You are on page 1of 7

58

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 23, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2008

Cost-Benefit Reflective Distribution Charging Methodology
Furong Li, Member, IEEE, Narayana Prasad Padhy, Ji Wang, Student Member, IEEE, and Bless Kuri, Student Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper describes the principle and implementation of a new MW+MVAr-Miles charging methodology, which was developed to reflect three key cost drivers in distribution network development: the distance used to support nodal real and reactive power injection/withdrawal; the degree of support offered by the network assets; and the operating condition of the supporting assets in terms of their power factors. The inclusion of the latter driver allows the developed charging methodology to reward network users who are contributing to better power factors and better network utilization, while penalizing customers who worsen power factors and network utilization. As a consequence, the charging model is able to provide forward-looking incentives for network customers to behave in a manner to better the network condition, which will in turn help to reduce the cost of future network development. In addition, the separation of real and reactive power pricing would give network users clear indications of the cost of their reactive power draw from the network, which in turn could help them to evaluate the economics in investing in reactive power compensation devices. The proposed charging methodology is demonstrated on a practical eight-busbar distribution system with a mixed demand and embedded generation (EG). This paper results from work undertaken in a project on distribution charging methodologies for Western Power Distribution. The views in this paper expressed are not those of Western Power Distribution. Index Terms—Distribution network charging methodology, embedded generators, network condition, power factor.

I. INTRODUCTION HE electricity supply industry worldwide is undergoing substantial changes, motivated by two major factors. One is to promote plant operating efficiency through effective competition, and the other is to enable renewable and efficient energy to make major contribution to future energy provision. These changes aim to benefit consumers with affordable, diverse, and sustainable electricity for the future [1]. Distribution use of system (DUoS) charges are charges against generators, large industrial customers, and suppliers for their use of a distribution network. The charges are set to reflect the cost of installation, operation, and maintenance of the distribution network. The charging methodology adopted

T

Manuscript received August 29, 2006; revised June 6, 2007. Paper no. TPWRS-00571-2006. F. Li, J. Wang, and B. Kuri are with the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, U.K. (e-mail: F.Li@bath.ac.uk; J.A.Wang@bath.ac.uk; eembk@bath.ac.uk). N. P. Padhy is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institution of Technology (e-mail: narayanaprasadpadhy@yahoo.com). Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.913201

by the majority of distribution network operators (DNOs) in the U.K. is a distribution reinforcement model (DRM), having the following three-step procedure in deriving yardsticks for different voltage levels: 1) cost evaluation: cost of accommodating 500 MW in simultaneous maximum demands; 2) cost allocation: yardsticks at different voltage levels based on their use of upstream assets. Customers at the same voltage level are considered to use the same level of upstream assets; hence, they are charged the same unit price regardless of their location; 3) revenue reconciliation: any shortfalls between the recovered revenue and the allowed revenue is proportionally allocated to all network users. This charging methodology is under close scrutiny by the regulator—Office of Gas and Electricity Market (OFGEM), primarily driven by the following two major concerns [2]: 1) inability to provide locational signals for the siting and sizing of future generation and demand; 2) inability to facilitate the potentially significant increases in embedded generation. Lack of forward-looking economic signals is also inherited in other well-known yardstick-based distribution network pricing models [3]–[9]. A natural approach for economic pricing of distributed networks is to adopt a well-established economic charging model for that of transmission [10]–[19]. In the case of a MW-Milesbased charging methodology, the use of system or network charges are calculated according to the MW magnitude and the distances traveled in transporting power from points of generation to points of consumption. Since the MW-Miles charging methodology only accounts for the cost of real power transportation, it neglects the cost imposed on the network from reactive power flow. This can be particularly problematic for distribution networks where they tend to operate at a poorer power factor than their transmission counterparts. For example, embedded wind generators may inject real power but withdraw reactive power. As a consequence, if only real power is considered in a charging model, it will credit embedded generator’s active power contribution but fail to penalize its reactive power drawn. This can result in misleading locational signals, hence, economically inefficient network charges. Pricing the capital cost of holding network capacity, supporting network users’ reactive power flow, has attracted less attention compared with pricing based on operational cost. Significant effort has been devoted to pricing the cost arising from operation, accounting for network losses and the need to

0885-8950/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

As such. the paper suggested that the capital costs incurred should be used in reactive power pricing. 2) networks that generate and carry reactive power while maintaining the security and quality of supply. offering better transparency to market operation and regulation. As a result. then the annuity cost ( ) for each network asset can be determined with the following equation: (1) For network asset . network users are charged up to the capacity they utilize. 1. As recognized by Hao and Papalexopoulos [27]. very little revenue can be generated for network owners since reactive power compensation devices cost far less compared with generators [28]. Section IV concludes this paper. 1. Section III compares and contrasts the proposed charging model with MW-Miles and MVA-Miles methodologies. and the annual factor is AF. As a consequence of the latter consideration. Contribution of real and reactive power to apparent power. it does not recognize the leading or lagging condition of the circuits.: COST-BENEFIT REFLECTIVE DISTRIBUTION CHARGING METHODOLOGY 59 reschedule generation as a result of nodal reactive power injection [20]–[26]. however. the reactive power operational cost only accounts for a small portion of the total cost (typically 1% of real power prices for a well-designed network). This paper derived a linear relationship shown in (3) between apparent power and its associated real and reactive power. The MVA-Miles approach. The capital costs incurred in providing reactive power comes from three sources: 1) generators that generate reactive power. The revenue recovery is very small.LI et al. For a given distribution network. the cost of the unused capacity is shared among all network users. requiring a significant revenue reconciliation to recover the capital cost incurred in providing reactive power. it cannot provide indication or incentives for generators/demands to improve their power factors and network utilization. a MW+MVAr-Miles methodology is proposed for separately pricing real and reactive power at the distribution level. This could in turn help to reduce the cost of future network development. This is to reflect the capital costs of the network in supporting nodal reactive power injection/ withdrawn. the relationship between the apparent power flow and its real and reactive power contribution is commonly represented by the following equation: (2) This formula. With the proposed model. The introduction of this method allows further commercial separation between generation and transmission companies. if the cost of a network asset is . then the unit cost to supply 1 MVA along is (4) The asset cost to support real power is given by (5) This leads to the unit cost for real power as (6) while the cost to support reactive power is given by (7) . Paper [17] is the first paper that introduced a MVA-Miles methodology. the proposed charging methodology is able to provide forwardlooking economic signals to encourage network users to behave in a manner leading to a better network condition. The discussion and comparison draw on a range of test cases that were derived from an eight-busbar practical system with a mixed demand and embedded generation. cannot differentiate the leading or lagging nature of the power factor. If the annuity cost of network asset with a capacity is . This paper is organized as follows: Section II presents the fundamental principle of the proposed methodology. and 3) suppliers that change consumers’ reactive consumptions. cannot distinguish the direction of reactive power flow. pricing a network based on real and reactive power flows along different circuits. however. only reflects the apparent power flow along circuits. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF MW+MVAR –Miles CHARGING METHODOLOGY This section presents mathematical formulations for the proposed MW+MVAr-Miles methodology. Fig. II. The majority of the development in pricing reactive power service seeks to recover the cost of reactive power provision from generators and reactive power compensation devices [28]–[31]. allowing for the difference between injecting and drawing reactive power to be recognized: (3) This relationship between the apparent power flow and its real and reactive power contribution is illustrated in Fig. hence. considering not only distance and magnitude traveled to support a network user but also the user’s impact on the network’s power factor. As a result. In this paper. in general. These marginal reactive power pricing models suffer from two major drawbacks.

As shown in Fig. In addition. Table II gives charges using the MVA-Miles method. If the supporting network assets are operating at a good power factor. From the table. Equations (6) and (8) are the key development in the proposed charging methodology. Results The general approach for each charging methodology is to allocate the network cost up to the used capacity. As clearly shown in the table. This reflects the fact that customers at buses 7 and 8 use network assets more extensively in drawing a unit MW power compared to the customers at buses 1 and 2. because the charging methodology cannot differentiate the poor power factor that bus 2 possesses. VOL. and 7 and 8 are coupled. is proportionally shared among all network customers.55 MVA. 5 and 6. 1.7 leading to 0. 2. and then the cost to support the customer’s real power is (9) If the reactive power flow along each asset is . commercial. 3 and 4. 23. either due to the lumpness of network assets or for TABLE I NETWORK CHARGING USING THE MW-MILE MODEL TABLE II NETWORK CHARGING USING THE MVA-MILES MODEL the purpose of system security. This paper then goes further to demonstrate the value in recognizing the cost/benefit to the network of connecting an EG with varying leading and lagging power factors to the network. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS This section firstly applies the newly developed MW+MVArMiles methodology to an eight-busbar system with demand customers only. Test system. and residential customers with power factors varying between 0. Since the network revenue will be generated from both real and reactive power charges. The charges are separated into the revenue generated from the used capacity and unused capacity. FEBRUARY 2008 This leads to the unit cost for reactive power as (8) If there are a total of network assets to support customer . The unused network cost. 2 is a subset of the practical Western Power Distribution network with only demands connected to buses at the 33-KV voltage level. Within the network.92 lagging. NO. whereas assets used by buses 7 and 8 are more extensive as they are further away from the grid supply point. then the cost of accommodating the users’ reactive power would be high. the charges reflect both the extensiveness of the use of the network and the network users’ power . and it is expected that they will have similar charging profiles. B.60 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. A. it results in the same charges for nodes 1 and 2. III. 2. real power flow along each asset is . If the supporting network assets are operating at a poorer power factor. they provide simple formulae for deriving the unit cost for network assets with different operating conditions. a customer who operates at a good power factor generally will pay less overall network charges. Test Network The 8-busbar test system shown in Fig. it can be observed that the unit prices at buses 1 and 2 are minimal whereas the unit prices at buses 7 and 8 are maximal. then the cost of accommodation users’ real power would be high. However. then the total network cost to support customer ’s reactive power is (10) Fig. The objective of the study is to allocate the network’s annuity cost of £1 289880 among eight load customers. Table I presents charges against eight demand customers based on the MW-Miles method. The peak demand of the sample network is 210. there is a mix of different industrial. buses 1 and 2. assets used by buses 1 and 2 are low because they are close to the grid supply point.

The network charges from MW-Miles. In addition. where the generator reduces the circuit’s real power flow but increases its reactive power flow. and MW+MVAr-Miles methodologies are shown in Table V. the unit charges from MVA-Miles and MW+MVArMiles would still stand. it has been found that the real power drawn from the network by the demand customers was reduced due to the real power injection. where the generator decreases the circuit’s real and reactive power flow. only bus 5 charges are presented for all five cases. 3) demand and generator users.. MW+MVAR-Miles provides the economic signal of the cost of drawing respective real and reactive power. Impact on Network Charges From Connecting Embedded Generators With Varying Power Factors To demonstrate the value of the proposed MW+MVAR-Miles methodology for networks with embedded generators. its associated reactive power supporting bus 5 outputs. the loading increased by 21% due to the level of the supporting circuit . customer . C. assume that the demand is made up of two customers with different power factors: customer . This confirms that the MW+MVAR-Miles charging model is essentially the same as the MVA-Miles method when customers’ real and reactive power are in the same direction. If a demand is made up of two customers operating at different power factor. Both MVA-miles and MW+MVAr-Miles models recovered significantly greater revenue from the used capacity due to the fact that both real and reactive power were considered. where the generator increases the circuit’s real and reactive power flow. Therefore. From the table. hence. Table III presents separate charges for real and reactive power using the proposed MW+MVAr-Miles method. For easy comparison. Since the power flow along the support circuit remains to be the same. where the generator increases the circuit’s real and decreases its reactive power flow. and 5) demand and generator users. the total revenue recovery is very close to that of the MVA-Miles method. For each case. the MW-Miles model recovers a smaller amount of revenue since only real power was considered. CUSTOMER : : D1 = 14 28 + j11 54 D2 = 15 38 + j19 49 factors. leaving large unrecovered revenue to be allocated in a uneconomical fashion. the true cost of withdrawal 1unit of real power by customer 2 is greater. MVA-Miles. this is shown in Table VI. with revenue recovery based on users’ apparent power. The asset cost to support bus 5 is £236 760/yr having a rated capacity of 90 MVA. 4) demand and generator users. connecting demand customers only. providing counterflows. 1) Case 1: Case 1 forms the base case. The difference between the two customers is that for the same unit of real power draw from the network. i.e. this section introduces an embedded generator at busbar 5 in addition to the demand customer. Section III will show how the MVA-Miles charging differs from the MW+MVAr-Miles model when customers inject real power but withdraw reactive power and vice versa. and resultant power flow over line are shown in Table IV. 2) Case 2: In this case. the assumed generator’s ratings. MVA-Miles and MW+MVAr-Miles are still able to penalize customers with poorer power factors. It is clearly shown from the table that although revenue is separately recovered from real and reactive power charges. operating at varying power factors. customers either withdraw real and reactive power at the same time or inject real and reactive power at the same time. Five cases were derived to show the benefits: 1) demand customers only. The slight difference is due to the limited decimal points taken for power factors.LI et al. From the load flow results. However. Considering busbar 5 again. the generator injected 20 MW but withdrew 20 MVAr from the network at the time of system peak.: COST-BENEFIT REFLECTIVE DISTRIBUTION CHARGING METHODOLOGY 61 TABLE III NETWORK CHARGING USING THE MW+MVAR-MILES MODEL TABLE V USE OF NETWORK CHARGE FOR BUS 5 CUSTOMERS D = 29 66 + j31 03 : : TABLE IV CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS FOR FIVE TEST CASES TABLE VI USE OF NETWORK CHARGES FOR CUSTOMERS WITH DIFFERENT POWER FACTORS : : . higher overall revenue recovery compared with MW-Miles method. customer 2 (with poorer power factor) will draw a larger quantity of reactive power. 2) demand and generator customers.

Table VIII gives the charges to both generation and demand customers from the charging models. the EG caused reverse real power flow but reducing its reactive power flow. the MW-Miles charging methodology has the advantage of simplicity. The proposed MW+MVArMiles model. 3) Case 3: In this case. 4) Case 4: In this case. Table IX give the comparison of the three charging models. When the MW-Miles methodology was adopted here. the EG injected 20 MW and 20 MVAr to the network. Because of the exoperates. EGs were credited with significant revenue despite the customer’s substantial reactive power drawn from the network. The proposed MW+MVArMiles methodology can properly account for users’ cost/benefit from their respective real and reactive power injection/withdrawal. the EG should be charged for its real power injection. leading to over-credit the demand customer. when the EG was operated with 80 MW and 20 MVAR injection. Table VII gives the charges to both generation and demand customers from the three charging models. 5) Case 5: Finally. To summarize. The MVA-Miles charging method could not deal with the differences in the directions of customer’s real and reactive power flow. but it cannot distinguish the cost and benefit to the network when they flow in the opposite direction. the cost due to the reactive power was lost. In comparison. As shown from the table that the MW-Miles charging method did not penalize customers’s reactive power drawn.62 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. the unit charge for tremely poor power factor that real power is significantly less compared with reactive power. The supporting network asset was dominated by reverse real power flow. As a result. on the other hand. while the demand was rewarded for its reduction in real power flow but penalized for its reactive power drawn. NO. This led to significantly higher charges to the EG. Its major drawback is not being able to account for the contribution/pitfall from users’ reactive power injection/drawn. FEBRUARY 2008 TABLE VII USE OF NETWORK CHARGES FOR BUS 5 CUSTOMERS : : . the revenue recovery from both customers were low. Since the EG has reduced real power drawn from the network. As for the MVA-Miles model. D = 29 66 + j31 03 G = 020 0 j20 TABLE VIII USE OF NETWORK CHARGES FOR BUS 5 CUSTOMERS : : . leading to a favorable assessment for EGs. The MVA-Miles methodology works well if both real and reactive power flows in the same direction. resulting in very little network revenue recovery. In addition. D = 29 66 + j31 03 G = 080 + j20 TABLE X USE OF NETWORK CHARGES FOR BUS 5 CUSTOMERS : : . while the MW-Miles method only crediting the EG for its real power contribution. the EG was credited for both real and reactive power injection when using both MVA-Miles and MW+MVAr-Miles charging models. the EG was credited for its real power provision but charged for its use of the network for withdrawing reactive power. This ability is ideal in providing forward-looking economic charges for distribution networks with EGs. supporting the demand customer for its real and reactive power requirements. D = 29 66 + j31 03 G = 080 0 j20 reactive power drawn by the same customer. as a result. both MW-Miles and MVA-Miles models failed to accurately acknowledge the contribution and pitfalls from the network users. as shown in Table X. VOL. . hence. 1. The majority of the cost recovery from the demand customer was used to pay for EGs. it credits the bus 5 customer for both its real power injection to and reactive power drawn from the network. D = 29 66 + j31 03 G = 020 + j20 TABLE IX USE OF NETWORK CHARGES FOR BUS 5 CUSTOMERS : : . the loading level of the supporting circuit was increased by 40% due to the generator’s real power injection as well as reactive power drawn. On the other hand. 23. since it does not recognize the direction of reactive power flow. With the in circuit MW+MVAr-Miles charging model. the proposed MW+MVAr-Miles model was able to respect both cost and benefit of the EG. the EG injected 80 MW to and withdrew 20 MVAr from the network. the EG should also be charged for its reactive power drawn. was able to penalize the EG for both of its real injection and reactive power drawn. the EG was penalized for its domination in real power flow but rewarded for its reactive power provision to the demand customer.

. E. Allan. 2005 [Online]. 3. V. Nov. M. no. [28] D. 4. 4. C. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Bhattacharya. no. 4. Zobian and M. May 1989. May 1996. He received the Electrical Engineering degree. 17. Chattopadhyay.” IEEE Trans. 2002. 9. no. vol. 4. Power Syst. pp. and G. vol. Yonael. This will in turn lead to reduction in the cost of future network development. Baughman and S. 198–204. 2. Aug. and M. W.” IEEE Trans. Caramanis. Power Syst. 2. pp. Power Syst. 11. H. Parikh. R. Nanjing. no. the separation of real and reactive power pricing could give network users clearer indications of the cost of their respective real and reactive power draw from the network. 1997. L. Feb. and the Ph. degree from Liverpool John Moores University. Narayana Prasad Padhy was born in India.. Zhong. Part II: Cost –based pricing framework. R. in 1990 and the Ph. vol. Filho. “Allocation of transmission supplementary charge to real and reactive power loads. no. “Localized reactive power markets using the concept of voltage control areas.” IEEE Trans. “Closure to discussion of Integration of price cap and yardstick competition schemes in electrical distribution regulation. C. 1. restructuring and deregulation.. “Cost of transmission transactions: An introduction. E. U. [12] D. Siddiqi. “Distribution pricing based on yardstick regulation. Lima. from universities in India. “The costs of wheeling and optimal wheeling rates. Z. 662–669. K. M. S. May 1998. The proposed charging model was demonstrated on an eight-busbar system derived from a practical system.LI et al. pp. B. vol. “Distribution access pricing: Application of the OFTEL rule to a yardstick competition scheme. Power Syst. 559–565. vol. The inclusion of the third cost driver allows the developed charging methodology to reward network users who improve power factors and network utilization while penalizing those users who worsen power factors and network utilization. Happ. T. R. vol. A. 2001. “Wheeling rates of reactive power under marginal cost pricing. [10] D. Power Del. [16] G. Rudnick. “Allocation of transmission fixed charges: An overview.” IEEE Trans. 2001. vol. ... Bohn. no.” IEEE Trans. M. Power Syst. 1999. Noronha. 2. E... The comparison suggests that the developed charging model is able to provide appropriate incentives/penalties to network customers who help to improve power factors and network utilization. 2. pp. no..” IEEE Trans. no. Strbac. pp. M. pp. vol. 2002.. Aug.. [18] P. [2] Ofgem. Yusta. [4] J. University of Bath. 147–156. 17. “Wheeling rates based on marginalcost theory. no. Gorenstin. [27] S.” IEEE Trans. 749–754. pp. Papalexopoulous. “Review of usage-based transmission cost allocation methods under open access. 4. H. 1996. pp. Shirmohammadi. Power Syst. 6. 2002.. Liverpool. 2002. 14. pp. no. Bialek. 3. “Some fundamental technical concepts about cost based transmission pricing. E. pp. vol. [26] A. [25] Y. N.” IEEE Trans. Ilic. respectively. Aug.ofgem.. no. Koda. 125–136. pp.: COST-BENEFIT REFLECTIVE DISTRIBUTION CHARGING METHODOLOGY 63 IV. and P. 4. 1. [15] D. 17. and Associate Professor during 1998.. 63–73. Available: http://www. El-keib and X.” IEEE Trans. respectively. 1994. . W. Jun. Arango. Won.” IEEE Trans. W. degree in power systems engineering with Distinction. Power Syst. 198–204. 1. no. 12. 527–534. 12. Her major research interest is in the area of power system planning and operation and power system economics. Available: http://www. 2. Feb. Power Syst. “Calculating short-run marginal costs of active and reactive power production. 3. vol. no. vol. Power Syst. “Reactive power pricing and management. Munoz. “Toward a competitive market for reactive power. vol. under a Boyscast Fellowship. The charges derived from the proposed charging model are compared with that of the well-established MW-Miles and MVA-Miles methodologies. Ma. D. C. Nov.” Power Eng.” IEEE Trans. 1998. vol. Donoso. May 1997. Feb. as a Lecturer. pp. X. 1994. “Unbundling of transmission and ancillary services – Part I: Technical issues. “Costing and pricing of electricity distribution services. 6. N. vol. 52–60. 594–605. Rudnick and J. J.. 1. T. vol. Elect. pp. vol. Nov. Thomas. pp. 140. De Oliveira-De Jesus. Power Syst.” IEEE Trans. [29] K. Roorkee.gov. Bhattacharya and J. pp. Inst. Nov. [3] P. no. [19] Y. 1409–1418. Power Syst. pp. Bhattacharya. pp. Alward.. 16. 1001–1007. “Real time pricing of reactive power: Theory and case study results. [7] E. pp. and A. 1. Zhong. “Uniform marginal pricing for the remuneration of distribution networks. pp.. Schwqp.. he was working as a Visiting Staff in the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering. 15. 2001. J. 1995. vol. Li and A. pp.” IEEE Trans. pp. Merrill and B. [24] Y.D. REFERENCES [1] Cabnet Office... Then he has joined the Department of Electrical Engineering. Power Syst. Bose. M. Aug.. Renewable Energy in the UK: Building for the Future of Environment. Apr. Arango. 2014–2020. vol. 13. Kirschen.” IEEE Trans. India. and J. Power Syst. 19. C. 294–300. pp. C. vol. 95–104. Marangon Lima. 1006–1016. “Cost of wheeling methodologies. 1991. Aug. no. M.” IEEE Trans. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the principle and implementation of a new MW+MVAr-Miles charging methodology that reflects three key cost drivers in the network development: the distance used to support nodal real and reactive power injection/withdrawal. J. Marangon Lima. Power Syst. A. Bhattacharya. 1302–1310. Power Syst. no. no. 23–29. and P. Structure of Electricity Distribution Charges Consultation on the Longer Term Charging Framework. 3. pp. Lim. J. “Pricing reactive power conveyance. M. Schwqp.. Feb. J. no. which in turn could help them to evaluate the economics in investing in reactive power compensation devices.” IEEE Trans. [22] H. R. no. Power Syst. “Distribution pricing based on yardstick regulation.” IEEE Trans.” Proc. Power Syst. 1445–1451. [6] H.. no. 1989. Roman. C.” IEEE Trans. Saifur. L. Caramanis. Erickson. U. degree in electrical engineering from Hohai University. D. [5] J.Eng. no. no.” IEEE Trans. 12.uk/ 2001/energy/renewener. 17. [17] J.” IEEE Trans. May 1993. vol. P. and C. the degree of support offered by the network assets. Ponce de Leao. Shirmohammadi. vol. Nov. Aug. K.. China. [13] J. Khodr. and FACTS. and 1997. Assistant Professor. 539–558.” IEEE Trans. 1986. “Allocating transmission system usage on the basis of traceable contributions of generators and loads to flows. In addition. 1993.. Nov. vol. no. H. Zhong and K. Li and A. Z. 4. 4. Peco. pp. [Online]. and the condition of the supporting network assets in terms of their operating power factor. Nov. His field of interest is power system privatization. Ahmed.K. May 1997. pp. J. “Reactive power as an ancillary service. Rajgopalan. She received the B. no. no. vol. In 2006. 1. A. C. Steele dos Santos.” IEEE Trans. 174–180. pp. 2. David. David. pp.. Bath. no.” IEEE Trans Power Syst. no. Park.D. 612–617. 12. May 2001.Sc. 11. 1407–1417. Recordon and H. Furong Li (M’00) was born in Shannxi. She is a Senior Lecturer with the Power and Energy Systems Group at the University of Bath. and 2005.” IEEE Trans. C. [21] M. Feb. Pereira. “Optimal reactive power planning and its spot-pricing: An integrated approach. 2005.” IEEE Trans. [31] J. 125–136. Eng. Strbac. 13. degree in power systems engineering in 1990. and K. [23] M. Gomez. 3. artificial intelligence applications to power systems. Power Syst.K. D. Roukos. China. W.gov. 13.. and F. Power Syst. [20] M. vol. Feb. [9] P. 2004. Feb. 9. and J. [11] H. 2000. Park. . “Regulation of distribution network business. in 1997 with a thesis entitledApplications of Genetic Algorithms in Optimal Operation of Electrical Power Systems. K. 1555–1561. 20. V. Power Syst. U. vol. pp. 2. 10. J. Hao and A. 3. 1991. Bath. 1263–1269. 1. [14] A. 4. R. and J. 1. vol. vol.” IEEE Trans. transmission and distribution network charging. “An analytical approach for transaction costs allocation in transmission system. 1218–1224. Power Syst. 1002–1008. no. Power Syst. and F.K. Power Syst. vol.. and S. “Contribution of individual generators to loads and flows. [8] J. Urdaneta. Nobile. M. 1997. Kirschen. H. Santos. [30] J.uk. “WRATES: A tool for evaluating the marginal cost of wheeling. Williams and G. T. and J. 16. 3. Jiuping. Noronha. pp.strategy.” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. U.. Strbac. 1998.. Power Syst.

Sc. on November 24. U.K. planning and implementing industrial automation and control projects. In 2000. Bless Kuri (S’03) received the B. Harare. degree in electrical power with Merit at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He held the position of Project Engineer for two years with Autocontrol Systems.Sc. in 2001 and the M.64 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. Bath.D. degree. China. operation. 1. he is pursuing the Ph.D. degree in the area of network charging methodologies at the University of Bath.K. . 23. Currently. U. 1978. degree from the University of Bath. in 1996 and the M.K.. He received the B. Zhengzhou. His areas of interest are electricity market design and power systems planning.. FEBRUARY 2008 Ji Wang (S’04) was born in Henan.Eng. Newcastle upon Tyne. VOL. NO. he joined the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority as a Planning Engineer in distribution systems. in 2003. degree in electrical power system and automation at the University of Zhengzhou. U. in 2003.Sc. degree from the University of Zimbabwe. and control.China. Bath. where he is currently pursuing the Ph.