IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems

Stochastic Co-Optimization of Distribution Network Repair

and Restoration using Progressive Hedging

Journal: IEEE Transactions on Power Systems

Manuscript ID TPWRS-00329-2017.R1

Manuscript Type: Transactions

Date Submitted by the Author: 25-Jun-2017

Complete List of Authors: Arif, Anmar; Iowa State University, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Ma, Shanshan; Iowa State University, Electrical and Computer Engineering
WANG, ZHAOYU; Iowa State University, Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Eng.
Wang, Jianhui; Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division
Ryan, Sarah; Iowa State University, Indust. Mfg. Sys. Eng.
Chen, Chen; Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division
Kurdi, Heba

Technical Topic Area : Power system restoration, Power system operations

Outage management, power distribution system, repaire crews, Routing,

Key Words:
stochastic programming
Page 1 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
1

1
2
3 Stochastic Co-Optimization of Distribution Network
4
5
6
Repair and Restoration using Progressive Hedging
7 Anmar Arif, Student Member, IEEE, Shanshan Ma, Student Member, IEEE, Zhaoyu Wang, Member, IEEE,
8
Jianhui Wang, Senior Member, IEEE, Sarah M. Ryan, Senior Member, IEEE, Chen Chen, Member, IEEE,
9
10 and Heba Kurdi
11
12
13
14 Abstract—This paper proposes a novel method to co-optimize Parameters
15 distribution system operation and repair crew routing after ei,t,s Active power load forecast error for load at bus
16 outages in extreme weather events. A stochastic optimization i and time t in scenario s
17 model is developed to dispatch distributed generators, reconfigure
the distribution network, and efficiently dispatch the repair crews Ui Maximum possible value for load i
18 M Large positive number
to damaged components. The optimization problem is formulated
19 as a two-stage stochastic mixed integer linear program with grid nc Number of crews
20 operation and crew routing constraints. We consider demand oc /dc Start/end point of crew c
21 uncertainty and model the uncertainty of the repair time using PkBM /QBM Active/reactive power limit of line k
a lognormal distribution. As both stages have binary variables k
22 GM GM
and the nature of the problem requires a quick solution, we Pi /Qi Active/reactive power limits of DGs
23 D
propose to use the progressive hedging algorithm as a heuristic Pi,t,s /QD
i,t,s Diversified active/reactive demand at bus i and
24 to solve the stochastic problem. Furthermore, a new divide and time t in scenario s
25 conquer algorithm is developed for solving large-scale disastrous F
Pi,t Active power forecast for the load at bus i at
26 outage management problems in an effective and timely manner.
27 The proposed methods are validated on modified IEEE 34- and
time t
U
28 123-bus distribution test systems. Pi,t,s /QU
i,t,s Undiversified active/reactive demand at bus i
29 and time t in scenario s
Index Terms—Outage management, power distribution system,
30 repair crews, routing, stochastic programming Tm,s The time needed to repair damaged component
31 m in scenario s
32 N OMENCLATURE Rk /Xk Resistance/reactance of line k
33 trm,n Travel time between m and n
Sets and Indices ωi Priority weight of load at bus i
34
35 m/n Indices for damaged components and the depot Decision Variables
36 c Index for crews
i/j Indices for buses αm,c,s Arrival time of crew c at damaged component
37 m in scenario s
38 k Index for distribution line connecting i and j
t Index for time fm,t,s Binary variable equal to 1 if damaged compo-
39
s Index for scenario nent m is repaired at time t in scenario s
40 L
N Set of damaged components and the depot Pi,t,s /QL
i,t,s Active/reactive load supplied at bus i and time
41
S Set of scenarios t in scenario s
42 G
ΩD(L) Set of buses having loads with priority level L Pi,t,s /QG
i,t,s Active/reactive power generated by DG at bus i
43
ΩK(.,i) Set of lines with bus i as the to bus in scenario s
44 B
45 ΩK(i,.) Set of lines with bus i as the from bus Pk,t,s /QB
k,t,s Active/reactive power flowing on line k
46 ΩSB Set of buses which are substations uk,t,s Binary variables indicating the status of the line
47 ΩSW Set of lines with switches k at time t in scenario s
48 Vi,t,s Voltage at bus i and time t in scenario s
49 This work was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy xm,n,c Binary variable indicating whether crew c moves
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the National Science from damaged components m to n.
50 Foundation under grant ECCS1609080, and Iowa Energy Center. s
51 A. Arif, S. Ma and Z. Wang are with the Department of Electri- βi,j,t Binary variable equal to 1 if i is the parent bus
52 cal and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011. of j and 0 otherwise in scenario s
(Email:aiarif@iastate.edu,sma@iastate.edu,wzy@iastate.edu). yi,t,s Connection status of the load at bus i and time
53 S. M. Ryan is with the Department of Industrial and Manufac-
54 turing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50010. t in scenario s
55 (Email:smryan@iastate.edu). zm Binary variable equal to 1 if damaged compo-
56 J. Wang and C. Chen are with the Energy Systems Division, nent m is a critical component to repair
Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439 USA (Email: jian-
57 hui.wang@anl.gov,morningchen@anl.gov)
58 H. Kurdi is with the Department of Computer Science, King Saud Univer- I. I NTRODUCTION
59 sity, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Kurdi is also with the Department of Aeronautics
60
and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
USA. (Email:hkurdi@ksu.edu.sa) N ATURAL catastrophes have highlighted the vulnerability
of electric grids. According to a report published by the
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
1
2 Executive Office of the President, around 679 power outages
3 occurred due to severe weather events in the U.S between
4 2003 and 2012 [1]. More recently, about 800,000 customers
5 were left without electricity in the aftermath of Hurricane
6 Matthew [2]. The loss of electricity after a hurricane or any
7 natural disaster can cause significant inconvenience and is
8 potentially life threatening in some cases. Improving outage
9 management and accelerating service restoration are critical
10 tasks for utilities. A crucial responsibility of utilities is to dis-
11 patch repair crews and manage the network to restore service
12 for customers. The commonly used approach is to consider
13 power system operation/restoration and repair crew routing
14 as two independent problems. However, the operation of the
15 network and the repairs are interdependent in practice. Relying
16 on utility operators’ experience to dispatch repair crews during
17 outages may not lead to an optimal outage management plan.
18 Therefore, there is a need to design an integrated framework
19 to optimally coordinate repair and restoration.
20 Some research has been conducted to integrate repair and
21 restoration in power transmission systems. The authors in [3]
22 developed pre- and post-hurricane models for power system
23 restoration. In the pre-hurricane phase, stochastic optimization
24 is used to allocate and mobilize the resources to enable a quick
25
response to potential damages. The paper considered uncertain
26
outage states, which depend on uncertain wind gust forecasts.
27
In the post-hurricane model, a deterministic mixed integer
28
linear programming (MILP) model was solved to assign repair
29
crews to damaged components without considering the travel
30
time. Reference [4] presented a dynamic programming model
31
32 for routing repair crews. Routing repair crews in transmission
33 systems has been discussed by Hentenryck and Coffrin in
34 [5]. The authors presented a deterministic two-stage approach
35 to decouple the routing and restoration models. The first
stage solved a restoration ordering problem using MILP. The
36
37 ordering problem formulation assumed that only one damaged
38 component can be repaired at each time step. The goal of
39 the first stage was to find an optimal sequence of repairs
40 to maximize the restored loads. The second-stage routing
41 problem was formulated as a constraint programming model
42 and solved using Neighborhood Search algorithms and Ran-
43 domized Adaptive Decomposition.
44 In previous work, some of us showed the importance of the
45 distribution system repair and restoration problem (DSRRP)
46 [6]. We developed a cluster-first route-second approach to
47 solve the deterministic repair and restoration problem. How-
48 ever, a major challenge in solving DSRRP is its stochastic
49 nature. Predicting the repair time accurately for each damaged
50 component is almost impossible. In this paper, we consider the
51 uncertainty of the repair time and the customer load demand.
52 We propose a two-stage stochastic mixed-integer program
53 (SMIP) to solve the stochastic DSRRP (S-DSRRP). The first
54 stage in the stochastic program is to determine the routes
55 for each crew. The second stage models the operation of
56 the distribution system, which includes distributed generation
57 (DG) dispatch and network reconfiguration by controlling
58 line switches. The routing problem is modelled as a vehicle
59 routing problem (VRP), which has a long history in operations
60 research [7]. A review on the stochastic VRP was presented
Page 2 of 12
2
in [8]. It has been shown that the co-optimization of repairs
and system restoration is a challenging problem [5], [6]. The
routing problem is an NP-hard combinatorial optimization
problem with exponential computation time. Adding uncer-
tainty and combining distribution system operation constraints
with the routing problem further increases the complexity.
To solve the large-scale S-DSRRP efficiently, a new divide
and conquer algorithm based on the Progressive Hedging
algorithm is developed. Our algorithm decomposes the S-
DSRRP into two stochastic subproblems. The first subproblem
identifies the critical damaged components to repair. In the
second subproblem, the crews are dispatched to the critical
damaged components and the distribution system is optimally
dispatched and reconfigured. The process is repeated until all
damaged components are repaired. The key contributions of
this paper include: 1) improving our previously developed
deterministic DSRRP formulation in [6] by considering cold
load pickup, and reducing the number of decision variables by
refining crew routing constraints; 2) modeling the uncertainty
of the repair time and the demand in DSRRP; 3) formulating
a two-stage stochastic problem for repair and restoration; and
4) developing a new algorithm based on parallel Progressive
Hedging for solving large-scale stochastic repair and restora-
tion problems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents an overview on how utilities recover from storms.
Section III states the modeling assumptions and presents the
uncertainty in the model. Section IV develops the mathemat-
ical formulation of the S-DSRRP. In Section V, the proposed
divide and conquer algorithm is presented. The simulation and
results are presented in Section VI, and Section VII concludes
this paper.
II. S ERVICE R ESTORATION P RACTICE
Electric utilities have their own plans for service restoration,
which may be different from one utility to another in terms
of operating procedures, labor agreements, crew management,
etc. Though detailed restoration procedures are different, the
general steps can be summarized as follows [9]:
1) Plan Ahead: When a severe weather event is predicted,
the utility positions repair crews and supplies in (or near)
the areas that are expected to suffer the greatest damage.
In addition, the utility can acquire services from crews in
neighboring utilities and reach out to contractors.
2) Outage Management System: After the grid is affected
by the extreme weather, the utility receives data from multiple
sources that can help identify the affected area. The most com-
monly used sources are customer trouble calls and operations
of protection devices. More advanced techniques involve smart
meters and fault identification devices. After collecting this
information, the operator will have a general idea about the
possible locations of the damages.
3) Damage Assessment: Once the locations are acquired,
field assessors are dispatched to identify the exact locations
of the damages as well as document and analyze them. The
damage information is communicated back to the operator.
This damage assessment data is essential so that the utility
can estimate the repair times and route the repair crews more
Page 3 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
3

1
2 effectively with the required equipment. In extreme cases, Load uncertainty is modeled in terms of load forecast error
3 damage assessment can also be conducted through aerial [12]. The forecast error for the load at bus i and time t
4 survey. in scenario s is a realization of a truncated normal random
5 4) Prioritizing Restoration: Large numbers of residential variable ei,t,s , so that the error is bounded using a fixed
6 customers, hospitals, police and fire departments, schools, percentage (e.g., 15%). The active demand for the load at bus
7 or other important facilities may lose energy after a storm. i and time t in scenario s is then obtained as follows:
8 Each utility has its own priority list but it can be generally
D F
9 summarized as follows: Pi,t,s = Pi,t (1 + ei,t,s ) (1)
10 • Crews first clear and isolate live power lines and any where a similar equation is used to obtain the corresponding
11 hazards to the public. realization for reactive power. With D damaged components, I
12 • Substations are restored. Transmission lines are restored, loads and time horizon T , the number of random variables is
13 as well, but by different crews responsible to their owners. D+I·T, which we assume to be mutually independent. Accord-
14 ing to the Monte Carlo sampling procedure, the probability
• Local distribution substations are checked and repaired
15 Pr(s) of each scenario is 1/|S|. Let ξ be the matrix whose
by service crews and engineers in case of a failure. columns consist of scenarios as follows:
16
• The next priority is the main distribution line attended by
17 s=1 s=2 s=3 ... s = |S|
the line crews. T T1,2 T1,3 ... T1,|S|  v =1
18 1,1
• Out-of-service critical consumers like hospitals are given  T2,1 T2,2 T2,3 ... T2,|S|  v =2
19  . .. .. ..  ..
a higher priority while repairing the lines.  . ..
20  . . . . . 

.
• Line crews fix tap lines based on restoring service to the
21  TD,1 TD,2 TD,3 ... TD,|S|  v =D
 
greatest number of customers. e e1,1,2 e1,1,3 ... e1,1,|S|  v =D+1
22  1,1,1 
• Individual customers are last in the repair schedule. ξ =
 e1,2,1 e1,2,2 e1,2,3 ... e1,2,|S|  v =D+2
23  .

In general, utilities schedule the repair using predefined  . .. .. .. ..  ..
24  . . . . . 

.
25 restoration priority lists based previous experience. Some utili- e
 1,T,1 e1,T,2 e1,T,3 ... e1,T,|S| 
 v =D+T
26 ties use a simple greedy algorithm to determine the restoration  .
 . .. .. .. ..  ..
. . . . .

.
27 sequence [5]. Inspired by the industry practice in prioritizing
eI,T,1 eI,T,2 eI,T,3 ... eI,T,|S| v =D+I T
28 the restoration, we develop a divide and conquer approach
29 to obtain an adaptive priority list from optimization. An opti-
30 mization process can help the operator and greatly decrease the where ξv,s is the realization of random variable v in scenario
s.
31 restoration time. The aim of the proposed method is to provide
32 the utilities a better distribution system restoration decision- IV. M ATHEMATICAL F ORMULATION
33 making process in response to extreme weather events, for
34 directing the repair crews. The repair and restoration problem can be divided into
35 two stages. The first is routing the repair crews, which is
36 characterized by depots, repair crews, damaged components
III. M ODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTY and paths between the damaged components. The second is
37
38 After a disastrous event that results in damages to the elec- distribution system restoration using DGs and reconfiguration.
39 tric grid infrastructure, utilities first need to conduct damage In practice, these two subproblems are interdependent. There-
40 assessment before mobilizing repair crews. This process is fore, we propose a single MILP formulation that integrates the
41 necessary to identify the locations of the damages, and esti- two problems for distribution system repair and restoration,
42 mate their repair times. Damage assessment can be performed with the objective of maximizing the picked-up loads.
43 with the help of fault/outage identification algorithms, reports
from customers, and aerial survey after extreme conditions. A. First Stage: Repair Crew Routing
44
45 This paper is concerned with the phase after damage as- The routing problem can be defined by an undirected graph
46 sessment; i.e., repairs and DG/switch operation. Hence, we with nodes and edges G(N, E). The node set N in the
47 assume that the locations of the damages are known from undirected graph contains the depot and damaged components,
48 the assessment phase. Furthermore, it is assumed that the and the edge set E represents the edges connecting each two
49 DGs in the system are controllable ones that are installed as components. E = {(m, n)|m, n ∈ N ; m 6= n} is the edge set
50 back-up generators. In addition, each crew has the resources containing all possible paths. Define the route assigned to crew
51 required to repair the damages. After determining locations c as Routec . Our purpose is to find an optimal route for
52 of damaged components, repair crews are dispatched to the each crew to reach the damaged components. The value of
53 damaged components to repair and restore the system. xm,n,c determines whether crew c travels the path m to n. The
54 In this paper, the uncertainties of repair time and load are routing constraints for the first stage problem are formulated
55 represented by a finite set of discrete scenarios, which are as follows:
56 obtained by sampling. The lognormal distribution is used to X
57 model the repair time, as recommended in [10]. The lognormal xoc ,m,c = 1, ∀c (2)
58 distribution is a commonly used distribution for equipment ∀m∈N
59 and system maintainability analysis, and applies to many
X
60 xm,dc ,c = 1, ∀c (3)
maintenance and repair tasks [11]. ∀m∈N
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems Page 4 of 12
4

1 X X
2 xm,n,c − xn,m,c = 0 , ∀c, m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } (4)
3 ∀n∈N \{m} ∀n∈N \{m}
4 X X
5 xm,n,c = 1, ∀n ∈ N \ {oc , dc } (5)
∀c ∀m∈N \{n}
6
7 Constraint (2) and (3) guarantee that each crew starts and ends
8 its route at the defined start and end locations. For example,
9 if crew 1 is located at the depot, then xoc ,2,1 =1 means that
10 crew 1 travels from the depot to the damaged component 2.
11 Constraint (4) is known as the flow conservation constraint;
12 i.e., once a crew repairs the damaged component, the crew
13 Fig. 1. CLPU condition as a delayed exponential model.
moves to the next location. Constraint (5) ensures that each
14 damaged component is repaired by only one of the crews.
15
16
17 B. Second Stage: Distribution Network Operation
18 1) Objective:
19 XXX
D
20 max Pr(s) ωi yi,t,s Pi,t,s (6)
21 ∀s ∀t ∀i
22 The objective (6) of the second stage is to maximize the
23 expected priority-weighted served loads over the time horizon.
24 In this paper, we consider two values for the load priorities:
25 high (L=1) and low (L=2) [13]. Note that load priorities can
26 be changed by the utilities as desired. The weight of each load
27 can be calculated as follows [13]:
28
29 ωi = 1, ∀i ∈ ΩD(2) (7) Fig. 2. Decomposition of the CLPU delayed exponential model.
30
31 1
32 ωi = max {Uj } + 1, ∀i ∈ ΩD(1) (8) operation assumption to guarantee supply-load balance. We
j∈ΩD(2) Ui
33 assume that the duration of the CLPU decaying process is
34 where Ui is the maximum possible value for load i. In the one hour [17] [18]. Therefore, Fig. 2 is simplified to Fig. 3,
35 second stage, DGs and line switches are optimally operated in and we can obtain the following constraint to model CLPU:
36 response to the realization of the repair times. Once a damaged
L D U
line is repaired and energized, it provides a path for the power Pi,t,s = yi,t,s Pi,t,s + (yi,t,s − yi,t−1,s )Pi,t,s , ∀i, t, s (9)
37
38 flow. When the load goes from a de-energized state (yi,t−1,s = 0)
39 2) Cold Load Pickup (CLPU): After an extended period to an energized one (yi,t,s = 1), Pi,t,s U D
is added to Pi,t,s to
40 of an outage, the demand to be restored is larger than what represent the undiversified load. The study in [19] showed
41 existed before the outage. This demand increase is commonly that the total load at pick-up time can be up to 200% of the
42 known as cold load pickup (CLPU), which is caused by the U
steady state value, thus, Pi,t,s D
is set to be equal to Pi,t,s in our
43 loss of diversity and simultaneous operation of thermostat- simulation. Similarly, we have the following constraint for the
44 ically controlled loads. As depicted in Fig. 1, the normal reactive power [20]:
45 steady-state load consumption is defined as the diversified
46 load, and undiversified load is the startup load consumption QL D U
i,t,s = yi,t,s Qi,t,s + (yi,t,s − yi,t−1,s )Qi,t,s , ∀i, t, s (10)
47 upon restoration. Existing studies have modeled CLPU using
physical models [14] and regression based models [15]. The 3) Distribution Network OPF: The power flow model
48
49 typical behavior of CLPU can be represented using a delayed mostly used in transmission network restoration is the linear
50 exponentially decaying function [16], which is shown in Fig. 1. DC optimal power flow model which neglects reactive power
51 This exponential function can be approximated using a linear and voltage levels. AC optimal power flow, on the other hand,
52 combination of multiple blocks [17] as shown in Fig. 2, where is nonlinear and will greatly increase the computational burden
53 t0 is the time when the load is first picked-up, P D is the of the problem. Therefore, linearized DistFlow equations are
54 diversified load (i.e., the steady-state load consumption) and used to calculate the power flow and the voltages at each node.
55 P U (l) is the value of the undiversified load for block l. Linearized Distflow equations have been used and verified
56 in the literature [21], [22]. The equations are formulated as
In this paper, we employ two blocks to represent CLPU as
57 follows:
suggested in [17], where the first block is for the undiversified
58 load and the second for the steady-state load. The use of
59 two blocks decreases the computational burden imposed by
X
B G
X
B L
Pk,t,s + Pi,t,s = Pk,t,s + Pi,t,s , ∀i, t, s (11)
60 nonlinear characteristics of CLPU and provides a conservative ∀k∈K(.,i) ∀k∈K(i,.)
Page 5 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
5

1
2 4) Reconfiguration: The distribution network is reconfig-
3 ured dynamically using switches to maintain a radial config-
4 uration. The radiality constraints are represented by (22)-(25)
5 based on the spanning tree approach in [23].
6
s
7 0 ≤ βi,j,t ≤ 1, ∀i, j, t, s (22)
8 s s
9 βi,j,t + βj,i,t = uk,t,s , ∀k, t, s (23)
10 s
βi,j,t = 0, ∀i, j ∈ ΩSB , t, s (24)
11 X
s
12 βi,j,t ≤ 1, ∀j, t, s (25)
13 ∀i
14 The authors of [23] showed that it is possible to maintain
15 a radial configuration regardless of the direction of power
16 Fig. 3. Modeling CLPU using two blocks.
flow. Two variables βi,j,t and βj,i,t are defined to model
17
the spanning tree. For a radial network, each bus cannot be
18 X X
QBk,t,s + Q G
i,t,s = Q B
k,t,s + Q L
i,t,s , ∀i, t, s (12) connected to more than one parent bus and the number of
19
∀k∈K(.,i) ∀k∈K(i,.) lines equals the number of buses other than the root bus.
20
B Constraint (23) presents the relation between the connection
21 Rk Pk,t,s + Xk QB k,t,s
22 Vj,t,s −Vi,t,s + ≤ (1−uk,t,s )M, ∀k, t, s status of the line and the spanning tree variables βi,j,t and
V1 βj,i,t . If the distribution line is connected, then either βi,j,t or
23 (13)
24 B
Rk Pk,t,s + Xk Qk,t,s B βj,i,t must equal one. Constraint (24) indicates that substations
25 −(1−uk,t,s )M ≤ Vj,t,s −Vi,t,s + , ∀k, t, s do not have parent buses and designates them as root buses.
V1
26 (14) Constraint (25) requires that every bus has no more than
27 1 − ǫ ≤ Vi,t,s ≤ 1 + ǫ , ∀i, t, s (15) one parent bus. The spanning tree constraints guarantee that
28 the number of buses in a spanning tree, other than the root,
Constraints (11) and (12) represent the active and reactive equals the number of lines [23]. Fig. 4 shows an example
29
power balance constraints respectively. The voltage at each for the reconfiguration process. The switches in the network
30
31 bus is expressed in constraints (13) and (14), where V1 is the are turned on after sustaining damages in four lines. The
32 reference voltage. A disjunctive method is used to ensure that distribution network is divided into three radial networks.
33 the voltage levels of two disconnected buses are decoupled. All three networks satisfy the radiality condition, where the
34 Constraint (15) defines the allowable range of voltage devia- number of lines equals the number of buses minus one.
35 tions, where ǫ is set to be 5%.
36 We consider dispatchable DGs for supplying loads in the
37 distribution network, and automatic switches to reconfigure the
38 network. The automatic switches are controlled by uk,t,s , k ∈
39 ΩSW . The following constraints define the capacity of the
40 DGs, line flow limits, and switching status of the lines:
41
G
42 0 ≤ Pi,t,s ≤ PiGM , ∀i, t, s (16)
43
0 ≤ QG GM
i,t,s ≤ Qi , ∀i, t, s (17)
44
45 − uk,t,s PkBM ≤ Pk,t,s
B
≤ uk,t,s PkBM , ∀k, t, s (18)
46
47 − uk,t,s QBM
k ≤ QB BM
k,t,s ≤ uk,t,s Qk , ∀k, t, s (19)
48
uk,t,s = 1, ∀k 6∈ {ΩSW ∪ N \{0}}, s (20)
49
50 Constraints (16) and (17), respectively, define the real and Fig. 4. Illustration of the reconfiguration operation.
51 reactive output limits for DGs. Constraints (18) and (19) set
52 the limits of the line flows and indicate that the power flow 5) Restoration Time: The arrival time and consequently the
53 through a damaged line equals zero, which is achieved by time when each component is repaired must be calculated to
54 multiplying the line limits by uk,t,s . Constraint (20) maintains connect the routing and power operation problems. Once a
55 the switching status of a line uk,t,s to be 1 when there is no crew arrives at a damaged component m at time αm,c , they
56 damage and/or no switch. spend a time Tm,s to repair the damaged component, and then
57 Once a load is served, it should remain energized, as take time trm,n,c to arrive at the next damaged component n.
58 enforced by the following constraint: Therefore, αm,c,s + Tm,s + trm,n = αn,c,s if crew c travels
59 the path m to n. In this paper, we assume that the travel time
60 yi,t+1,s ≥ yi,t,s , ∀i, t, s (21) between m and n is proportional to the Euclidean distance
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems Page 6 of 12
6

1
2 between m and n [5], [24], [25]. The arrival time constraints
t
3 are formulated as follows: X
um,t,s = fm,τ,s , ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , t, s (33)
4 αm,c,s + Tm,s + trm,n − (1 − xm,n,c ) M ≤ αn,c,s
(26) τ =1
5 ∀m ∈ N \{dc }, n ∈ N \ {oc , m} , c, s
6 Constraint (33) indicates that the restored component becomes
7 αn,c,s ≤ αm,c,s + Tm,s + trm,n + (1 − xm,n,c ) M available after it is repaired, and remains available in all
(27) subsequent time periods. We assume that the repair time
8 ∀m ∈ N \{dc }, n ∈ N \ {oc , m} , c, s
9 includes the time it takes to re-energize the component;
10 Disjunctive constraints are used to decouple the times to therefore, if component m is repaired at t = 4, it can be used
11 arrive at components m and n if the crew does not travel at t = 4 and thereafter. For example, if t = [1, 2, ..., 6] and
12 from m to n. In order to determine when will the damaged fm = [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0] then um,t = [0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1].
13 component be restored and can be operated again, we enforce
14 the following constraints: C. Two-Stage Stochastic Program
15
In this paper, we formulate the stochastic DSRRP as a
16 0 ≤ fm,t,s ≤ 1, ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , t, s (28)
two-stage stochastic program. In the first stage, the crews are
17 X
fm,t,s = 1 , ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , s (29) dispatched to the damaged components. Therefore, the first-
18
∀t stage variable is xm,n,c . After realization of the repair times
19
and loads, the distribution network is operated in the second
20 For example, if component m is repaired at t = 3, then fm =
21 stage. The second-stage variables are defined in vector γs ,
{0, 0, 1, 0, ...,P
0}. The restoration time for component m can
22 which includes (α, f, P B , P G , P L , QB , QG , QL , u, V, y, β).
be found by ∀t t fm,t .
23 The extensive form (EF) of the two-stage stochastic DSRRP
The restoration time depends on the arrival time and the
24 is formulated as follows:
repair time, where the relationship is modeled using the
25 following equations:
26
XXX
D
!
X X X ζ(weighted kWh) = max Pr(s)ωi yi,t,s Pi,t,s (34)
27 tfm,t,s ≥ αm,c,s + Tm,s xm,n,c x,γ
∀s ∀t ∀i
28 ∀t ∀c ∀n∈N
(30)
s.t. (2)-(5), (9)-(33)
29 ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , s
30 ! u, x, y ∈ {0, 1} (35)
31 X X X
tfm,t,s ≤ αm,c,s + Tm,s xm,n,c
32 (31) V. S OLUTION A LGORITHM
∀t ∀c ∀n∈N
33
34 +1 − ǫ, ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , s In this section, we develop a decomposition algorithm,
35 X which employs Progressive Hedging algorithm in a divide and
0 ≤ αm,c,s ≤M xm,n,c , ∀m ∈ N \ {oc , dc } , c, s (32) conquer approach for solving S-DSRRP.
36
n∈N
37
38 Constraints (30) and (31) determine the time when a dam- A. Progressive Hedging
39 aged component is repaired by adding its repair time to the Watson and Woodruff developed the PH algorithm [26]
40 arrival time. The two equations are used to define ⌈tfm,t ⌉, to approximately solve stochastic mixed-integer problems.
41 since the time horizon has integer values. If the damaged The PH algorithm decomposes the extensive form into sub-
42 component is not repaired by a crew c, then the arrival time problems, by relaxing the non-anticipativity of the first-stage
43 and repair time for this crew should not affect constraints (30) variables; i.e., allowing them to depend on the scenario. Hence,
44 and (31), which is realized by using constraint (32) to set for |S| scenarios, the stochastic program is decomposed into
45 αm,c = 0. Fig. 5 demonstrates the time sequence of the repair |S| subproblems. PH can solve the subproblems in parallel
46 process and how to find the restoration time. Starting from to reduce the computational difficulty and increase the effi-
47 the depot, if both travel
P time and repair time is 4 hours, the ciency for large-scale instances. The authors of [27] effectively
48 restoration time is t fm,t = 8. implemented PH for solving the stochastic unit commitment
49 ∀t problem. A full description of the PH algorithm can be found
50 in [26].
51 To demonstrate the PH algorithm, we first define a compact
52 form for the general two-stage stochastic program as follows:
53
54
X
ζ = min aT δ + Pr(s) bTs γs (36)
55 δ,γs
∀s
56
57 s.t. (δ, γs ) ∈ Cs , ∀s (37)
Fig. 5. Time sequence of the repair process.
58 where a and bs are vectors containing the coefficients associ-
59 The routing and power operation problems are connected ated with the first-stage (δ) and second-stage (γs ) variables
60 with the following constraint: in the objective, respectively. The restriction (δ, γs ) ∈ Cs
Page 7 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
7

1
2 represents the subproblem constraints that ensures that the equal to the number of crews; i.e., nc. In this subproblem,
3 solution is feasible. The PH algorithm is described in Algo- all routing constraints are neglected, and we assume that the
4 rithm 1, using a penalty factor ρ and a termination threshold crews instantaneously begin repairing the selected damaged
5 ε. The PH algorithm starts by solving the individual scenario components. The objective of the Divide subproblem (38) is
6 subproblems in Step 2 and aggregates the solutions to obtain to maximize the served loads, while considering distribution
7 the expected value δ̄ in Step 3. The multiplier ηs is updated in network operation constraints. Constraint (39) limits the num-
8 Step 4. The first four steps represent the initialization phase. ber of damages to be repaired. If zm equals 0, then um,t,s must
9 In Step 6, the subproblems are augmented with a linear term be 0, which is enforced by (40). Constraint (41) sets um,t,s to
(r−1)
10 proportional to the multiplier ηs and a squared two norm be 0 until time Tm,s has passed. After determining the critical
11 term penalizing the difference of δ from δ̄ (r−1) , where r is components, we proceed to the conquer phase.
12 the iteration number. Steps 7-8 repeat Steps 3-4. The program 2) Conquer: The second subproblem is formulated sim-
13 (r)
terminates once s∈S Pr(s)||δs − δ̄ (r) || < ε. The termination
P
ilarly to (34). The crews are dispatched to the damaged
14 threshold ε is set to be 0.01 in this paper. components obtained from the Divide subproblem in the first
15 stage, and the distribution network is operated in the second
16 Algorithm 1 The Two-Stage PH Algorithm stage. Define the subset of critical damaged components and
17 1: Let r := 0 starting point as N ′ (r). Note that the starting point after the
18 2: For all s ∈ S, compute:
n o first iteration is the current location of the crew instead of the
(r)
19 δs := arg minδ aT δ + bTs γs : (δ, γs ) ∈ Cs depot. The conquer phase solves the two-stage S-DSRRP for
20 3: δ̄ (r) := s∈S Pr(s)δs
P (r)
N ′ (r), which is formulated as follows:
21 4:
(r) (r)
ηs := ρ(δs − δ̄ (r) )
22 5: r := r + 1 ζ = maxx,γs (34)
23 6: For all s ∈ S compute:
n s.t. (2)-(5), (9)-(33)
24 (r)
δs := arg minδ aT δ + bTs γs + ηs
(r−1)
δ + ρ2 ||δ − δ̄ (r−1) ||2 :
25 o um,t,s = 0, ∀t, s, m ∈ N \N ′ (r) (42)
(δ, γs ) ∈ Cs
26
27 7: δ̄ (r) := s∈S Pr(s)δs
P (r) Constraint (42) states that if a component is damaged and is
28 8:
(r)
ηs := ηs
(r−1) (r)
+ ρ(δs − δ̄ (r) ) not being repaired, then um,t,s equals 0. The two subproblems
29 9: (r) P (r)
µ := s∈S Pr(s)||δs − δ̄ (r) || are repeated until all damaged components are repaired.
30 10: (r)
If µ < ε, then go to Step 5. Otherwise, terminate Algorithm 2 presents the pseudo-code for the Divide and
31 Conquer (D&C) algorithm. The number of iterations is equal
32 B. Divide and Conquer Algorithm to the number of damaged components divided by the number
33 of crews; i.e., ⌊|N \{depot}|/nc⌋. If there are 11 damages
The proposed algorithm iteratively divides the damaged
34 and 3 crews, then the number of iterations will be 3, and the
components and dispatches the crews until all damaged com-
35 remaining damaged components are considered in Steps 11-
ponents are repaired. The S-DSRRP is decomposed into two
36 12. The algorithm starts by solving the divide subproblem in
subproblems.
37 Step 2. After obtaining z ∗ in iteration r, the subset of critical
1) Divide: The first subproblem determines nc critical
38 damaged components, N ′ (r), is defined in Step 3. If N ′ (r)
damaged components to repair. This problem is formulated
39 is null, then all loads can be served without repairing any
as a two-stage SMIP. In the first stage, the critical damaged
40 damaged components. Therefore, the loop ends and the routing
components are determined, and the distribution network is
41 problem is solved for N in Step 12. The conquer subproblem
operated in the second stage. The divide subproblem is for-
42 is solved next in Step 7 to route the crews and operate the
mulated as follows: X X X
43 distribution network. We then update oc in Step 8 by using the
44 z ∗ := arg max D
Pr(s) ωi yi,t,s Pi,t,s (38) results obtained from the conquer subproblem. The end point
z,γ¯s
∀s ∀t ∀i
45 for the crews is set to be the depot, but the variable xm,dc ,c
46 s.t. (9)-(25) is used only to determine the starting locations for the next
47 X
iteration. The crews return to the depot after all repair tasks are
zm ≤ nc (39)
48 finished in the final iteration. The set of damaged components
∀m∈N \{0}
49 is updated in Step 9 by removing the repaired lines. Step 11
50 um,t,s ≤ zm , ∀m, t, s (40) checks whether there are any remaining damaged components,
51 and then solves the conquer subproblem to finish the repairs.
52 A summary of the procedure is shown in Fig. 6.
um,t,s = 0, ∀m, t ∈ {1...Tm,s } (41)
53
54 where γ¯s includes (P B , P G , P L , QB , QG , QL , u, V, y, β). VI. S IMULATION AND R ESULTS
55 Define binary variable zm to equal 1 if damaged component Modified IEEE 34- and 123-bus distribution feeders are used
56 m is a critical damaged component to repair. The goal of the as test cases for the repair and restoration problem. Detailed
57 Divide phase is to find a number of damaged components information on the networks can be found in [28] and [29].
58 that, if repaired, will maximize the served load. In order to The stochastic models and algorithms are implemented using
59 obtain a manageable problem for the Conquer phase, we set the PySP package in Pyomo [30]. IBM’s CPLEX 12.6 mixed-
60 the number of selected (critical) damaged components to be integer solver [31] is used to solve all subproblems. The
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems Page 8 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
9

1
2 TABLE II
D IVIDE AND CONQUER ROUTING SOLUTION FOR THE IEEE 34- BUS FEEDER
3
4 Iteration Divide Conquer Figure Comp. Time
5
6
7
8
Line 5-6 Crew 1 → Line 12-13
9
1 Line 12-13 Crew 2 → Line 31-32 5 min
10 Line 31-32 Crew 3 → Line 5-6
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Line 4-20 Crew 1 → Line 4-20
20 2 Line 7-8 Crew 2 → Line 17-18 3 min
21 Line 17-18 Crew 3 → Line 7-8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3 Line 9-10 Crew 3 → Line 9-10 2 min
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 Table IV. Switch 24-28 is turned on so that DG2 can supply average repair time is 4 hours and the load forecast error is
39 part of the network on the right-hand side. Switch 7-8 remains zero. Then we set the first-stage variable as a fixed parameter
40 off until line 5-6 is repaired, to give a path for the power and solve the stochastic problem to find the value of EEV.
41
coming from the substation. After repairing lines 17-18 and Furthermore, the expected energy not supplied (EENS) is
42
4-20, the DG outputs are increased to meet the higher demand calculated using the same definition in [37]:
43
caused by CLPU. Switch 7-21 and 24-28 turn off once line 7-8
44 X XX
D
and line 9-10 are repaired, respectively. Finally, these back-up


45 EENS = Pr(s) (1 − yi,t,s )Pi,t,s (43)
DGs are turned off since the loads can be supplied by the ∀s ∀t ∀i
46
substation. The route obtained by solving the deterministic problem with
47
48 To show the importance of considering uncertainty in the average repair time and zero load forecast error is shown in
49 problem, we calculate the expected value of perfect informa- Fig. 8. EEV is then found to be 30524.13 and the EENS for
50 tion (EVPI) and the value of the stochastic solution (VSS) this routing plan is 1907.5 kWh, as shown in Table V. By
51 [36]. EVPI is the difference between the wait-and-see (WS) solving the extensive form of the S-DSRRP using Pyomo with
52 and the stochastic solutions. It represents the value of knowing CPLEX solver, we obtained the routes shown in Fig. 9, after
53 the future with certainty. WS is the expected value of reacting 25 hours. Observe that the difference between Fig. 8 and Fig.
54 to random variables with perfect foresight. It is obtained 9 lies around line 4-20. Repairing line 4-20 early gives DG1
55 by calculating the mean of all deterministic solutions of the the opportunity to support the substation and meet the higher
56 scenarios. VSS indicates the benefit of including uncertainty demand caused by CLPU and the high forecast error. The
57 in the optimization problem. VSS is the difference between importance of line 4-20 and DG1 is not captured in the EEV
58 the stochastic solution and the expected value solution (EEV). solution as the uncertainty is not considered in the decision
59 To obtain EEV, we first solve the deterministic problem using making process. The D&C algorithm achieved a solution close
60 the expected value (EV) of the random variables, where the to the EF solution in 10 minutes, with EENS 21.2 kWh lower
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems Page 10 of 12
10

1
2 than the one obtained for EF. The relative gap is obtained TABLE IV
by comparing the objective of the different methods to the S WITCH STATUS , DG OUTPUT, AND SEQUENCE OF REPAIRS FOR THE IEEE
3 34- BUS FEEDER
4 solution obtained using EF, which is only 0.1% for D&C. The
5 same route as D&C is obtained by solving the S-DSRRP using DG1 DG2 DG3 Repaired
Time SW 7-21 SW 24-28
(kW) (kW) (kW) Component
6 conventional PH algorithm (C-PH) without the proposed D&C
0:00 0 1 74.9 143 38.7
7 approach, but the computation time increased to 27 minutes. 1:00 0 1 77.5 148 40 Line 31-32
8 D&C differs from EF in that it prioritizes line 12-13 over 2:00 0 1 67.3 149 34.8 Line 12-13
9 line 9-10, and sends Crew 1 instead of Crew 3 to line 4-20. 3:00 0 1 66.4 145 34.3 Line 5-6
10 Though the D&C has a slightly lower objective value than EF, 4:00 1 1 65.8 150 34
11 the computation time is improved considerably. 5:00 1 1 65.8 150 34 Line 17-18,4-20
12 6:00 1 1 150 150 150
7:00 1 1 0 0 0 Line 7-8
13 TABLE III
8:00 0 1 0 0 0
14 O NE SAMPLE SCENARIO FOR THE IEEE 34- BUS FEEDER WITH 7
DAMAGED LINES
9:00 0 1 0 0 0
15 10:00 0 1 0 0 0
16 Random Variable Component Value 11:00 0 1 0 0 0 Line 9-10
17 Line 5-6 2.71 12:00 0 0 0 0 0
18 Line 7-8 4.01 SW: Switch (0: off, 1: on)
Line 9-10 4.03
19 Repair time (hours) Line 12-13 2.18
20 Line 17-18 2.87 TABLE V
21 Line 4-20 1.68 R ESULTS OF THE STOCHASTIC SIMULATION ON THE IEEE 34- BUS
FEEDER , WITH 7 DAMAGED COMPONENTS
22 Line 31-32 1.14
23 Load 2 -0.1 ζ CT VSS EVPI %Gap EENS (kWh)
24 Load 3 -0.06 EEV 30524.13 257 sec N/A N/A 0.3% 1907.5
25 Load 4 -0.12 D&C 30588.18 10 min 64.05 94.87 0.1% 1862.0
Load 8 0.12 C-PH 30588.18 27 min 64.05 94.87 0.1% 1862.0
26 Load 9 0.09
27 EF 30617.47 25 hours 93.34 65.58 N/A 1840.8
Load 10 0.01
28 Load 11 0.12 WS 30683.05 18 min N/A N/A N/A 1800.4
29 Load 16 0.15 ζ: objective value (weighted kWh); CT: computation time; N/A: not
30 Load 17 -0.12 applicable
31 Load 18 -0.09
Load 19 0.14
32 Load 20 0.14
33 Load forecast error Load 21 0.04
34 Load 22 -0.12
35 Load 23 -0.13
36 Load 24 0.15
37 Load 25 -0.13
Load 27 0.01
38 Load 28 0.04
39 Load 29 -0.14
40 Load 30 -0.01
41 Load 31 0.06 Fig. 9. Routing solution for the IEEE 34-bus network obtained by solving
42 Load 32 0.15 the extensive form.
43 Load 33 -0.04
Load 34 0.12
44
45 The D&C algorithm is compared to the solution obtained
46 by directly solving (34) for one scenario (EF). Four DGs
47 and six switches are installed in the IEEE 123-bus network.
48 Several deterministic cases are considered starting from 0 to
49 35 damaged components. The time horizon is 50 hours and the
50 number of crews is 8. The computation times and the objective
51 values are given in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, respectively.
52 The EF computation time increases exponentially with the
53 number of damaged components, while the D&C computation
54 time experiences a much slower increase. Therefore, the
55 Fig. 8. Routing solution for the IEEE 34-bus network obtained by using the proposed D&C algorithm can provide useful solutions within
56 expected values. a reasonable time.
57 Fig. 12 presents a test case on the 123-bus network with 17
58 B. Case II: IEEE 123-bus distribution feeder damaged components and 5 crews. The figure also shows the
59 In this test case, we first consider a single scenario (deter- route obtained using D&C. The route obtained using D&C is
60 ministic) in order to evaluate the quality of the D&C algorithm. summarized in Table VI, where each column represents one
Page 11 of 12 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems Page 12 of 12
12

1
2 [15] R. E. Perez-Guerrero, et al., “Optimal restoration of distribution systems
using dynamic programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3,
3 1589-1596, July 2007.
4 [16] S. Lim, et al., “Restoration index in distribution systems and its
5 application to system operation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no.
6 4, pp. 1966-1971, Nov. 2006.
[17] C.-C. Liu, V. Vittal, G. T. Heydt, K. Tomsovic, W. Sun, C. Wang,
7 R. Perez, T. Graf, B. Wells, B. Moradzadeh, H. Yuan, “Development
8 and evaluation of system restoration strategies from a blackout,” PSERC
9 Publication 09-08, Sep. 2009.
[18] K. P. Schneider, E. Sortomme, S. S. Venkata, M. T. Miller and L.
10 Ponder, “Evaluating the magnitude and duration of cold load pick-up
11 on residential distribution using multi-state load models,” IEEE Trans.
12 Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 3765-3774, Sep. 2016.
[19] M. Nagpal, G. Delmee, A. El-Khatib,K. Stich, D. Ghangass and A.
13 Bimbhra, “A practical and cost effective cold load pickup management
14 using remote control,” in Proc. Western Protective Relay Conf., Spokane,
15 WA, 2014, pp. 1-25.
16 [20] A. Gholami; F. Aminifar, “A hierarchical response-based approach to
the load restoration problem,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, accepted for
17 publication.
18 [21] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Optimal capacitor placement on radial
19 distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 725-734,
Jan. 1989.
20 [22] S. Ma, B. Chen, and Z. Wang, “Resilience enhancement strategy for
21 distribution systems under extreme weather events,” IEEE Trans. Smart
22 Grid, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1440-1450, Mar. 2017.
[23] R. A. Jabr, R. Singh, and B. C. Pal, “Minimum loss network reconfig-
23 uration using mixed-integer convex programming,” IEEE Trans. Power
24 Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1106-1116, May 2012.
25 [24] G. Kontoravdis, J. F. Bard, “A GRASP for the vehicle routing problem
26 with time windows,” ORSA J. Comput., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 10-23, Feb.
1995.
27 [25] W. J. Cook, W. H. Cunningham, W. R. Pulleyblank, A. Schrijver,
28 Combinatorial Optimization, New York: Wiley, 1998.
29 [26] J.-P. Watson and D. L. Woodruff, “Progressive hedging innovations for a
class of stochastic mixed-integer resource allocation problems,” Comput.
30 Manage. Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 355-370, Jul. 2010.
31 [27] K. Cheung, D. Gade, S. Ryan, C. Silva-Monroy, J.-P. Watson, R. Wets,
32 D. L. Woodruff, “Toward scalable stochastic unit commitment - part 2:
assessing solver performance,” Energy Syst., vol. 6, pp. 417-438, Apr.
33 2015.
34 [28] IEEE PES Power System Analysis, Computing, and Economics Com-
35 mittee. (Sep. 2010). IEEE 34 Node Test Feeder. [Online]. Available:
36 http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders/feeder34.zip
[29] IEEE PES Power System Analysis, Computing, and Economics Com-
37 mittee. (Feb. 2014). IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder. [Online]. Available:
38 http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders/feeder123.zip
39 [30] W. E. Hart, C. Laird, J. P. Watson, and D. L. Woodruff, Pyomo -
optimization modeling in Python (Springer optimization and its applica-
40 tions). New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2012, vol. 67.
41 [31] IBM, ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio. (2016). [Online]. Available:
42 https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/ibm-ilog-cplex
[32] J. Watson, D. L. Woodruff, and W. E. Hart, “PySP: modeling and solving
43 stochastic programs in Python,” Math. Program. Comput., vol. 4, no. 2,
44 pp. 109-149, June 2012.
45 [33] J. Dupacova, N. Growe-Kuska, and W. Romisch, “Scenario reduction in
46 stochastic programming: An approach using probability metrics,” Math.
Program., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 493-511, 2003.
47 [34] GAMS/SCENRED2. Documentation. [Online]. Available:
48 https://www.gams.com/latest/docs/tools/scenred2/index.html
49 [35] Z. Zhu, J. Zhou, C. Yan and L. Chen, “Power system operation risk
assessment based on a novel probability distribution of component repair
50 time and utility theory,” in Proc., Asia-Pacific Power and Ener. Eng.
51 Conf., Shanghai, 2012, pp. 1-6.
52 [36] J. R. Birge and F. Louveaux, Introduction to Stochastic Programming.
New York, NY: Springer, 1997.
53 [37] E. Fumagalli, L. L. Schiavo, and F. Delestre, Service Quality Regulation
54 in Electricity Distribution and Retail. New York: Springer, 2007.
55
56
57
58
59
60