This study presents a model of coordinated generation and transmission expansion planning (TEP). The proposed model simultaneously minimises total cost, including planning and total fuel cost, environmental impact in terms of SO₂ and NO _x emission and fuel price risk while maximising the system reliability. Owing to intermittent behaviour of loads and fuel prices, the expansion planning problem should be analysed using probabilistic approaches instead of deterministic ones. Therefore, a new approach is proposed to solve the multi-objective probabilistic coordinated generation and TEP problem. The point estimate method is used to take into account the effect of uncertainty in fuel prices and system demand. The normal boundary intersection (NBI) method is used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions. Moreover, fuzzy decision-making process is employed to select one of the Pareto-optimal solutions as the most preferred solution. The proposed model is implemented on the modified Garver6-bus system to evaluate its efficiency. Finally, the results of the NBI method are compared with the classical weighted sum method. Additionally, the model is implemented on the IEEE 24-bus reliability test system, and the results are compared with the virtual database-supported non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (VDS-NSGA II) and NSGA II methods.

References

1. 1)
  - 18. Gitizadeh, M., Kaji, M., Aghaei, J.: ‘Risk based multiobjective generation expansion planning considering renewable energy sources’, Energy, 2013, 50, pp. 74–82 (doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.040).
2. 2)
  - 22. Mavalizadeh, H., Ahmadi, A.: ‘Hybrid expansion planning considering security and emission by augmented epsilon-constraint method’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014, 61, pp. 90–100 (doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.03.004).
3. 3)
  - 10. Rubinstein, R.Y.: ‘Simulation and the Monte Carlo method’ (Wiley, 1981).
4. 4)
  - 24. Vahidinasab, V., Jadid, S.: ‘Normal boundary intersection method for suppliers’ strategic bidding in electricity markets: An environmental/economic approach’, Energy Convers. Manage., 2010, 51, (6), pp. 1111–1119 (doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2009.12.019).
5. 5)
  - 12. Moeini-Aghtaie, M., Abbaspour, A., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M.: ‘Incorporating large-scale distant wind farms in probabilistic transmission expansion planning—Part I: theory and algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 27, (3), pp. 1585–1593 (doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2182363).
6. 6)
  - B. Alizadeh , S. Jadid . Reliability constrained coordination of generation and transmission expansion planning in power systems using mixed integer programming. IET Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib. , 9 , 948 - 960
7. 7)
  - 25. Norouzi, M.R., Ahmadi, A., Esmaeel Nezhad, A., Ghaedi, A.: ‘Mixed integer programming of multi-objective security-constrained hydro/thermal unit commitment’, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2014, 29, pp. 911–923 (doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.09.020).
8. 8)
  - J.M. Morales , J. Pérez-Ruiz . Point estimate schemes to solve the probabilistic power flow. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , 4 , 1594 - 1601
9. 9)
  - G. Latorre , R.D. Cruz , J.M. Areiza , A. Villegas . Classification of publications and models on transmission expansion planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , 2 , 938 - 946
10. 10)
  - 37. Niknam, T., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Roosta, A., Amiri, B.: ‘A new multi-objective reserve constrained combined heat and power dynamic economic emission dispatch’, Energy, 2012, 42, (1), pp. 530–545 (doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.041).
11. 11)
  - 15. Frank, S., Steponavice, I., Rebennack, S.: ‘Optimal power flow: A bibliographic survey I—formulations and deterministic methods’, Energy Syst., 2012, 3, (3), pp. 221–258 (doi: 10.1007/s12667-012-0056-y).
12. 12)
  - 5. Rudkevich, A.M.: ‘A nodal capacity market for co-optimization of generation and transmission expansion’. 2012 50th Annual Allerton Conf. Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 1080–1088.
13. 13)
  - 3. Yu, H., Chung, C.Y., Wong, K.P., Zhang, J.H.: ‘A chance constrained transmission network expansion planning method with consideration of load and wind farm uncertainties’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24, (3), pp. 1568–1576 (doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2021202).
14. 14)
  - 7. Das, I., Dennis, J.E.: ‘Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems’, SIAM J. Optim., 1998, pp. 631–657 (doi: 10.1137/S1052623496307510).
15. 15)
  - 14. Torres, S.P., Castro, C.A.: ‘Expansion planning for smart transmission grids using AC model and shunt compensation’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (5), pp. 966–975 (doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0231).
16. 16)
  - 9. Tung, Y.K., Yen, B.C.: ‘Hydro systems engineering uncertainty analysis’ (McGraw-Hill, 2005).
17. 17)
  - 20. Rebennack, S.: ‘Generation expansion planning under uncertainty with emissions quotas’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 114, pp. 78–85 (doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2014.04.010).
18. 18)
  - 17. Conejo, A.J., Carrión, M., Morales, J.M.: ‘Decision making under uncertainty in electricity markets’ (Springer, 2010).
19. 19)
  - 28. Javadi, M.S., Saniei, M., Rajabi-Mashhadi, H.: ‘An augmented NSGA-II technique with virtual database to solve the composite generation and transmission expansion planning problem’, J. Exp. Theo. Artif. Intell., 2013, 12, (1), pp. 1–24.
20. 20)
  - 8. CIGRE TF 38.05.08: ‘Techniques for power system planning under uncertainties’. Technical Brochure Ref., 2000, 154.
21. 21)
  - 7. Muñoz, C., Sauma, E., Contreras, J., Aguado, J., de la Torre, S.: ‘Impact of high wind power penetration on transmission network expansion planning’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, 6, (12), pp. 1281–1291 (doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0552).
22. 22)
  - 11. Orfanos, G.A., Georgilakis, P.S., Hatziargyriou, N.D.: ‘Transmission expansion planning of systems with increasing wind power integration’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 28, (2), pp. 1355–1362 (doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2214242).
23. 23)
  - 27. http://www.GAMS.com.
24. 24)
  - 3. Farghal, S.A., Kandil, M.S., Abdel-Aziz, M.R.: ‘Generation expansion planning: an expert system approach’, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 1988, 135, (4), pp. 261–267 (doi: 10.1049/ip-c.1988.0036).
25. 25)
  - L.L. Garver . Transmission net estimation using linear programming. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. , 1688 - 1697
26. 26)
  - 8. Rahmani, M., Romero, R.A., Rider, M.J.: ‘Risk/investment-driven transmission expansion planning with multiple scenarios’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2013, 7, (2), pp. 154–165 (doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0742).
27. 27)
  - 16. Frank, S., Steponavice, I., Rebennack, S.: ‘Optimal power flow: A bibliographic survey II—non-deterministic and hybrid methods’, Energy Syst., 2012, 3, (3), pp. 259–289 (doi: 10.1007/s12667-012-0057-x).
28. 28)
  - 23. Ahmadi, A., Aghaei, J., Shayanfar, H.A., Rabiee, A.: ‘Mixed integer programming of multi-objective hydro-thermal self-scheduling’, Appl. Soft Comput., 2012, 12, (8), pp. 2137–46 (doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.020).
29. 29)
  - 19. Sharan, I., Balasubramanian, R.: ‘Integrated generation and transmission expansion planning including power and fuel transportation constraints’, Energy Policy,2012, 43, pp. 275–284 (doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.004).

Probabilistic multi-objective generation and transmission expansion planning problem using normal boundary intersection

References

Related content