. Moreover,
at energy peak hours, GPGs' marginal costs will be pushed up Fig. 7. Summed total GPG gas demand for EP and ECP in four scenarios on
by high gas prices. High energy prices are likely to occur due peak demand day.
to simultaneous gas and power peak loads. This finding is sup-
ported by the increased use of more expensive GPG unit at bus
2 during peak hours. . The gas system has an injection
capacity of 3,050 TJ/day and 120 TJ/day for import and 44
C. Victorian Gas and Electricity Networks TJ/day for export through the New South Wales interconnect.
The practical application of the proposed ECP model is The major gas transmission pipelines include four parts: 1)
illustrated by using the interconnected Victorian (Australia) Longford to Melbourne; 2) South West; 3) Northern system;
natural gas and electricity transmission networks. Both sys- 4) Western transmission system. The electricity transmission
tems are physically linked through gas power plants and/or network comprises the following regions: 1) Eastern corridor;
load centers. In order to be consistent with the planning prac- 2) South-West corridor; 3) Northern corridor; 4) Greater Mel-
tice of power utilities in Australia, our planning horizon is bourne and Geelong; 5) Regional Victoria. The recorded peak
one year, which is given in “Section 5.6.2A of the National day gas demand was 1146 TJ/day, and the highest electricity
Electricity Rules (NER) requires AEMO to produce the Vic- demand was 9190 MW. The gas network has four injection
torian Annual Planning Report for the electricity network by points, eight gas withdrawal points for power stations, four
30 June each year” [37]. Therefore, we have and compressor stations (CS), one underground gas storage (UGS)
QIU et al.: LOW CARBON ORIENTED EXPANSION PLANNING OF INTEGRATED GAS AND POWER SYSTEMS 1043

Fig. 8. Comparing the chosen alternatives for separated gas and electricity system planning versus combined gas and electricity system co-planning.

station and one LNG terminal. More detailed gas and elec-
tricity market data and the system parameters can be found
in [6]. Results are obtained by the following steps.
Step 1) Uncertainties of load levels (the load duration curve
method is used) and gas prices are represented by
four scenarios: high load growth and high price
(S1); high load growth and low price (S2); low load
growth and high price (S3); low load growth and
low price (S4);
Step 2) Nominate seven augmentation alternatives through
expert knowledge, environmental, societal and po-
litical assessment, etc.;
1044 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015

Step 3) Reduce to four alternatives that can satisfy the plan- TABLE III
ning criterion (reliability etc.) under the identified REGRETS FOR EP AND ECP IN FOUR SCENARIOS
scenarios;
Step 4) Apply the Fuzzy PSO to solve the planning opti-
mization problem under deterministic scenarios.
The found optimal plan is used as a reference to
calculate each alternative's regret;
Step 5) Select the robust alternatives or evaluate regrets of
the viable (the narrowed) alternatives by calculating
their attribute differences from the optimal plans in
all identified scenarios (decision analysis for risks);
Step 6) Select the best alternatives for EP and ECP by mini-
mizing the maximum regret.
With the optimal alternatives for each scenario, we choose the
peak energy demand day (including gas and electricity loads) to
simulate the daily linepack variations. As shown in Fig. 6, large
gas demand occurs between 6 pm to 11 pm. The lowest linepack
appears in S2, and the highest linepack is in S3, especially for
TABLE IV
the case of EP. Linepack depletion in separated gas and elec- RESULTS OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVES FOR EP AND ECP
tricity planning is more constant during gas demand off-peak (MONETARY VALUES ARE IN MILLION $)
periods. In the co-planning, linepack varies and is depleted more
considerably throughout the second high load period, which is
between 10 am to 1 pm. This phenomenon is not obvious during
peak hours (6 pm to 11 pm), because GPG gas demand is com-
paratively lower than non-electric demands during these hours.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the total GPG gas demand for EP
and ECP in four scenarios on peak demand day. As seen, high
power load raises the fuel dependence of power systems on nat-
ural gas. In all identified scenarios, GPG gas demand for ECP
is higher compared to EP during noon and evening electricity
peaks, especially when load is higher and gas price is lower (in
S2). The generation capacity of GPG in the separated gas and
electricity planning is compromised by gas constraints, espe- efit of carbon reduction is 1.36 versus 1.28 Million $). This is
cially when gas and electricity reach their peaks together. With because that the ECP approach can promote the integration of
integrated gas and electricity planning, GPG plants and system GPG units, which are clean generation sources. With affordable
transmission capacity are efficiently utilized in all scenarios. We and reliable access to gas sources, GPG units become more com-
also undertake the decision analysis among viable augmentation petitive, leading to lower carbon emissions in power systems.
alternatives (A1-A4). The maximum regrets of each viable al- The final attribute of ECP is more than twice higher compared
ternative are marked in bold in Table III. Our decision making is to the separated EP (the benefit/cost ratios are 0.5576 versus
based on minimizing the maximum regret, so we choose EP gas 0.2086). As discussed above, the dependence of electric power
A1, EP power A3 and ECP A4 as the best augmentation alterna- system on natural gas is well analyzed in the context of linepack
tives. Be noted that the conventional least-cost driven planning variations and gas availability. ECP can provide the holistic and
approach identifies the most economical alternative while sat- strategic contemplation of the interactions of the two systems.
isfying the reliability criterion. By contrast, our approach can An integral perspective can more effectively identify the energy
effectively quantify the system performance improvement sub- infrastructure weakness, in order to enable safe and reliable en-
ject to the reliability constraint, because the market values of ergy supply in long-term while meeting the planning criteria and
benefits in operation saving, emission reduction and enhanced other operating characteristic requirements.
reliability are expressed.
Fig. 8 shows the chosen best augmentation alternatives in the V. CONCLUSION
Victorian gas-electricity system for EP and ECP. For consid- In a carbon constrained power industry, natural gas is be-
ering gas and electricity networks together and separately, the lieved to be a clean fuel alternative to coal. Given the intro-
detailed results of attributes of the best alternatives are given duction of carbon pricing policies, gas-fired power generation
in Table IV. Not only does ECP require cheaper investment (GPG) units become more competitive, and more GPG units are
costs, but also it obtains significantly higher benefits in opera- expected to be built. The construction of GPG units should be
tion saving and reliability improvement. In addition, compared co-planned considering the network's sufficiency, i.e., sufficient
to EP, ECP can achieve higher carbon emission reduction (ben- gas supplies in a gas system and sufficient power transmission
QIU et al.: LOW CARBON ORIENTED EXPANSION PLANNING OF INTEGRATED GAS AND POWER SYSTEMS
capacities in a power system. More importantly, the gas avail-
ability has profound impacts on power generation, consequently
affecting the overall system reliability. This paper proposes an
integrated expansion planning framework for gas and power
systems. The proposed model aims to maximize the benefit/cost
ratio by calculating benefits in operation reduction, carbon emis-
sion reduction and reliability improvement against augmenta-
tion investment costs. Gas and electricity market timeline mis-
match is also considered by simulating the daily linepack vari-
ations. The risks of market uncertainties are analyzed by de-
cision analysis. Our model can: 1) better identify energy in-
frastructure weakness for meeting long-term energy demand;
2) cut carbon emission of power systems; 3) understand the
interactions of both systems on supply and demand sides; 4)
achieve higher market efficiency in the cost benefit analysis.
The integrated system expansion planning is capable of pro-
viding strategic augmentation recommendations to both sectors
simultaneously.
REFERENCES
[1] Q. X. Chen, C. Q. Kang, Q. Xia, and J. Zhong, “Power generation ex-
pansion planning model towards low-carbon economy and its applica-
tion in China,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1117–1125,
May 2010.
[2] G. Liu, J. H. Zhao, F. Wen, X. Yin, and Z. Y. Dong, “Option-game-
based method for generation investment analysis considering uncertain
carbon reduction policy in the electricity market,” IET Gen., Transm.,
Distrib., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 917–927, Aug. 2010.
[3] S. An, Q. Li, and T. W. Gedra, “Natural gas and electricity optimal
power flow,” in Proc. IEEE PES Transm. Distrib. Conf. and Expo.,
Dallas, TX, USA, 2003, pp. 138–143.
[4] A. Martinez-Mares and C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, “A unified gas and
power flow analysis in natural gas and electricity coupled networks,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2156–2166, Nov. 2012.
[5] C. Unsihuay-Vila, J. W. Marangon-Lima, A. C. Z. de Souza, I. J. Perez-
Arriaga, and P. P. Balestrassi, “A model to long-term, multiarea, mul-
tistage, and integrated expansion planning of electricity and natural gas
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1154–1168, May
2010.
[6] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) [Online]. Available:
http://www.aemo.com.au/
[7] C. Unsihuay-Vila, J. W. Marangon-Lima, and A. C. Z. de Souza, “Mod-
eling the integrated natural gas and electricity optimal power flow,” in
Proc. IEEE PES General Meeting, Jun. 2007, pp. 1–7.
[8] J. Munoz, N. Jimenez-Redondo, J. Perez-Ruiz, and J. Barquin, “Natural
gas network modeling for power systems reliability studies,” in Proc.
IEEE Power Tech Conf., Bologna, Italy, Jun. 2003, vol. 4, pp. 1–8.
[9] M. Chaudry, N. Jenkins, and G. Strbac, “Multi-time period combined
gas and electricity network optimisation,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol.
78, no. 7, pp. 1265–1279, Jul. 2008.
[10] A. Mads and H. Ian, “Optimization framework for the analysis of large-
scale networks of energy hubs,” in Proc. 17th Power Syst. Computation
Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 2011.
[11] J. Andre, F. Bonnans, and L. Cornibert, “Optimization of capacity ex-
pansion planning for gas transportation networks,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
vol. 197, no. 3, pp. 1019–1027, Sep. 2009.
[12] M. Hamedi, R. Z. Farahani, and G. Esmaeilian, “Optimization in
natural gas network planning,” in Logistics Operations and Manage-
ment, F. Reza , Ed. et al., 1st ed. London, U.K.: Elsevier, 2011, pp.
393–420.
[13] A. Kabirian and M. R. Hemmati, “A strategic planning model for nat-
ural gas transmission networks,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 11, pp.
5656–5670, May 2007.
[14] J. H. Roh, M. Shahidehpour, and F. Yong, “Market-based coordination
of transmission and generation capacity planning,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1406–1419, Nov. 2007.
[15] I. Sharan and R. Balasubramanian, “Integrated generation and trans-
mission expansion planning including power and fuel transportation
constraints,” Energy Policy, vol. 43, no. 0, pp. 275–284, Jan. 2012.
1045
[16] H. Tekiner, D. W. Coit, and F. A. Felder, “Multi-period multi-objective
electricity generation expansion planning problem with Monte-Carlo
simulation,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 80, no. 12, pp. 1394–1405,
Dec. 2010.
[17] M. S. Morais and J. W. M. Lima, “Combined natural gas and elec-
tricity network pricing,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 77, no. 5–6, pp.
712–719, 2007.
[18] C. Pelletier and J. C. Wortmann, “A risk analysis for gas transport net-
work planning expansion under regulatory uncertainty in Western Eu-
rope,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 721–732, Feb. 2009.
[19] M. Shahidehpour, Y. Fu, and T. Wiedman, “Impact of natural gas in-
frastructure on electric power systems,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 93, no. 5, pp.
1042–1056, May 2005.
[20] L. Wu and M. Shahidehpour, “Optimal coordination of stochastic
hydro and natural gas supplies in midterm operation of power sys-
tems,” IET Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 577–587, Mar.
2011.
[21] S. Mokhatab, W. A. Poe, and J. G. Speight, Handbook of Natural Gas
Transmission and Processing. Burlington, MA, USA: Gulf Profes-
sional, Elsevier, 2006.
[22] E. Calixto, “Reliability, availability, and maintainability analysis,” in
Gas and Oil Reliability Engineering. Boston, MA, USA: Gulf Pro-
fessional, 2013, pp. 169–347.
[23] AEMO Victorian Annual Planning Report, 2012 [Online]. Available:
http://www.aemo.com.au/Gas/Planning/Victorian-Annual-Plan-
ning-Report
[24] Victorian Gas Planning Approach [Online]. Available: http://
www.aemo.com.au/Gas/Planning/Victorian-Annual-Planning-Re-
port/~/media/Files/Other/planning/Victorian_Gas_Planning_Ap-
proach.ashx
[25] J. Zhen, C. Q. Kang, Q. X. Chen, Q. Xia, C. M. Jiang, Z. X. Chen, and
J. B. Xin, “Low-carbon power system dispatch incorporating carbon
capture power plants,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp.
4615–4623, Nov. 2013.
[26] T. D. Torre, J. W. Feltes, T. G. S. Roman, and H. M. Merrill, “Dereg-
ulation, privatization, and competition: Transmission planning under
uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 460–465,
May 1999.
[27] Y. W. Wu, S. H. Lou, and S. Y. Lu, “A model for power system inter-
connection planning under low-carbon economy with CO2 emission
constraints,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 205–213,
Jul. 2011.
[28] H. Zhang, G. T. Heydt, V. Vittal, and J. Quintero, “An improved net-
work model for transmission expansion planning considering reactive
power and network losses,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 3471–3479, Aug. 2013.
[29] J. H. Zhao, Z. Y. Dong, P. Lindsay, and K. P. Wong, “Flexible
transmission expansion planning with uncertainties in an electricity
Market,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 479–488, Feb.
2009.
[30] M. J. Rider, A. V. Garcia, and R. Romero, “Power system transmission
network expansion planning using AC model,” IET Gen., Transm., Dis-
trib., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 731–742, Sep. 2007.
[31] P. Siano and G. Mokryani, “Probabilistic assessment of the impact
of wind energy integration into distribution networks,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4209–4217, Nov. 2013.
[32] P. Murugan, S. Kannan, and S. Baskar, “Application of NSGA-II al-
gorithm to single-objective transmission constrained generation expan-
sion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1790–1797,
Nov. 2009.
[33] G. Koeppel and G. Andersson, “Reliability modeling of multi-carrier
energy systems,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 235–244, Jul. 2009.
[34] H. Yu, C. Y. Chung, K. P. Wong, and J. H. Zhang, “A chance con-
strained transmission network expansion planning method with con-
sideration of load and wind farm uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1568–1576, Aug. 2009.
[35] A. Eydeland and K. Wolyniec, Energy and Power Risk Management.
Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2003.
[36] Y. Zheng, Z. Y. Dong, F. J. Luo, K. Meng, J. Qiu, and K. P. Wong, “Op-
timal allocation of energy storage system for risk mitigation of DISCOs
with high renewable penetrations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29,
no. 1, pp. 212–220, Jan. 2014.
[37] Victorian Electricity Planning Approach [Online]. Available:
http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Policies-and-Procedures/Plan-
ning/Victorian-Electricity-Planning-Approach
1046
Jing Qiu (S’12–M’14) received the B.Eng. degree in control engineering
from Shandong University, China, the M.Sc. degree in environmental policy
and management, majoring in carbon financing in the power sector, from The
University of Manchester, U.K., and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from The University of Newcastle, Australia.
He is now a Research Associate at the Center for Intelligent Electricity Net-
works (CIEN), The University of Newcastle, Australia. His areas of interest
include electricity market modeling, power system planning, renewable energy,
carbon emission reduction, and risk management.
Zhao Yang Dong (M’99–SM’06) received the Ph.D. degree from the University
of Sydney, Australia, in 1999.
He is now Professor and Head of School of Electrical and Information Engi-
neering, University of Sydney, Australia. He was previously Ausgrid Chair and
Director of the Center for Intelligent Electricity Networks (CIEN), The Univer-
sity of Newcastle, Australia, and is now a conjoint professor there. He also held
academic and industrial positions with the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
and Transend Networks (now TasNetworks), Tasmania, Australia. His research
interest includes Smart Grid, power system planning, power system security,
load modeling, electricity market, and computational intelligence and its appli-
cation in power engineering.
Prof. Dong is an editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, IEEE POWER ENGINEERING
LETTERS, and IET Renewable Power Generation.
Jun Hua Zhao (S’04–M’07) received the B.E. and Ph.D. degrees from Xi'an
Jiaotong University, China, and The University of Queensland, Australia, in
2003 and 2007, respectively.
He then worked as a research fellow at the University of Queensland,
Australia. He is now a Senior Lecturer in the Center for Intelligent Electricity
Networks, The University of Newcastle, Australia. His research interests
include power system analysis and computation, smart grid, energy Internet,
data mining, and its applications in power engineering.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, MARCH 2015
Ke Meng (M’10) received the Ph.D. degree from the University of Queensland,
Australia, in 2009.
He is currently with the Centre for Intelligent Electricity Networks (CIEN),
The University of Newcastle, Australia. His research interest includes pattern
recognition, power system stability analysis, wind power, and energy storage.
Yu Zheng (S’12) received the B.E degree from Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
China. He is now pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the Center for Intelligent Elec-
tricity Networks (CIEN), The University of Newcastle, Australia.
Hee was previously with the Department of Electrical Engineering, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. His research interests include power
electronic applied in power system, power system planning, smart grid, and
intelligent system applications to power engineering.
David J. Hill (M’76–SM’91–F’93) currently holds the Chair of Electrical Engi-
neering at the University of Hong Kong. He is also a part-time Professor at The
University of Sydney, Australia. His research interests are in control, networks,
power systems, and stability analysis.
Prof. Hill is a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
USA, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Australian Academy of Tech-
nological Sciences and Engineering; he is also a Foreign Member of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.