This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]

On: 20 August 2014, At: 03:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Electric Power Components and Systems

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uemp20

Congestion Management Considering Optimal

Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated
Power System Networks
a b c c
Kanwardeep Singh , Vinod Kumar Yadav , Narayana Prasad Padhy & Jaydev Sharma
a
Department of Electrical Engineering , Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College , Ludhiana ,
India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering , Galgotias University , Greater Noida , India
c
Department of Electrical Engineering , Indian Institute of Technology , Roorkee , India
Published online: 10 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Kanwardeep Singh , Vinod Kumar Yadav , Narayana Prasad Padhy & Jaydev Sharma (2014) Congestion
Management Considering Optimal Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated Power System Networks, Electric Power
Components and Systems, 42:1, 13-22, DOI: 10.1080/15325008.2013.843218

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2013.843218

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Electric Power Components and Systems, 42(1):13–22, 2014
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1532-5008 print / 1532-5016 online

DOI: 10.1080/15325008.2013.843218

Congestion Management Considering Optimal

Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated
Power System Networks
Kanwardeep Singh,1 Vinod Kumar Yadav,2 Narayana Prasad Padhy,3
and Jaydev Sharma3
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, India
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

CONTENTS
Abstract—This article presents an effective methodology for con-
1. Introduction gestion management in deregulated power system networks consid-
2. Congestion Management Without DG Placement in ering optimal placement of a distributed generator. The novelty of
this method is that the optimal placement of a distributed genera-
Deregulated Environment tor in a deregulated power system is decided on the basis of bus
3. Sensitivity Analysis for Optimal Placement of DG impedance matrix (Z bus ) based contribution factors. The Z bus -based
4. Congestion Management with DG Placement at Optimal contribution factors are independent of slack bus location, which
complies with the prevailing competitive environment. The conges-
Location
tion management problem formulation comprises the maximization
5. Results and Discussion of social welfare function subject to power balance and transmis-
6. Conclusion sion congestion constraints. The maximization of the social welfare
References function causes maximization of consumer benefits and minimization
of supplier generation cost and distributed generators. The proposed
methodology has been simulated on an IEEE 30-bus system, and
comparisons of results are presented with and without distributed
generators. The results show that the proposed approach gives sig-
nificant improvement in social welfare and decreases congestion rent
with distributed generator placement.

1. INTRODUCTION
Congestion management is one of the major challenges for
secure and reliable operation of power system in a deregu-
lated environment [1–3]. Some of the causes of congestion in
deregulated environment are [4]

• improper coordination among generation and transmis-

sion utilities,

Keywords: bus impedance matrix, competitive environment, congestion

• sudden increase in load demand,
management, distributed generator, sensitivity analysis, social welfare
• failure of equipments (such as failure of capacitor bank),
Received 30 October 2012; accepted 7 September 2013
Address correspondence to Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Assistant Professor,
and
School of Electrical, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Galgotias
University, Plot No. 17A Yamuna Express Way, Greater Noida, Gautam
• unexpected contingencies (such as outage of transmis-
Budh Nagar (UP), India. E-mail: v7k7y7@yahoo.co.in sion lines or generators).

13
 14 Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 42 (2014), No. 1
Moreover, due to the competitive environment, market play-
ers want to make maximum use of available transmission re-
sources, which may lead to situations in which the transmission
network is not able to accommodate all the desired transactions
due to violation of some system constraints. This leads to con-
gestion in the transmission network. Some of the available
congestion management techniques are based on generation
rescheduling [4–7], reactive power management [7–9], zones
and clustering [7], voltage stability [10], relative electrical dis-
tances [11], transmission line switching [12], load shedding [4,
13], load auctions [14], placement of flexible AC transmission
systems [15], and placement of distributed generation (DG)
[16, 17]. Although, the congestion is conventionally alleviated
using generation-side approaches, in the new era of smart grid
regimes, demand-side approaches are proving to be more ef-
fective for improving security and reliability of power system
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014
operation [18, 19]. Hence, this article focuses on the issue of
congestion management using optimal placement of DGs in
deregulated power system networks.
DG technologies involve low capital costs, quicker con-
struction, easy installation, and simple operation. They can
rapidly respond to the changing conditions of competitive
electricity markets [17]. In general, DGs are located in load
pockets and can be treated as negative power demands, which
reduce the transmission and distribution losses and cost of
power generation. In addition to these, there are many inter-
related performance indices upon which DG location can be
decided. Some of these are voltage profile improvement, so-
cial welfare maximization, congestion management, delaying
the construction of transmission and distribution lines, and
improving system reliability, integrity, and efficiency [20, 21].
Willis [22] presented a 2/3 rule for optimal placement of DGs
on a radial feeder with a uniformly distributed load. However,
this rule does not lead to optimal DG location with a centrally
and increasingly distributed load [23]. Afkousi-Paqaleh et al.
[24, 25] presented locational marginal pricing (LMP) and con-
gestion rent based approaches, as well as DG benefit-to-cost
ratio for its optimal sitting and sizing. Liu et al. [16] developed
an approach for congestion management in network power sys-
tems by making use of real power flow, reactive power flow, and
voltage magnitude contribution factors for optimal placement
of DGs. However, the contribution factors developed from the
load flow Jacobian depends upon selection of the slack bus,
which may lead to biased and unfair operation and allocation
of congestion management cost in a deregulated environment
[26, 27]. Yesuratnam and Thukaram [28] proposed a slack bus
independent concept of relative electrical distances for conges-
tion management and improvement of voltage stability. In [29],
a transmission network cost allocation methodology based on
bus impedance matrix (Z bus ) based contribution factors was
presented.
In traditional regulated power systems, the major criteria
for DG placement were to reduce transmission and distribution
losses and cost of power generation. However, in the prevail-
ing deregulated environment, the required objectives of DG
placement are social welfare maximization and congestion
management. Additionally, in the deregulated environment, a
slack bus independent congestion management approach is
required, which can comply with the prevailing competitive
regimes. The Z bus -based contribution factors provide absolute
values of sensitivities of line flows with respect to bus injec-
tions, which are independent of selection of slack bus [30].
In the present article, Z bus -based contribution factors are used
for congestion management considering optimal placement
of DGs in deregulated power system networks. The optimal
placement of DGs in a power system network causes redistri-
bution of power flow over the transmission routes, such that
initially congested lines get relieved. After deciding the op-
timal location for DG placement, the problem has been for-
mulated to maximize social welfare function (SW) subject to
power balance and transmission congestion constraints. The
maximization of SW causes maximization of consumer bene-
fits and minimization of generation cost of suppliers and DG.
The results show that significant improvement in social wel-
fare and decrease in congestion rent are obtained with the
proposed approach. A comparison of the proposed approach
for optimal DG placement for congestion management with
existing LMP and consumer payment (CP) based approaches
is also presented.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2
presents the formulation of the congestion management prob-
lem without DG placement. Sensitivity analysis for optimal
placement of DG is carried out in Section 3. In Section 4, the
congestion management methodology with DG placement is
presented. Simulation results are discussed in Section 5, and
concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.
2. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT WITHOUT DG
PLACEMENT IN DEREGULATED
ENVIRONMENT
Broadly, the congestion management approaches can be clas-
sified into two categories (1) preventive types and (2) cor-
rective types. In the preventive congestion management ap-
proach, transmission congestion constraints (line limits) are
taken care of during the development of the day-ahead gen-
eration and demand schedule, so that congestion should not
occur at the time of actual operation. On the other hand, in the
 Singh et al.: Congestion Management Considering Optimal Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated Power System Networks 15

DISCOs/DSTs minus the cost function of GENCOs/GSTs.

The formulation of the congestion management problem in
deregulated power system networks is maximization of SW
d di Demand Bid
subject to system power balance and system transmission con-
gestion (or security) constraints. Mathematically, the conges-
−cdi
Price ($/MWh)

tion management problem without DG placement can be for-

mulated as follows:

Nd 
Ng

agi Max SW = Bdi (Pdi ) − C gi (Pgi ), (3)

i=1 i=1
bgi Generator Offer
subject to equality and inequality constraints and bounds on
variables as follows.
Power Generation/
Demand (MW) 1. Power balance constraints as given by DC load flow
equations [3] at all buses:
FIGURE 1. Generator offer and demand bid.
N
1
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

Pgi − Pdi = (δi − δ j ), ∀i = 1, 2, . . . N . (4)

corrective congestion management approach, the day-ahead x
j=1 i j
schedule is required to be rescheduled on an hourly/half-
hourly basis due to certain contingencies. In this article, a 2. Transmission congestion constraints as given by line
preventive congestion management approach is explored as power flows are less than/equal to line overloading
used in the Pennsylvania–Jersey–Maryland (PJM) electricity limits:
market [31] to analyze the effect of optimal DG placement. In
|Pli j | ≤ Plimax
j , ∀i − j ∈ Nl . (5)
the preventive congestion management approach, the objec-
tive is to maximize the SW of market participants (generation
3. Bounds on variables as follows:
companies [GENCOs], distribution companies [DISCOs], and
traders) subject to system operational and security constraints. 0 ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgimax , ∀i = 1, 2, . . . N g , (6)
The SW is deduced from the generator offers and demand bids. 0 ≤ Pdi ≤ Pdimax , ∀i = 1, 2, . . . Nd , (7)
The monotonically increasing generator offers and monotoni- δimin ≤ δi ≤ δimax , ∀i = 1, 2, . . . N , (8)
cally decreasing demand bids can be represented as shown in
Figure 1. where
The benefit function (Bdi (Pdi )) in $/hr of a DISCO or de- Nd , N g , N , Nl are the number of DISCOs/DSTs, num-
mand serving trader (DST) can be obtained from its bid [32]. ber of GENCOs/GSTs, number of system buses, and
Similarly, the cost function (C gi (Pgi )) in $/hr of a GENCO or number of lines;
generator serving trader (GST) can be obtained from its offer. δi is the bus voltage angle at the ith bus;
Mathematically, xi j is the series inductive reactance of the line connected
1 between buses i–j;
Bdi (Pdi ) = − cdi Pdi2 + ddi Pdi ($/hr) , (1) Pli j , Plimax
j are the real power flow over the line con-
2
1 nected between buses i–j and its maximum limit;
C gi (Pgi ) = agi Pgi2 + bgi Pgi ($/hr) , (2) Pgimax , Pdimax are the maximum values of Pgi and Pdi ; and
2
δimin , δimax are the Minimum and maximum values of δi .
where
In the above problem formulation, a DC OPF optimal power
−cdi , ddi are the slope and intercept of the demand bid of the
flow (OPF)-based congestion management approach is used,
ith DISCO/DST (refer to Figure 1),
although an AC OPF-based approach can also be used, which
agi , bgi are the slope and intercept of the generator offer of the
minimizes the effect of losses and congestion in comparison to
ith GENCO/GST (refer to Figure 1), and
the DC OPF-based approach, which takes care of congestion
Pdi , Pgi are the real power demand and generation of the ith
only. Since the main aim of this article is optimal placement of
DISCO/DST and ith GENCO/GST.
DG for congestion management, the DC OPF-based approach
In the competitive deregulated environment of power sys- is used herein. The DC OPF-based approach considers only
tem operation, the SW is obtained as the benefit function of the P-subproblem. The Q-subproblem is not considered here,
 16 Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 42 (2014), No. 1

i yij = 1/ (rij + j * xij ) j

and bus voltage phasor (V̄k ) at bus k as
 
Pk + j Q k ∗
S ij S ji I¯k = , (11)
V̄k
Vi bijsh bijsh V j
using Eq. (11) in Eq. (10) and taking the real part of Si∗j to give
j j
2 2
real power flow (Pi j ) over line i–j as
 N   

 Pk + j Q k ∗
∗
Pi j = Re V̄i (Z ik − Z jk ) yi j . (12)
FIGURE 2. π -Model of transmission line. k=1
V̄k
After expanding Eq. (12) and neglecting the dependency of
because the Q-subproblem can be considered separately under Pi j due to Q k ,
reactive power procurement in a deregulated environment [9]. N  
Vi
Pi j = ∗ [gi j {(Rik − R jk ) cos(δi − δk )
k=1
Vk
3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR OPTIMAL + (X ik − X jk ) sin(δi − δk )} + bi j {(Rik − R jk )
PLACEMENT OF DG × sin(δi − δk ) − (X ik − X jk ) cos(δi − δk )}]Pk
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

In this article, Z bus -based contribution factors [29, 30] are (13)
used to carry out sensitivity analysis for optimal placement or
of DG; it gives (i) optimal location of DG placement from 
N
the point of view of congestion management; (ii) it decides Pi j = Pikj Pk , (14)
priorities of other locations for DG placement, which means k=1
that if the optimal location is not suitable from a geographical where
point of view, then other sub-optimal locations can be decided  
Vi
for DG placement according to their priorities; and (iii) the Pikj = ∗ [gi j {(Rik − R jk ) cos(δi − δk )
Vk
methodology is independent of slack bus location. + (X ik − X jk ) sin(δi − δk )} + bi j {(Rik − R jk )
Consider a π -model representation of a transmission line
× sin(δi − δk ) − (X ik − X jk ) cos(δi − δk )}] (15)
between bus i and bus j, as shown in Figure 2. For this i–jth
transmission line, let ri j be the series resistance, xi j the series Pikj is the contribution factor of real power flow over line i–j due
ri j −xi j
reactance, gi j = r 2 +x 2 the series conductance, bi j = 2
r +x 2
to real power injection at bus k. Pikj determines the contribu-
ij ij ij ij

the series susceptance, yi j = 1

= gi j + j ∗ bi j the se- tions of system bus injections toward real power flow over con-
ri j + j∗xi j
gested lines; hence, optimal location of DG placement should
ries admittance, bishj the half-line charging susceptance, and
be the kth bus, which gives the maximum negative value of
V̄i (V¯ j ) the bus voltage phasor at the ith (jth) bus. Using these
Pikj corresponding to the i–jth congested line.
symbols, the complex power flow (Si j ) over line i–j at the (ith)
bus can be written as
4. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT WITH DG
∗
bishj PLACEMENT AT OPTIMAL LOCATION
Si j = V̄i [(V̄i − V̄ j )yi j ] − j Vi2 . (9)
2
After deciding the optimal placement of DG as given in Section
3, the congestion management problem is formulated, includ-
The bus voltages V̄i and V¯ j can be expressed in terms of ing the effect of DG [33]. To include the effect of DG, SW is
elements of Z bus , which modifies Eq. (9) as modified to include cost function of DG as given by Eq. (16):
 N  
Nd 
Ng
 
N
bishj
Si∗j = V̄i∗ Z ik I¯k − Z jk I¯k yi j + j Vi2 , (10) modified SW = Bdi (Pdi ) − C gi (Pgi ) − C(PDG ),
k=1 k=1
2 i=1 i=1
(16)
where Z ik = Rik + j ∗ X ik is the i–kth element of Z bus , Z jk =
where the cost function of DG can be obtained from slope
R jk + j ∗ X jk is the j–kth element of Z bus , and I¯k is the current
(a DG ) and intercept (b DG ) of DG offer, given as
injected in the kth bus. I¯k can be written in terms of real power
injected (Pk ) at bus k, reactive power injected (Q k ) at bus k, 1
C (PDG ) = 2
a DG PDG + b DG PDG ($/hr) . (17)
2
 Singh et al.: Congestion Management Considering Optimal Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated Power System Networks 17

Further, the power balance constraints are also modified to Step 1: Solve the congestion management problem without
include the effect of DG as given by Eqs. (18) and (19): DG placement, Eqs. (3)–(8); use Eq. (21) to determine
congestion rent without DG.
N
1
Pgi − Pdi = (δi − δ j ), ∀i = 1, 2, . . . N ; i = k, Step 2: Perform a load flow study to obtain the state of the
x
j=1 i j
system after congestion management (Step 1).
(18)

N Step 3: Use the state of the system (Step 2) to obtain contribu-
1
Pgi + PDGi − Pdi = (δi − δ j ), i = k, (19) tion factors corresponding to a congested line using
j=1
xi j Eq. (15); the bus at which the highest negative value
and the bound on power generated by DG is given by of contribution factor is obtained gives the optimal
location for placement of DG.
0 ≤ PDGk ≤ PDG
max
, (20)
Step 4: Place the DG of the given rating at the location given
where k is the bus location of DG, PDGi is the real power by Step 3, and solve the congestion management
max
generated by DG at the ith bus, and PDG is the rating of DG problem for maximization of modified SW given by
used. Eq. (16) subject to the modified power balance con-
The congestion management problem formulation with DG straints in Eqs. (18) and (19), transmission congestion
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

comprises the maximization of modified SW given by Eq. (16)
subject to modified power balance constraints in Eqs. (18) and
(19), transmission congestion constraints given by Eq. (5), and
bounds on variables in Eqs. (6)–(8), and (20).
In order to perform a comparative analysis, congestion rent
to be paid by the customers is evaluated without and with DG
placement. The congestion rent is given by the difference in the
social welfare value of the congestion management problem
without and with taking into account congestion constraints
[32], i.e.,
constraints given by Eq. (5), and bounds on variables
Eqs. (6)–(8) and (20); use Eq. (22) to determine con-
gestion rent with DG.
Step 5: Perform load flow study to find line flow in congested
line after congestion management.
A flowchart representation of the proposed methodology
given above is shown in Figure 3. The proposed congestion
management problem is a non-linear programming problem
and is solved with the help of optimization toolbox (using op-
 −(5) +(5) 
congestion rent without DG = SW(3) − SW(3) , (21) timization function fmincon) and by making use of the DC OPF
function files of MATPOWER software [34] in the MATLAB
and similarly, environment.
 −(5) +(5) 
congestion rent with DG = SW(16) − SW(16) (22)
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
where
−(5)
The methodology discussed above is simulated on IEEE 30-
SW(3) is the social welfare as given by Eq. (3) of the conges- bus system [34], which consists of 6 GENCOs, 21 DISCOs,
tion management problem, without DG, without taking into and 41 transmission lines (shown in Figure 4). Line number 2
account congestion constraints in Eq. (5); connected between buses 1 and 3 is considered to be congested
+(5)
SW(3) is the social welfare as given by Eq. (3) of the conges- with its line loading limit set to 60 MW. The cost functions of
tion management problem, without DG, taking into account the GENCOs are obtained from agi and bgi of their offers, as
congestion constraints in Eq. (5); available in [34], and are given in Table 1.
−(5)
SW(16) is the modified social welfare as given by Eq. (16)
of the congestion management problem, with DG, without
taking into account congestion constraints in Eq. (5); and agi bgi
+(5)
SW(16) is the modified social welfare as given by Eq. (16) of Generator (i) ($/MW2h) ($/MWh) C gi (Pgi ) ($/hr)
the congestion management problem, with DG, taking into 1 0.076864 20 0.038432 ∗
Pgi2+ 20 ∗ Pgi
account congestion constraints in Eq. (5). 2 0.5 20 0.25 ∗ Pgi2 + 20 ∗ Pgi
3 0.02 40 0.01 ∗ Pgi2 + 40 ∗ Pgi
4.1. Algorithm of Proposed Methodology 4 0.02 40 0.01 ∗ Pgi2 + 40 ∗ Pgi
The proposed congestion management methodology consid- 5 0.02 40 0.01 ∗ Pgi2 + 40 ∗ Pgi
ering optimal placement of DG in deregulated power system 6 0.02 40 0.01 ∗ Pgi2 + 40 ∗ Pgi
networks has been summarized in following steps. TABLE 1. Cost functions of GENCOs obtained from agi and bgi
 18 Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 42 (2014), No. 1

DG_Placement = "No"

Solve Congestion
Management Problem

Determine Congestion
Rent

Perform Load Flow Study

to Obtain State of the
System

DG_Placement Yes
= “Yes”? Stop
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

No
Obtain Pijk ; k = 1, 2,...N
i-j=congested line

Place DG of Given Rating

at Bus, Where Pijk is
Maximum Negative
DG_Placement = "Yes"
FIGURE 3. Flowchart representation of proposed
methodology.
The benefit functions of DISCOs are taken as Bdi (Pdi ) =
60 ∗ Pdi ($/hr), ∀i, which fixes a price cap of $60/MWh in the
electricity market. In this article, it has been considered that
DG is able to provide real power only. Hence, its influence is
considered only in terms of active power flow. For optimal DG
placement, the congestion management problem is first solved
without DG by running the IEEE 30-bus system case file with
DC OPF (modified to include DISCO benefit function) of
MATPOWER software. Based on the results obtained, a load
flow study is performed. Using the state of the power system
as given by the load flow solution, Z bus -based contribution
factors (Pikj ) are evaluated corresponding to congested line
1–3, which are given in Table 2.
FIGURE 4. IEEE 30-bus system.
k
Table 2 shows that the maximum negative value of P1−3
occurs for bus 3; hence, DG placement at bus 3 would cause
the maximum reduction in congestion in the congested line.
The optimal location for DG placement for congestion man-
agement at bus 3 may also be judged qualitatively from the
fact that congested line 1–3 restricts the flow of power toward
bus 3. Hence, DG placement at bus 3 acts as line enhancement
of the transmission capacity of line 1–3. The optimal location
for DG placement obtained with the proposed approach agrees
with the LMP-based approach [33]. In LMP-based markets,
the payments received by GENCOs and charged from DISCOs
are priced according to the LMPs at their locations. Another
deciding factor presented in [33] is CP, which is the product of
LMP and power delivered at any bus. In LMP- and CP-based
approaches [33], the priority locations for DG placement are
decided according to descending values of LMPs and CPs at
different buses. Table 3 shows the first five priority locations

k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
k
P1−3 0.3035 0.1359 −0.2271 −0.1137 0.0424 −0.0539 −0.0140 −0.0544 −0.0654 −0.0721
k 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
k
P1−3 −0.0639 −0.0922 −0.0923 −0.0903 −0.0881 −0.0845 −0.0761 −0.08325 −0.0801 −0.0782
k 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
k
P1−3 −0.0733 −0.0734 −0.0831 −0.0757 −0.0688 −0.0699 −0.0639 −0.0553 −0.0649 −0.0654
TABLE 2. Z bus -based contribution factors corresponding to congested line 1–3
 Singh et al.: Congestion Management Considering Optimal Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated Power System Networks 19

Z bus -based DG placement at

Priority contribution LMP at bus k CP at bus k
k
location (k) factor (P1−3 ) ($/MWh) ($/hr)
DG
3 −0.2271 42.99 103.176 rating
4 −0.1137 41.13 312.588 (MW) Bus 3 Bus 4 Bus 13 Bus 12 Bus 14
13 −0.0923 40.78 0.0
Line flow 60 56.7 62.94 63.19 63.21 63.9
12 −0.0922 40.78 456.736
(MW)
14 −0.0903 40.74 252.588
70 51.54 58.95 60.78 60.8 61.99
TABLE 3. Priority locations for DG placement, their Z bus -based 80 46.39 54.86 56.97 56.99 58.55
contribution factors, LMPs, and CPs
Line loading limit 60 MW
TABLE 5. Practical line flow in congested line 1–3 after DG
for DG placement and corresponding values of Z bus -based placement
contribution factors, LMPs, and CPs.
It is clear from Table 3 that the proposed approach for op- plete relieving of congestion. A comparison of LMP profile at
timal DG placement is consistent with LMP rankings. For the various buses without and with DG placement at bus 3 and bus
present system conditions, the highest CP value of $3640.45/hr 5 is shown in Figure 5. The LMP profile has become uniform
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

is obtained at bus 5. However, CP rankings proposed in [33]
cannot be used for optimal placement of DG, especially when
the system is under congested conditions. This is due to the
fact that the effect of load may cause a reduction in CP value,
where DG is highly needed to relieve congestion, as in case
of bus 3 (see Table 3). The CP-based approach may be more
helpful for deciding the location of DG placement under un-
congested conditions in order to reduce the effect of losses,
whereby the DG is placed in load pockets.
The cost coefficients of DG are taken to be a DG = 0
$/MW2h and b DG = 30 $/MWh. The rated power of DG is
taken as 60 MW, which is based on the assumption that DG
penetration may be up to 20% of the conventional generation
of the system. The congestion management problem is solved
with DG placed at bus 3. A comparison of SW values, its com-
ponents, and congestion rent obtained without and with DG
placement at bus 3 (as given by the proposed and LMP-based
approach) and bus 5 (as given by the CP-based approach) is
given in Table 4.
It is clear from Table 4 that SW value has been largely
enhanced and GENCO costs have been reduced after DG is
placed at bus 3. The congestion rent has vanished, which shows
that congestion has been relieved after DG placement at bus 3.
On the other hand, DG placement at bus 5 cannot cause com-
at various buses after DG placement at bus 3, which also shows
that congestion has been eliminated after DG placement.
Table 3 also gives sub-optimal locations for DG placements;
i.e., if optimal location is not suitable from geographical or
other reasons, sub-optimal locations can be used based on
their priorities.
In order to obtain practical line flow in congested line after
DG placement, a load flow study is performed by considering
optimal DG location (bus 3) and other sub-optimal DG loca-
tions. Table 5 gives congested line flow results obtained from
load flow study after DG placement.
It is clear from Table 5 that congestion has practically been
relieved only when the DG (of rating 60 MW) has been placed
at the optimal location (bus 3), whereas in the case of DG
placement at sub-optimal locations, line flow is slightly more
than the line loading limit. In order to relieve the congestion
for DG placement at sub-optimal locations, it becomes neces-
sary to increase the rating of the DG. It becomes evident from
Table 5 that as DG rating is increased, congestion can also be
relieved by placing a DG at sub-optimal locations. A compar-
ison of SW values with DG placement at an optimal location
(bus 3) and sub-optimal locations with increased DG rating is
given in Figure 6. The SW value increases with an increase in
DG rating. This is due to the reason that operation cost of a

With DG placement at bus 3

(as given by proposed and With DG placement at bus 5
Without DG placement LMP-based approach) (as given by CP-based approach)
Social welfare ($/hr) 8438.4 9073.5 8939.2
DISCO benefit ($/hr) 17,004.0 17,004.0 17,004.0
GENCO cost ($/hr) 8565.6 6130.5 6264.8
DG cost ($/hr) — 1800.0 1800.0
Congestion rent ($/hr) 222.2 0.0 134.3
TABLE 4. Comparison of social welfare, its components, and congestion rent without and with DG placement at bus 3 and bus 5
 20 Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 42 (2014), No. 1

Without DG DG at bus 5 DG at bus 3

45

40
LMP ($/h)

35

30
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
Bus Number
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014

FIGURE 5. Comparison of LMP profile without and with DG placement at bus 3 and bus 5 using DC OPF-based approach (color figure
available online).

DG is less compared to other generators in the system; hence,
more power is being fetched from the DG. It is also clear from
Figure 6 that when congestion has been relieved, further in-
creasing the capacity of DG gives a similar SW value at optimal
and sub-optimal locations under the DC OPF-based approach.
However, the SW value may be different in the case of the AC
OPF-based approach due to the effect of losses. The present
article includes only the operation cost of DG for its optimal
placement. For deciding the optimal size of DG, it becomes
important to consider the investment and maintenance cost of
DG and its benefit-to-cost ratio [24, 25]. However, this study
can easily be extended in this regard to decide the optimal lo-
cation as well as size of DG. Bus voltages have been obtained
from the load flow study after congestion management. In the
9200
Social Welfare ($/h)
considered IEEE 30-bus system, bus voltages obtained are in
the secure vicinity of rated values.
6. CONCLUSION
In this article, an effective congestion management methodol-
ogy for congestion management in deregulated power system
networks using optimal placement of DG has been presented.
The optimal placement of DG as obtained from Z bus -based
contribution factors is independent of slack bus location, which
complies with the prevailing competitive environment. More-
over, the optimal placement of DG for congestion manage-
ment obtained from Z bus -based contribution factors is consis-
tent with the LMP-based approach but not with the CP-based
approach. Hence, it can be concluded that Z bus -based contri-
bution factors can also spot the congested nodes in the sys-
tem, similar to LMPs. The proposed methodology maximizes
SW (maximization of consumer benefits and minimization of
generation cost of suppliers and DG) and takes into account

9150
real power balance and transmission congestion constraints.
The simulation of proposed methodology on the IEEE 30-
9100 bus system shows that significant improvement in social wel-
fare and relieving of transmission congestion occurs with DG
9050
placement.
80
9000 70
Bus 3 Bus 4 Bus 13 Bus 12 Bus 14 60 DG
DG Location Rating REFERENCES
(MW)
[1] Song, Y. H., Wang, X., and Liu, J. Z., “Operation of restruc-
FIGURE 6. Comparison of social welfare values with DG tured power systems”, in Operation of Market Oriented Power
placement at optimal and sub-optimal locations (color figure Systems, Y. H. Song and X. Wang (Eds.), London: Springer,
available online). Chap. 1, pp. 1–7, 2003.
 Singh et al.: Congestion Management Considering Optimal Placement of Distributed Generator in Deregulated Power System Networks
[2] Shirmohammadi, D., Wollenberg, B., Vojdani, A., Sandrin,
P., Pereira, M., Rahimi, F., Schneider, T., and Stott, B.,
“Transmission dispatch and congestion management in the
emerging energy market structures,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
Vol. 13, pp. 1466–1474, 1998.
[3] Christie, R. D., Wollenberg, B. F., and Wangensteen, I., “Trans-
mission management in the deregulated environment,” Proc.
IEEE, Vol. 88, pp. 170–195, 2000.
[4] Hazra, J., and Sinha, A. K., “Congestion management us-
ing multiobjective particle swarm optimization,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., Vol. 22, pp. 1726–1734, 2007.
[5] Dutta, S., and Singh, S. P., “Optimal rescheduling of genera-
tors for congestion management based on particle swarm op-
timization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 23, pp. 1560–1569,
2008.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014
[6] Talukdar, B. K., Sinha, A. K., Mukhopadhya, S., and Bose, A.,
“A computationally simple method for cost-efficient generation
rescheduling and load shedding for congestion management,”
Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., Vol. 27, pp. 379–388, 2005.
[7] Kumar, A., Srivastava, S. C., and Singh, S. N., “A zonal con-
gestion management approach using real and reactive power
rescheduling,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 19, pp. 554–562,
2004.
[8] Hao, S., and Papalexopoulos, A., “Reactive power pricing and
management,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 12, pp. 95–104,
1997.
[9] Singh, K., Padhy, N. P., and Sharma, J. D., “Social welfare max-
imization considering reactive power and congestion manage-
ment in deregulated environment,” Int. J. Elect. Power Compon.
Syst., Vol. 38, pp. 50–71, 2010.
[10] Conejo, A. J., Milano, F., and Bertrand, R., “Congestion man-
agement ensuring voltage stability,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
Vol. 21, pp. 357–364, 2006.
[11] Yesuratnam, G., and Thukaram, D., “Congestion management
in open access based on relative electrical distances using volt-
age stability criteria,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., Vol. 77, pp.
1608–1618, 2007.
[12] Shao, W., and Vittal, V., “Corrective switching algorithm for
relieving overloads and voltage violations,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., Vol. 20, pp. 1877–1885, 2005.
[13] Shandilya, A., Gupta, H., and Sharma, J., “Method for genera-
tion rescheduling and load shedding to alleviate line overloads
using local optimization,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Vol. 140,
pp. 337–342, 1993.
[14] Tuan, L. A., Bhattacharya, K., and Daalder, J., “Transmis-
sion congestion management in bilateral markets: An inter-
21
ruptible load auction solution,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., Vol. 74,
pp. 379–389, 2005.
[15] Acharya, N., and Mithulananthan, N., “Locating series FACTS
devices for congestion management in deregulated electric-
ity markets,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., Vol. 77, pp. 352–360,
2007.
[16] Liu, J., Salama, M. M. A., and Mansour, R. R., “Identify the
impact of distributed resources on congestion management,”
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 20, pp. 1998–2005, 2005.
[17] Shahidehpour, M., “Distributed resources for transmission con-
gestion and expansion management,” Proceedings of IEEE
Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, pp. 1045–1048,
Chicago, IL, 25 July 2002.
[18] Rahimi, F., and Ipakchi, A., “Demand response as a market
resource under the smart grid paradigm,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, Vol. 1, pp. 82–88, 2010.
[19] Singh, K., Padhy, N. P., and Sharma, J. D., “Influence of price
responsive demand shifting bidding on congestion and LMP in
pool-based day-ahead electricity markets,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., Vol. 26, pp. 886–896, 2011.
[20] Gautam, D., and Mithulananthan, N., “Optimal DG placement
in deregulated electricity market,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., Vol.
77, pp. 1627–1636, 2007.
[21] Singh, R. K., and Goswami, S. K., “Optimum siting and sizing
of distributed generations in radial and networked systems,”
Elect. Power Compon. Syst., Vol. 37, pp. 127–145, 2009.
[22] Willis, H. L., “Analytical methods and rules of thumb for mod-
eling DG-distribution interaction,” Proceedings of IEEE Power
Engineering Society Summer Meeting, pp. 1643–1644, Seattle,
WA, 16–20 July 2000.
[23] Wang, C., and Nehrir, M. H., “Analytical approaches for optimal
placement of distributed generation sources in power systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 19, pp. 2068–2076, 2004.
[24] Afkousi-Paqaleh, M., Abbaspour Tehrani Fard, A., and Rashidi-
Nejad, M., “Distributed generation placement for congestion
management considering economic and financial issues,” Elect.
Eng., Vol. 92, pp. 193–201, 2010.
[25] Afkousi-Paqaleh, M., Abbaspour Tehrani Fard, A., Rashidi-
Nejad, M., and Lee, K. Y., “Optimal placement and sizing of
distributed resources for congestion management considering
cost/benefit analysis,” IEEE PES General Meeting, pp. 1–7,
Minneapolis, MN, 25–29 July 2010.
[26] Wu, T., Alaywan, Z., and Papalexopoulos, A. D., “Loca-
tional marginal price calculations using the distributed-slack
power-flow formulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 20, pp.
1188–1190, 2005.
 22 Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 42 (2014), No. 1
[27] Yuen, Y. S. C., and Lo, K. L., “Simulation of bilateral energy
markets using MATLAB, COMPEL,” Int. J. Computat. Math.
Elect. Electron. Eng., Vol. 22, pp. 424–443, 2003.
[28] Yesuratnam, G., and Thukaram, D., “Congestion management
in open access based on relative electrical distances using
voltage stability criteria,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., Vol. 77,
pp. 1608–1618, 2007.
[29] Conejo, A. J., Contreras, J., Lima, D. A., and Feltrin, A. P., “Zbus
transmission network cost allocation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
Vol. 22, pp. 342–349, 2007.
[30] Singh, K., Padhy, N. P., and Sharma, J. D., “Bus impedance ma-
trix based approach for congestion management in deregulated
environment,” IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition, pp.
1–6, New Orleans, LA, 19–20 April 2010.
[31] Bompard, E., Correia, P., Gross, G., and Amelin, M.,
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:17 20 August 2014
“Congestion-management schemes: A comparative analysis un-
der a unified framework,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 18, pp.
346–352, 2003.
[32] Shrestha, G. B., and Fonseka, P. A. J., “Congestion-driven trans-
mission expansion in competitive power markets,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., Vol. 19, pp. 1658–1665, 2004.
[33] Gautam, D., and Mithulananthan, N., “Locating distributed
generator in the LMP-based electricity market for social wel-
fare maximization,” Elect. Power Compon. Syst., Vol. 35,
pp. 489–503, 2007.
[34] Zimmerman, R. D., Murillo-Sanchez, C. E., and Gan, D.,
“MATPOWER—A MATLABTM power system simulation
package,” 2005, available at: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/
matpower/
BIOGRAPHIES
Kanwardeep Singh received the B.E. degree in Electrical
Engineering from GZS CET, Bathinda, India in 1996, the
M.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering with specialization
in Power Systems from the National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra, India in 2000 and the Ph.D. in Electrical En-
gineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee,
India in 2010. Presently, he is serving as Assistant Professor
in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College, Ludhiana, India. His research interests
include power system deregulation, electricity markets oper-
ation & economics and grid integration of renewable energy
sources.
Vinod Kumar Yadav received the B.Tech degree in Electrical
Engineering from IET, MJPRU (State Government) Bareilly,
India in 2003, the M.Tech degree in Electrical Engineering
with specialization in Power Systems from the National Insti-
tute of Technology (NIT), Jamshedpur, India in 2005 and the
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering with specialization in Power
Systems from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roor-
kee, India in 2011. Presently, he is working as Assistant Pro-
fessor in the School of Electrical, Electronics and Commu-
nication Engineering, Galgotias University, Greater Noida,
India. His research interests include power system deregula-
tion, power system planning and implementation, distributed
generation.
Narayana Prasad Padhy, received his Ph.D. in Power Systems
Engineering from Anna University, Chennai, India in 1997. He
is working as a professor in the Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Roorkee, India.
During 2005-06 he worked as a Research Fellow in the Depart-
ment of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of
Bath, UK., under BOYSCAST Fellowship from Govt. of India.
He has also worked as a Research Fellow in the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ryerson University,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada during 2009-10. He was awarded the
Humboldt Research Fellowship for Experienced Researchers
in 2009. His research interests are in power systems analysis,
pricing, economics, optimization and AI.
Jaydev Sharma graduated in Electrical Engineering in 1968
and ME and Ph.D. in 1971 and 1974, respectively. Currently he
is an Emeritus Fellow at Electrical Engineering Department,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He held vari-
ous positions as Director (Actg), Dean (Sponsored Research
& Industrial Consultancy) and Professor, all at Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee. He has published about 230 research
papers in the international journal and conferences. His current
research interests include power system planning and opera-
tion, artificial intelligence, and renewable energy systems.