Reliability assessment of a restructured power system using reliability network equivalent techniques

P. Wang and R. Billinton Abstract: Power system deregulation has introduced some fundamental problems regarding system reliability management. This paper presents a technique used for the reliability evaluation of restructured power systems. A reliability model for each market player in a restructured power system is introduced in which a generation company is represented by an equivalent multistate generation provider and the transmission system is represented by an equivalent multistate transmission provider using reliability network equivalent techniques. Demand-side reliability is considered in the analysis. The concept of nonuniform reliability is presented and customer choices regarding reliability can easily be implemented using the new technique. A test deregulated power system is used to illustrate the application of the technique.

Introduction

The main objective of power system restructuring and deregulation is to introduce competition in the power industry and to allow customers to select their suppliers based on price and reliability. Restructuring and deregulation result in the functional segregation of the vertically integrated utility consisting of generation, transmission and distribution into distinct utilities in which each performs a single function. Economic segregation and service unbundling have changed the conventional mechanism of system planning and operation from cost-based to price-based planning and operation. The provision of back-up supply in the event that a generating company (Genco) cannot meet its energy obligations is not the responsibility of other power producers unless it has reserve agreements with others. Transmission facilities in a power system are usually owned and maintained by different transmission companies (Transcos). A transmission system should be accessible to all power producers without discrimination. Although the contracts among market players are settled in a nancial power market, energy transactions are physically implemented through the same transmission network. Therefore, stability and reliability problems such as voltage constraints, congestion and load shedding are controlled and co-ordinated by the transmission administrator or independent system operator (ISO). These changes have created some fundamental problems [15] regarding system reliability management. The wide range of reliability assessment techniques developed for use in conventional vertically integrated systems needs to be extended and reconsidered for use in restructured power systems.
r IEE, 2003 IEE Proceedings online no. 20030723 doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:20030723 Paper rst received 29th April 2002 and in revised form 1st May 2003. Online publishing date: 13 August 2003 P. Wang is with the School of Electrical Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798 R. Billinton is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoun, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A9 IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

Reliability equivalent techniques [6], which recognise the structural characteristics of a deregulated power system, can be used to evaluate the reliability of the new system. To manage and price reliability, the equivalent multistate service provider [6] used to represent the composite system is further divided into separate generation companies and transmission system. In this approach, a Genco is represented by an equivalent multistate generation provider (EMGP) and the transmission system is represented by an equivalent multistate transmission provider (EMTP). Customer choices on transmission are considered in determining the delivery reliability of an EMTP. A distribution company (Disco) and its customers are represented by an equivalent bulk load point (EBLP). A test deregulated power system is used to illustrate the application of these techniques. 2 Reliability network equivalent in a deregulated power system The three basic functions of a power system are power generation, transmission and distribution. In a restructured power system, the generation and distribution functions are provided by different independent Gencos and Discos, respectively. The transmission facilities are owned and maintained by Transcos. The power exchange (PX) is the market in which power system players buy and sell electric power, ancillary services and transmission rights. The responsibility of the ISO is to co-ordinate economic transactions through the physical transmission network. In order to clearly dene the responsibility of each player towards customer reliability, Gencos, Discos and the transmission system are represented by different equivalent components.

2.1

Equivalent multistate generation provider

A Genco usually owns one or more generating units and provides the services of real and reactive power generation and generating capacity reserve. Failures of generating units in a Genco can affect the generation capacity available to its customers. The reliability associated with a Genco can
555

be calculated and provided to its customers and to the ISO. A Genco can be represented by an EMGP as shown in Fig. 1

EMGP1

EMGP2

EMGPm

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

transmission network

EBLP1 to power pool

EBLP2 equivalent

EBLPm

equivalent EMGPi EMGP EMTP1 EMTP2 EMTPm EMGPj EMGPk

to power pool

EBLP1

EBLP2

EBLPm

Fig. 1

Generation system and EMGP

Fig. 2

Transmission system and EMGP

The reliability model of an EMGP can be represented by an available generating capacity probability table (ACPT), which shows all the contingency states, the available generation capacity, and the probability and frequency for each state. For a EMGP h with N+M generating units, the equivalent available generation capacity AGChi for state i can be calculated using the total available generating capacity minus the transmission losses. The state probability Phi and the frequency Fhi for the state i can be determined using the following equations assuming that there are M units in service and N units out of service. Phi
M Y j1 M X j1

consists of the following steps:  Step 1: Select contingency state i of transmission network.  Step 2: Solve the following load ow equations using a load-ow calculation technique: For each PQ or PV bus j X Gijk cos yijk Bijk sin yijk Vik 4 DPij Pijsp Vij
k 2j

For each PQ bus j

sp Vij DQij Qij

X
k 2j

Gijk sin yijk Bijk cos yijk Vik

Aj

N Y k 1

Uk

lhi

lj

N X k 1

mk

2 3

where DPij and DQij are the real and reactive power sp and Qsp mismatches, Pij ij are the specied real and reactive power injections. Vij+yij is the bus voltage, Gijk+jBijk is the admittance between bus j and k, and yijk yij yik.  Step 3: Check the following network constraints: voltage constraints : Vjmin Vij Pil Vjmax Plmax 6 7

Fhi Phi lhi

where Aj and lj are the availability and the failure rate of unit j, respectively, Uk and mk are the unavailability and the repair rate of unit k, respectively, and lhi is the total departure rate from state i.

line flow constraints : Plmin

2.2

Equivalent multistate transmission provider

Electrical energy is delivered from the EMGP to the customers through the transmission network. Failures of transmission network components can affect the capacity that can be transferred from EMGPs to their EBLPs. The capacity that can be transferred is designated as the deliverable generating capacity (DGC) in this paper. To consider the individual effect of the transmission network on the reliability of the bulk load points, the transmission system between an EMGP and a specied bulk load point can be represented by an EMTP as shown in Fig. 2. The reliability model of an EMTP can be represented by a deliverable generating capacity probability table (DCPT). The parameters of the DCPT are determined using contingency enumeration and load ow techniques considering customer delivery reliability demands. The procedure used to determine the parameters of the DCPT
556

where Vjmin and Vjmax are, respectively, the minimum and maximum bus voltages allowed at bus j, Vij is the bus voltage at bus j, Plmin and Plmax, respectively, are the minimum and maximum line real power ow allowed for line l, and Pil is the line real power ow allowed for line.  Step 4: Go to step 1 if the network constraints are not violated.  Step 5: Apply corrective actions to remove the network violations.  Step 6: Go to step 9 if the network violations are eliminated without shedding loads.  Step 7: Calculate the state probability Phi and frequency Fhi for each EMTP h Phi
M Y j1

Aj

N Y k 1

Uk

lhi

M X j 1

lj

N X k 1

mk

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

Fhi Phi lhi

10

where M is the number of transmission lines in service, N is the number of transmission lines out of service and lhi is the total departure rate from state i, lj and mk are the failure rate and the repair rate for lines j and k, respectively.  Step 8: Determine the deliverable generating capacity DGChi for each EMTP h considering system security constraints, load priorities and transmission right.  Step 9: Stop the procedures when all contingencies are considered otherwise go to step 1.

system reliability. Load point reliability is usually measured by the loss of load probability (LOLP) and the expected energy not supplied (EENS). These indices for load point k can be calculated using the following equations: X Pj 11 LOLPk
j2LC

EENSk 8760

X
j2LC

Pj Lkj MWh=yr

12

2.3

Implementation of nonuniform reliability

In a restructured power system, a customer or a group of customers (EBLP) can select its EMGP and EMTP based on reliability and price demands. The ISO can utilise this information to make suitable operating decisions to alleviate system problems caused by failures in the generation and transmission network. This will result in nonuniform reliability for different customers. The generation adequacy of an EMGP to the corresponding EBLP for each state depends on the overall installed capacity, capacity sold in the market, the reserve agreements with other producers and the transmission losses. In the case of the failures occurring in an EMGP, the ISO must make the load shedding and dispatch decisions based on the transactions settled by the bilateral contracts or spot market. One example is that of a generation shortage in a Genco having no reserve agreements with other producers which results in load curtailment to its customers. The delivery reliability of an EMTP to the corresponding EBLP is dependent not only on the conguration of the transmission network but also on customer demands on transmission reliability. Because all the nancial contracts are implemented physically through the same transmission network, the implementation of nonuniform reliability and reliability pricing are very complicated procedures. There are two basic types of transmission failures which affect deliverable generation capacity. The rst type of failure is that which causes the isolation of bulk load points from the contract EMGP. In this case, only the isolated bulk load points are affected and the deliverable generating capacity from the EMGP to the EBLP is zero. The second type of failure is that which results in network and operating constraint violations such as congestion. In this case, corrective actions such as phase shirting, changing transformer taps, injecting reactive power, rescheduling generation and shedding loads can be used to mitigate constraint violations. In a vertically integrated system, corrective action decisions are made by the system operator. Customers usually have minimal choices regarding their reliabilities and prices. In the restructured power system, the ISO can incorporate customer choices into the load shedding procedure [7] used to remove the network violations. 3 General procedure for reliability assessment

where Pj is the state probability of outage event j; Lkj is the load curtailed at bus k due to contingency j, and LC is the set of contingencies leading to load curtailment. Load point indices can be determined using the reliability network equivalent techniques described above. The general procedure consists of the following steps:  Step 1 : Identify the EMGPs and EMTPs based on power market structure.  Step 2: Determine the ACPT for each EMGP.  Step 3: Determine the DCPT for each EMTP.  Step 4: Calculate the load point indices caused by the EMGP by combining the ACPT of an EMGP with the load of the corresponding EBLP.  Step 5: Calculate the load point indices caused by the EMTP by combining the DCPT of an EMTP with the load of the corresponding EBLP. 4 System analysis

A test system designated as the RBTS [8] is used to illustrate the technique. The single-line diagram of the RBTS is shown in Fig. 3. The system conguration data and the component reliability parameters are given in [7]. The generating system is divided into two independent generating companies EMGP1 and EMGP2 as shown in Fig. 3. Distribution systems and customers are represented by ve EBLPs. The transmission system for each EBLP is represented by the corresponding EMTP as shown in Fig. 3. It has been assumed that the equivalent bulk load points 2, 4, 5 and 6 select EMGP 2 as their generation provider, EBLP3 selects EMGP1 as its generation provider and there are no reserve agreements among the EMGPs.
2 40 MW 1 20 MW G1 1 10 MW bus 1 L1 L6 L4 bus 3 230 kV BLP3 (85 MW) L5 L8 bus 4 BLP2 BLP4 (40 MW) EMTP4 BLP4 equivalent L3 1 40 MW 4 20 MW 2 5 MW 230 kV BLP2 (20 MW) L2 L7 EMTP2

EMGP1

EMGP2

G2

230 kV

bus 2

EMTP3 BLP3

bus 5 L9

230 kV bus 6 BLP5 (20 MW)

There is a wide range of indices used by different utilities throughout the world to measure the reliability of a power system. Customers choice regarding their power providers, deliverers and distributors makes nonuniform reliability possible in the deregulated power industry. Customers in a restructured power system, therefore, are more concerned with their individual load point reliability than with total
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

BLP5 (20 MW)

EMTP5 BLP5

EMTP6 BLP6

Fig. 3

Single line diagram of RBTS

557

4.1

Determination of EMGP parameters

The reliability parameters of each EMGP depend on the total installed generation capacity and the reliability parameters of each unit. Tables 1 and 2 show the available capacity probability tables for EMGP1 and EMGP2, respectively.
Table 1: ACPT for EMGP1
State i AGC1i , MW 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 P1i CP1i F1i , occ/yr

technique used in the analysis considers up to second-order line failures and involves an AC load ow technique. The EMTP for each EBLP is shown in Fig. 3. EBLP2 is connected directly to EMGP2 and therefore the EMTP for this load (EMTP2) is considered to be 100% reliable. The reliability parameters of EMTP3, EMTP4, EMTP5 and EMTP6 for case 1 are shown in Tables 36, respectively. All the states with the same available capacity in each Table are aggregated together.
Table 3: DCPT of EMTP3 for case 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10

0.8990300 0.0183476 0.0230521 0.0004705 0.0556101 0.0011349 0.0014259 0.0000291 0.0008600 0.0000176 0.0000221 0.0000005

1.0000000 0.1009704 0.0826228 0.0595707 0.0591002 0.0034901 0.0023552 0.0009293 0.0009002 0.0000402 0.0000226 0.0000005

18.8796290 3.9080282 4.8639826 0.1895914 11.6225109 0.4550949 0.5689341 0.0171981 0.3414002 0.0069674 0.0129434 0.0003506

State i

DGC3i , MW Z85 70.34 37.84

P3i

F3i, occ/yr

1 2 3

0.9999577 0.0000382 0.0000029

41.75491 0.067427 0.005067

Table 4: DCPT of EMTP4 for case 1

State i DGC4i , MW Z40 35.17 18.92 P4i F4i, occ/yr

1 2

0.9999577 0.0000382 0.0000029

41.75491 0.067427 0.005067

Table 2: ACPT for EMGP2

State i AGC2i , MW 130 125 120 110 105 100 90 85 80 70 65 60 50 45 30 P2i CP2i F2i , occ/yr

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0.9041519 0.0182657 0.0000923 0.0550752 0.0011126 0.0000056 0.0197102 0.0003982 0.0000020 0.0011368 0.0000230 0.0000001 0.0000257 0.0000005 0.0000003

1.0000000 0.0958482 0.0775825 0.0774902 0.0224150 0.0213024 0.0212968 0.0015866 0.0011884 0.0011864 0.0000496 0.0000266 0.0000265 0.0000008 0.0000003

15.00892 3.883288 0.037714 9.461919 0.409214 0.003157 3.374806 0.146225 0.001122 0.361131 0.011821 0.000071 0.012105 0.000334 0.000188

Table 5: DCPT of EMTP5 for case 1

State i DGC5i , MW Z20 17.6 9.46 0.00 P5i F5i, occ/yr

1 2 3 4

0.9999564 0.0000382 0.0000029 0.0000013

41.75266 0.067427 0.005067 0.002253

Table 6: DCPT of EMTP6 for case 1

State i DGC6i , MW Z20 17.6 9.46 0.00 P6i F6i, occ/yr

1 2 3 4

0.9988164 0.0000382 0.0000029 0.0011413

40.70901 0.067427 0.005067 1.045902

4.2

Determination of the EMTP parameters

The reliability parameters of an EMGP associated with the corresponding EBLP depend on the network conguration between the EMGP and the EBLP, and the transmission right purchases. To illustrate the impact of customer choice on delivery reliability, two cases of the equal and nonequal customer transmission rights are illustrated in this analysis. It has been assumed in case 1 that a load shortage is proportionally allocated the same priority among the affected loads when transmission line overloads occur due to transmission line failures. In case 2, EBLP3 has paid for the transmission right of lines 1 and 6. If lines 1 and 6 are overloaded due to failures in the transmission system or due to system peak load, all other EBLPs except EBLP3 will rst be cut to release the violation. The state selection
558

The reliability parameters of EMTP3, EMTP4, EMTP5 and EMTP6 for case 2 are shown in Tables 710, respectively.

4.3

Determination of EBLP reliability

The power system in terms of the respective equivalents is shown in Fig. 4. It has been assumed in this analysis that all the EBLPs operate at the peak loads shown in Fig. 3. The reliability of an EBLP caused by the corresponding EMGP can be calculated by combining the ACPT of the EMGP with the load at the EBLP. Transmission loss is considered in the analysis. The shortage of available generation capacity in each EMGP will only affect its
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

Table 7: DCPT of EMTP3 for case 2

State i DGC3i , MW Z85 37.84 P3i F3I, occ/yr

Table 11: EBLP reliability indices caused by EMGP

EBLP LOLP EENS, MWh/yr 510.0533 9539.212 1020.107 510.0533 510.0533

1 2

0.9999959 0.0000029

41.82234 0.005067

EBLP2 EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5

0.0213024 0.0595707 0.0213024 0.0213024 0.0213024

Table 8: DCPT of EMTP4 for case 2

State i DGC4i , MW Z40 30.04 18.92 P4i F4i, occ/yr

EBLP6

1 2 3

0.9999577 0.0000382 0.0000029

41.75491 0.067427 0.005067

Table 9: DCPT of EMTP5 for case 2

State i DGC5i , MW Z20 15.02 9.46 0.00 P5i F5i, occ/yr

1 2 3 4

0.9999564 0.0000382 0.0000029 0.0000013

41.75266 0.067427 0.005067 0.002253

Table 10: DCPT of EMTP6 for case 2

State i DGC6i , MW Z20 15.02 9.46 0.00 P6i F6i, occ/yr

The deliverable generating capacity probability tables for the corresponding bulk load points can be combined with the load at the bulk load points to give the reliability caused by the EMTP. Tables 12 and 13 show the LOLP and EENS of each EBLP for the two cases. It can be seen from the Tables that EBLP6 has the lowest delivery reliability in both cases. This is caused by transmission line 9. The LOLP decreases from 0.0000411 to 0.0000029 and the EENS decreases from 6.104 MWh/yr to 1.198 MWh/yr when EBLP3 has obtained the transmission right of lines 1 and 6. Comparing Table 11 with Table 13 it can be seen that the EENS caused by EMGP are much larger than those caused by EMTP. This indicates that customers should buy more generation reserve rather than buy transmission rights to signicantly increase their total reliability. The total LOLP and EENS of each EBLP can be estimated by adding the individual LOLP and EENS caused by the EMGP and the EMTP, respectively. This is a slight overestimation due to neglecting the intersection of the EMGP and EMTP events. The LOLP and EENS of each load point for case 1 are shown in Table 14.

1 2 3 4

0.9988164 0.0000382 0.0000029 0.0011413

40.70901 0.067427 0.005067 1.045902

Table 12: LOLP caused by EMTP

EBLP EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6 Case 1 0.0000411 0.0000411 0.0000424 0.0011820 Case 2 0.0000029 0.0000411 0.0000424 0.0011820

BLP2 (20 MW)

BLP4 (40 MW)

EMTP2 EMGP1

EMTP4

Table 13: EENS caused by EMTP

EBLP Case 1 6.103758 2.151789 1.298635 201.0266 Case 2 1.198053 3.868451 2.161986 201.8900

EMGP2 EMTP3

EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6

BLP3 (85 MW)

EMTP5

EMTP6

BLP5 (20 MW)

BLP6 (20 MW)

Table 14: EBLP reliability indices for case 1

EBLP EBLP2 LOLP 0.0213024 0.0596118 0.0213435 0.0213448 0.0224844 EENS 510.0533 9545.316 1022.625 511.3519 711.0799 559

Fig. 4

Network equivalent of system

EBLPs due to the assumption of no reserve agreements among the EMGPs. The LOLP and EENS for each EBLP caused by the EMGP are shown in Table 11. It can be seen from Table 11 that EBLP3 has the lowest generation reliability compared to the other bulk load points.
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003

EBLP3 EBLP4 EBLP5 EBLP6

Based on customer willingness to pay for higher delivery reliability, bulk load points can, however, select a delivery reliability service level which can be used by the ISO to shed load to alleviate line overloads due to line failures. The provision of back-up supply in the event that a generating company cannot meet its energy obligations is also not the responsibility of other generation providers unless agreements have been made to provide assistance. It is extremely unlikely in the new regime that anyone will be prepared to overcontribute to system reliability without receiving appropriate compensation. The cost associated with backup supply should therefore be incorporated when considering the economics associated with purchases from different generating stations. No agreements were assumed to exist in the relatively simple analyses described above. The EBLP reliability will improve if the generation suppliers agree to assist each other in times of need. 5 Conclusions

EMGP and EMTP selections. Compared with conventional techniques, the new approaches can provide more detailed reliability information about each individual supplier. The new techniques can be used to price the unreliability contribution from each market component, to help the ISO to make optimal decision regarding systemwide operation and reserve management, and to help customers to select different generation and transmission services based on their reliability and price demand. 6 References

Reliability network equivalent techniques are introduced in this paper to evaluate the load point reliability in a deregulated power market. Generating facilities can be represented by an EMGP and a transmission system by an EMTP. The reliability parameters of the generation and transmission providers can be separately calculated and presented to system customers. Nonuniform bulk load point reliability can be implemented through demand-side

1 Billinton, L., Salvaderi, L., and McCalley, J.D. et al.: Reliability issues in todays electric power utility environment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1997, 12, (4), pp. 17081714 2 Ilic, M., Galiana, F., and Fink, L.: Power system restructuring: engineering and economics (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1998) 3 Shahidehpour, M., and Alomoush, M.: Restructured power system operation, trading and volatility, (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001) 4 Harris, P.G.: Impacts of deregulation on the electric power industry, IEEE Power Eng. Rev., 2000, 20, (10), pp. 46 5 Wallace S. Read, W.K., and Newman, I.J.: Reliability in the new market structure (Part I), IEEE Power Eng. Rev., 1999, 19, (12), pp. 414 6 Billinton, R., and Wang, P.: Deregulated power system planning using a reliability network equivalent technique, IEE Proc., Gener. Transm., Distrib., 1999, 146, (1), pp. 2530 7 Wang, P., and Billinton, R.: Optimal load shedding technique to reduce the total customer interruption cost in distribution system, IEE Proc., Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2000, 147, (1), pp. 5156 8 Billinton, R., Kumar, S., Chowdhhury, N., Chu, K., Debnath, K., Goel, L., Khan, E., Kos, P., Nourbakhsh, G., and Oteng Adjei, J.J.: A reliability test system for educational purposes-basic data, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1989, 4, (3), pp. 12381244

560

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, No. 5, September 2003