Assessment of a Distributed Resource Plan for the

Lebanese Electric Power System

Sami H. Karaki, Member IEEE, Ali Daher, and Ramzi Hawa


Abstract This work presents a methodology to carry
out an economic assessment of a distributed resource (DR)
plan and a central generation (CG) plan of the Lebanese
electrical power system. The study takes into consideration
the savings due to transmission and distribution capacity
deferrals associated with the DR plan, the cost of losses, and
the cost of transporting fuel to the DR sites. The tools used
are optimal generation expansion planning (GEP), load flow
and contingency analysis , and present-worth cost
methodology. The two generation plans are developed using
the GEP program from which the production cost of
generation in both plans are deduced. The losses in both
development plans are estimated by using a load flow
program to carry out studies at peak, intermediate, and
minimum loads in the CG and DR plans. To avoidcarrying
out a detailed yearly distribution plan for each development
paradigm, this paper proposes an approximate assessment
based on a typical sub-transmission distribution feeder
layout to determine the number of years by which a DR plan
will defer plant investment, and the power losses in the
distribution system.
I ndex Terms Distributed resource, Cost assessment,
Capacity expansion, Electric utility investment, Lebanon


I. INTRODUCTION
LECTRICTY production and distribution started in the
late nineteenth century as small and localized systems
delivering power to lighting and other loads. However, the
development of three-phase ac generators and the rapid
improvements in steam turbine technologies made it more
economical to produce large amounts of power to be
transmitted over long distances. This economy of scale still
persists until today, but efficient new technologies such as
micro turbines, wind turbines, diesel sets, and fuel cells are
making distributed resource an increasingly attractive option.
Distributed resource (DR) technologies will penetrate
electricity markets, on a large scale, if their costs are less
than the combined cost of conventional base load generation
and that of transmission and distribution expansion needed to
meet demand growth [1]. However, several standardization,
operational, and economic issues will have to be addressed
for a large penetration to be realized. In a lively panel
discussion, Morgan and Whitaker [2] report opposing views
of distributed resources integrators and of utility-owned


The financial support of the Lebanese National Council for Scientific
Research, Beirut, Lebanon, for this work is gratefully acknowledged.
S.H. Karaki, A. Daher and R. Hawa are with Department of the Electrical
and Computer Engineering, AUB, P.O. Box: 110236, Beirut, Lebanon, 1107
2020. The email address of the corresponding author is skaraki@aub.edu.lb.
electrical power systems . Economic evaluation
methodologies are being developed to address the economic
feasibility of connecting DR to utility grids. Hoff et al [3]
present an economic evaluation to determine the break even
price for dispatchable DR and a technical evaluation to
adjust for technology type, location and utility system
characteristics. Murray [4] tries to justify DR planning using
combined heat and power (CHP) generation. He describes
and compares the attributes of an existing central generation
(CG) and distributed resource power system of a typical US
utility setup. He calculates the cost of electricity at the
distribution level of a DR planning without CHP to be 9.24
versus 8.93/ kWh for CG planning, and the application of
CHP reduces the cost of DR electricity to 6.20/ kWh.
Shirley [5] shows the aggregate annual investment in
distribution plant of selected utilities to be a significant cost
when compared with their average revenue, and as such it
should not be overlooked as a possible source of savings.
Furthermore, he argues that generation cost may experience
decline through technological gains in efficiency, whereas
distribution costs have no comparable trend.
On another note, the justification of DR may not come
only from base load operation but rather as a quencher of
price spikes associated with peak load operation in a
deregulated market. Cowart [6] notes that the contribution of
distribution resource to the grid does not have to be very
large in order to have a significant impact on market clearing
prices and network reliability. He reports that an EPRI study
found that a 1% reduction in load during high peak periods
could reduce market clearing prices by 10%.
The small size of DR makes them more suitable for
incremental implementation requiring lower intensity in
capital investment, which would allow DR to have a great
social impact in the developing world. Dunn [7] thus argues
that traditional rural electrification has focused on
connecting villages and other remote regions to a national
grid, which can be too expensive for many developing
nations. And so thousands of decentralized diesel or biogas
generators now serve villages in Ghana, Bolivia, Yemen and
Pakistan.
Traditionally, the EDL system has been developed, as
elsewhere, based on a centralized generation planning
paradigm [8]. This paper describes an evaluation of a
distributed resource (DR) plan as compared to a central
generation (CG) plan of the Lebanese electrical power
system. The cost analysis of the plans takes into
consideration the production cost of generation, the cost of
losses, the transmission and distribution plant investment,
and the cost of transporting fuel to the DR sites. The tools
E
0-7803-7967-5/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE
Paper accepted for presentation at 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, June 23th-26th, Bologna, Italy

used are an optimal generation expansion-planning (GEP)
package based on tunnel dynamic programming and
probabilistic production costing, a load flow based
contingency analysis (CA) program, and present-worth cost
methodology. The two generation plans are first developed
using the GEP program, and then two transmission plans are
carried out using the CA program. The losses in both plans
are estimated by carrying out load flow runs at peak,
intermediate and minimum loads for the CG and DR plans.
Without carrying out a detailed yearly distribution plan for
each development paradigm, this paper proposes an
approximate assessment based on a typical sub-transmission
distribution feeder layout, to help estimate the investment in
the CG and DR plans and to determine the cost of losses in
the distribution system.
II. ASSESSMENT TOOLS
A. Generation Expansion Planning (GEP)
GEP is used to determine for a given future a set of unit
additions that minimizes an objective function, which is
selected to be the total present worth of capital and operating
costs of generation. The GEP problem is solved in stages or
years using dynamic programming with several options or
states analyzed at each stage. At each stage one determines
the states of the next stage by applying feasible transitions
(i.e. unit additions) from the states of the present stage to
those of the next . Clearly as the years unfold, the number of
states if unlimited would increase almost exponentially with
the number of alternative technologies at the base. To
remove this curse of dimensionality and limit the number
of states being analyzed, two tunnel heuristic rules are
applied at each stage:
i. The maximum number of feasible transitions from each
state is equal to the number of available technologies.
ii. From the feasible states analyzed at each stage, the best
N ones are selected and used in order to determine the
feasible transitions to the states of the next stage.
In reality a larger number of feasible transitions may be
possible by mixing different technologies in the unit addition
process. The best N solutions under rule 2 may be selected
based on an economic or environmental cost function. Unit
additions are initiated when the expected energy not supplied
(EENS) in a given state exceeds some specified threshold
level. The selection of this level is critical if the plans
produced by the GEP are to be on the knee of a cost-
reliability trade-off curve of the system being studied [9].
At each state the program carries out a probabilistic
production simulation and determines the cost incurred up to
the current year. This is called the cost-to-date and represents
the accumulated present value of the total operating and
capital costs, up to and including the current year. The
application of the tunnel-heuristic rules will limit the number
of options analyzed and saved for further expansion. If, for
exa mple, 4 options are saved at each stage and two
technologies are being assessed, then the number of states
analyzed at each stage may reach 8. The states of the final
year represent the optimal plan and its variations, and by
retracing backward from the final states, it is possible to
determine the expansion schedules of each plan.
B. Contingency Analysis (CA)
CA is a tool used to test the ability of a power system to
withstand disturbances with a controlled loss of quality. The
disturbances imposed on the system are the loss of a major
transmission facility or of a generation unit , which may
result in line overloads or off-limit voltage conditions. The
set of disturbances form what is usually known as a
contingency set and is imposed on the system one item at a
time. At each contingency a load flow (LF) analysis is
carried out on the transmission system to test its adequacy in
supplying the specified busbar loads. The LF analysis
examines the steady-state condition of an ac power system
by calculating the busbar voltage magnitudes and phase
angles (V and ) that satisfy the non-linear power mismatch
equations:
0 ) , ( = V P (1)
0 ) , ( = V Q (2)
The procedure used to solve these equations is the fast-
decoupled load flow [10] algorithm, which is based on the
Newton-Raphsons method but takes advantage of the close
coupling of active power and phase angles on one side, and
of reactive power and voltage magnitudes on the other. Its
iterative equations are given by:
) , ( ] [ ] [
1 1 1 r r r r r
V P V B =
+
(3)
) , ( ] [ ] [
1 1 1 1 + +
=
r r r r r
V Q V B V V (4)
where B is essentially the imaginary part of the nodal
admittance matrix and [V

] is a diagonal matrix of voltage
magnitudes. Matrix B is real, symmetric, sparse and constant
throughout the iterative process, when no phase shifters are
considered, and hence it is formed and triangulated only
once at the onset of the iterative process.
III. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The analysis methodology rests on developing two
expansion plans according to the distributed resource (DR)
and central generation (CG) paradigms , with their production
costs being determined for a selected future. Each of these
plans will have a specific effect on the existing transmission
and distribution systems. The CG approach would have its
generators installed at traditional central sites, which would
be more distant to the load centers than those of the DR
approach. This will require more transmission and
distribution plant investment and cause higher losses in the
CG plan than in the DR plan.
A. Transmission System Investment
The annual generation unit additions are applied on the
transmission system at the various sites based on availability
and site capacity. Transmission reinforcements, needed to
restore overload to within statutory limits, are then
determined using contingency analysis . Let the transmission
investment needed in year y of the CG plan be TI
Cy
. Then the

present value (TI
C
) of transmission investment would be
given by:

=
=
Y
y
y Cy C
TI TI
1
(5)
Where
y
is the present worth factor for year y, and Y is
the total number of years in the study. In a similar approach
the present value of transmission investment in the DR
approach (TI
D
) is determined. The difference S
TI
= TI
C
TI
D

represents the savings in transmission investment between
the two approaches and would in general be positive.
B. Distribution System Investment
The same approach could be applied to assess the
savings in the distribution system investment, but that would
entail tedious and lengthy calculations due to the large size
of the system. Instead an average or matched system, which
reflects the distribution practice (Fig. 1), is assumed to exist
at each one of N sub-transmission distribution feed points.
For higher accuracy, several such small systems could be
studied in order to represent the various distribution practices
in the utility. The length L
1
of the 66kV line in the system is
selected such that L
1
N 2 is equal to the total length of
the sub-transmission network. Similarly the lengths L
2
and L
3

of the 11kV OHL and UGC are obtained, respectively, such
that L
2
N
D2
+ L
3
N
D3
matches the overall length of lines in
the distribution system, where N
D2
and N
D3
are the number of
distribution points of UGC and OHL, respectively. The
conductor size is selected as a weighted average of the
various sizes used. The power demands P
D1
and P
D2
of the
reduced system is selected such that (P
D1
+P
D2
) N is equal
to total system demand.
A planning exercise is then carried out on this system to
estimate the investment required in a CG approach, in which
the increase in load will be supplied from the feed point,
which will necessitate network reinforcements. The total PV
of the distribution network investment in the CG approach
(DI
C
) can be calculated using an equation similar to (5).
Then the investment needed in the DR approach (DI
D
) can be
evaluated in a similar manner. The total savings in the
overall system is estimated by: S
DI
= N
D
(DI
C
DI
D
), where
N
D
is the number of feed points beyond which the sub-
transmission and distribution networks are developed using a
DR approach.
C. Analysis of Losses
The analyses of losses for the CG and DR plans are
based on load flow studies carried out on the transmission
system. A similar approach is followed to assess losses on
the sub-transmission and distribution systems (66/ 11 kV)
using the matched distribution feeder system of Fig. 1. The
load flow analyses are carried out at various load levels that
approximate the load duration curve, as shown in Fig. 2.
Three or more load levels may be used depending on the
accuracy required. When 3 load levels are used, the hours H
1

and H
2
may be selected at some appropriate values, e.g. 15
and 50% of the total number of hours in a year H
T
= 8760.
The load levels L
1
, L
2
, and L
3
are selected to make the total
energy E
T
under the LDC equal to:
E
T
= L
1
H
1
+ L
2
(H
2
H
1
) + L
3
(H
T
H
2
) (6)
The load flows are carried out on the 220/150 kV
transmission system (Fig. 3), and at each load level the
observed power losses are noted. Let these power losses in a
CG plan in year y be PL
1y
, PL
2y
, and PL
3y,
then the total
energy loss in MWh in that year is estimated by:
EL
Cy
= PL
1y
H
1
+ PL
2y
(H
2
H
1
) + PL
3y
(H
T
H
2
) (7)
The PV of the cost of transmission losses (TL
C
) in the
CG approach can be evaluated by:

=
=
Y
y
y y Cy C
c EL TL
1
(8)
Where c
y
is the cost of electric energy in year y as
calculated by the GEP program. A similar approach is
followed to assess the cost of distribution losses in a DR plan
(TL
D
), using the matched sub-transmission distribution
feeder system (Fig. 2) for the CG and DR plans (DL
C
and
DL
D
). The overall savings due to the difference in losses (S
L
)
is given by:
S
L
= TL
C
TL
D
+ N
D
(DL
C
DL
D
) (9)

220/66 kV
L
1
- 66 kV
48MVA
L3 11kV
OHL
~
#1
~
#N
D2

L
2
11kV
UGC
#1
P
D3
P
D2

#N
D3

DR
2

DR
3

Fig. 1. Matched sub-transmission distribution feeder system

0 10 50
100
20
30
40
50
80
90
100
L
o
a
d

(
%
)

Duration (%)
LDC
H1
L
1

L
MAX

LMIN
L2
L3
H2
Fig. 2. Load duration curve of the EDL System


Zouk


Ksara
Bsalim
Halate
Saida
Zahrani
Mkalles
Aramoun2
Jamhour
Jieh
Sour
Baalbeck
Beddawi
Pins
Commercial
RasBeirut
Basta
Bahsas
G
G
G
G
G
G
Deir Nbouh2
DG

Fig. 3. The EDL 220/150 kV transmission system
IV. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
The EDL system has 4 main thermal power plants
located on the Mediterranean at Beddawi, Zouk, Jieh, and
Zahrani. It also has smaller thermal plants at Kadisha, Tyre,
and Baalbeck and a number of relatively small hydro power
plants. The electric power system in its current condition has
a rehabilitated thermal capacity of 1776 MW and 256 MW
of hydropower plants. The details of the thermal and major
hydro plants are given in Table 1, and the transmission
system data is given in [11]. The fuel prices used and their
properties are shown in Table 2. The peak load is estimated
at 2050 in 2002 froma peak demand of 1252MW in 1994
[8], based on 5% growth in the gross national product (GNP)
and an elasticity of system demand to GNP equal to 1.4 [9].
The peak load was forecast from 2002 to 2013 based on
moderate economic activity with an average GNP annual
increase of 3%. The characteristics of new units used to
expand the system are shown in Table 3.
The parameters of the matched distribution system of
Fig. 2 are derived from the number of sub-transmission exits
(220-150/ 66 kV) which is 59, the total number of medium-
voltage (MV) distribution points (11 and 15 kV) which is
nearly 590, and the length of the MV lines which is about
6500 km. Transformers capacity (32MVA) is also selected to
match the total transformers system capacity which is
estimated to be 1880 MVA, based on data given in [12]. The
cross-section areas selected for the 11 kV lines were 3120
mm
2
3.4 MVA for OHL, and 3200 mm
2
3.0 MVA for
UGC.
TABLE 1
DATA OF EXISTING THERMAL AND MAIN HYDRO UNITS
Name Type Date Size
MW
Fuel
a
Heat rate
Btu/ kWh
Beddawi CC-CT 1997 2*125 GO 11920
CC-ST 2000 165 ES
Zahrani CC-CT 1997 2*125 GO 11920
CC-ST 2000 165 ES
Zouk ST 1984 3*116 FO 10250
ST 1987 138 FO 10000
Jieh ST 1970 2*47 FO 11500
ST 1980 3*52 FO 11000
Kadisha ST 1983 70 FO 10900
Tyre CT 1997 2*35 GO 12180
Baalbeck CT 1998 2*35 GO 12180
Markaba HT 1962 2*14
Awali HT 1965 3*36
Joun HT 1968 2*20
(a) GO= gas-oil, FO= fuel-oil, ES= exhaust steam
TABLE 2
FUEL DATA
% Weight Name Cost
$/ton
Heat
Value
MJ/kg
S C Ash PM
b
N
Fuel-oil
118 39700 2.0 86.4 0.10 0.12 0.10
Gas-oil
189 41900 0.5 86.5 0.01 0.01 0.03
(b) PM= particulate matter
TABLE 3
DATA OF NEW UNITS
Type
c

Size
MW
Cost
$/kW
Fuel
Heat Rate
Btu/kWh
O & M
$/GWh
ST 300 1020 FO 9200 3000
CT-CV 160 331 GO 12040 3300
CT-AD 120 462 GO 9590 3560
CC-CV 250 445 GO 8070 3430
CC-AD 400 576 GO 7275 3230
DR-DE 10 608 FO 9750 12000
(c) ST= steam turbine, CT= combustion turbine,
CC= combined cycle, CV= conventional,
AD= advanced, DE= Diesel engine.
The optimal generation plan for the baseline scenario, at
the given fuel prices, is shown in Table 4, which depicts the
annual energy produced and corresponding production costs.
The last row in the table shows the present value of the
yearly generation production costs at a discount rate of 8%,
which amounts to M$ 4152. When the price of fuel-oil is
reduced by 15% the introduction of DR Diesel sets becomes
dominant in the optimal plan. Table 5 shows the

performance of the DR plan when applied in the base-line
scenario. Clearly the cost of operation, M$ 4250, is higher
than that of the optimal plan, with the difference M$ 4250
4152= 98 giving a measure of regret in implementing a DR
plan, if the generation production cost alone were to be
considered. The units in this plan would be added at some
13 selected nodes , as indicated in Fig. 3, which represent
about 64.8% of total system load. So the number of feeders
to be developed in a DR approach is estimated by: N
D
=
590.648= 38. The PV of the cost of transmission losses for
the CG and DR approaches are relatively small compared to
the generation costs and amount to M$ 7.9 and 6.7,
respectively. The PV of the cost of distribution losses for the
CG and DR plans evaluated for the matched distribution
feeder system (Fig. 1) amount to about M$ 4.12 and 2. 46,
respectively.
TABLE 4
UNIT ADDITIONS FOR THE CENTRAL GENERATION PLAN
Year
Load
MW
Added
Units
Energy
GWh
Cost
M$
Unit Cost
$/MWh
2003 2112 2*CT-CV 9947 519 52.21
2004 2175 10220 532 52.07
2005 2240 10515 546 51.93
2006 2330 1*CT-CV 10995 583 53.02
2007 2423 1*CT-AD 11423 615 53.87
2008 2520 11857 637 53.74
2009 2646 1*CC-CV 12461 684 54.93
2010 2778 1*CT-AD 13068 727 55.66
2011 2889 13571 753 55.52
2012 3005 1*CC-CV 14164 786 55.46
M$ 4152
TABLE 5
UNIT ADDITIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTED RESOURCE PLAN
Year
Load
MW
Added
Units
Energy
GWh
Cost
M$
Unit Cost
$/MWh
2003 2112 21*DR-DE 9929 522 52.54
2004 2175 10196 533 52.28
2005 2240 11*DR-DE 10532 564 53.57
2006 2330 8*DR-DE 10990 596 54.22
2007 2423 8*DR-DE 11410 626 54.86
2008 2520 9*DR-DE 11874 659 55.54
2009 2646 11*DR-DE 12448 701 56.28
2010 2778 12*DR-DE 13059 746 57.13
2011 2889 11*DR-DE 13601 787 57.84
2012 3005 13*DR-DE 14166 815 57.51
M$ 4250
The types of reinforcements considered in the sub-
transmission and distribution systems and their
corresponding costs are given in Table 6, as estimated by the
authors based on data given in [8] and [12]. Finally the costs
of reinforcements needed in the matched distribution feeder
system for the two plans are given in Table 7, and their PV is
M$ 13.699 for the CG plan, and M$ 4.238 for the DR plan.
TABLE 6
DATA FOR SYSTEM REINFORCEMENTS
Type
(b)

Voltage
kV
Rating
MVA
Length
km
Cost
Unit
Cost
($/ Unit)
OHL 66 47 15 km 129 932
OHL 11 3.4
15 km
69 430
TF 66/11 8
- Unit
150 720
UGC 11 3
7.5 km
399 350
UGC 220 360
6 km
3 700 000
CB 66 60
- Unit
220 000
CB 11 30
- Unit
135 000
SC 66 10
- Unit
157 400
SC 11 5
- Unit
54 500
(d) OHL= over-head line UGC= underground cable,
TF= transformer, CB= circuit breaker,
SC= shunt capacitor.
TABLE 7
MATCHED DISTRIBUTION FEEDER SYSTEM REINFORCEMENTS
CG Approach DR Approach
Year Type
Cost
($)
Type Cost ($)
2003 2 OHL 11 kV
2 352 900
OHL 11 kV
1 311 450
2 UGC 11 kV
6 260 250
UGC 11 kV
3 265 125
2 TF 66/11 kV
301 440
2 TF 66/11 kV
301 440
2 SC 11 kV
109 000
SC 11 kV
54 500
2006 SC 11 kV
54 500


2009 OHL 11 kV
1 176 450


UGC 11 kV
3 130 125


SC 11 kV
54 500


2011 OHL 66 kV
3 130 125


TF 66/11 kV
2 083 980


UGC 11 kV
301 440


2012



M$ 13.699 4.238
From all this data, the various cost elements of the CG
and DR plans for the system as a whole can now be put
together, as depicted in Table 8. The investment required in
transmission in the CG plan is to reinforce the 9 km, 220 kV
cable from Mkalles to Commercial at the cost of M$ 33 in
2003. This reinforcement would not be required in the DR
plan as local generation will help remove the overload off
the cable. The savings due to losses alone would amount to:
7.9 6.7 + 38

(4.12 2.46) = 64 M$. The PV of savings
possible in a DR plan due to distribution investment deferrals
are given by: 38

(13.699 4.238) = 360 M$, which really
tips the balance in favor of the DR approach, at least based
on the cost information used in this study.
It should be noted that circuit breakers (CB) would need
to be added at the receiving end of the 11 and 66 kV lines to
protect against fault current flow in the reverse direction.
The number of breakers added annually is assumed

proportional to the annual DR capacity added, with the
proportionality constant calculated from for the total number
of distribution feeders developed in the DR plan (i.e., 380)
and the total DR capacity added of 1040 MW, which can be
deduced from Table 5. In examining the cost items of Table
8 one notes that the major cost item in the DR plan is that of
the CB, which, at least partially, would have to be paid early
in the planning period. However this is more than balanced
by the cost of the transmission and distribution
reinforcements in the CG plan, which would also be required
very early in the planning period.
TABLE 8
INVESTMENT COSTS OF SYSTEM REINFORCEMENTS
Item Cost for Savings
CG DR CG - DR
(M$) (M$) (M$)
Production 4152 4250 -98
Transmission 33 33
Distribution 808 449 360
Fuel Transport
e
32 -32
11 & 66 kV CBs 40 -40
Losses :
- Transmission 8 7 1
- Distribution 243 180 63
5244 4957 287
(e) Based on an average cost of $4.5/ ton of fuel
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a methodology to assess the cost
of implementing a distributed resource plan as compared to a
central generation plan for the Lebanese electrical power
system. The cost analysis of the plans took into consideration
the production cost of generation, the cost of losses, the
transmission and distribution plant investment, and the cost
of transporting fuel to the DR sites. The results have
established that most of the savings are due to investment
deferrals at the distribution system level. The next most
significant savings were in the cost of losses in the
distribution system. To avoid carrying out a detailed yearly
distribution system plan for each development paradigm, this
paper has proposed an approximate assessment based on a
typical distribution feeder system layout to determine the
required investment and estimate the savings incurred in a
DR plan. The two plans were developed using a generation
expansion planning (GEP) progra m based on probabilistic
production costing and tunnel dynamic programming.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2001 Issues in Focus,
www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo01/issues.html, March 2002.
[2] Morgan R. L., Whitaker C. M. DR Interconnection Issues: Utility vs.
Provider Who is Right? IEEE PES Summer Meeting 2002, Chicago,
July 21-25, 2002.
[3] Hoff T. E. Wenger H. J., Farmer B. R. Distribution Generation: An
alternative to Electric Utility Investment in system capacity, Energy
Policy, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1996, pp. 137-147
[4] Davis M. W. Distributed Resource Electric Power Systems offer
significant advantages over central station generation and T & D
power systems, Parts 1 and 2, IEEE PES Summer Meeting 2002,
Chicago, July 21-25, 2002.
[5] Shirley W. Distribution System Cost Methodology for disk
generation, The Regulatory Assistance Project, www.rapoline.org,
September 2001.
[6] Cowart R. Distributed reso urces and Electrical Systems Reliability,
The Regulatory Assistance Project, www.rapoline.org, September
2001.
[7] Dunn S. Micro-Power the Next Electrical Era, World Watch Paper
151, www.worlwatch.org, July 2000, pp. 46-47.
[8] Electricity of Lebanon (EDL), Electricity in Lebanon: History of a
Century and More (in Arabic), Beirut: EDL, August 1996, p. 86-102.
[9] Karaki S., Chaaban F. Al-Nakhl N., Tarhini K. Power Generation
Expansion Planning with environmental consideration for Lebanon,
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol.
24, No. 8, August 2002, pp. 611 619.
[10] Bergen A. and Vittal V. Power Systems Analysis, 2
nd
Ed., Prentice
Hall: New Jersey, 2002, pp.352-356.
[11] Karaki S.H., Chahine H. T., Salim B.A. Congestion Management
and Pricing in the Restructured Power System of Lebanon, IEEE
PES Summer Meeting 2002, Chicago, July 21-25, 2002.
[12] Abou Said C. and Baroudi R.E. (Ed.). A Case Study on the Lebanese
Electric Power Sector: Proposed Restructuring and Privatization
Program, ISBN 2-909611-21-3, Beirut, Lebanon, 2001.
V. BIOGRAPHIES
Sami H. Karaki is an associate professor
of electrical engineering at the American
University of Beirut (AUB), Lebanon. He
joined AUB in 1991 and contributed to
the development of its Electric Power
Engineering program. From 1981 to 1990
he was with Kuwait Institute for Scientific
Research, Kuwait where he contributed to
two regionally leading projects on the
power system interconnection of Arabic
countries. He obtained his BE from AUB
in 1975 and his Ph.D. from the University
of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK, in 1980. He
is presently teaching courses in digital systems design, computer
programming, power electronics, and power systems. His main
research interests are in modeling of renewable energy systems,
power system planning, short -term load forecasting, and artificial
intelligence applications in electric power.
Ali K. Daher is a masters student in
electrical engineering at the American
University of Beirut (AUB), Lebanon. He
obtained his BE in electrical engineering
from AUB in 2001. He is an assistant
instructor in the electric machines and
drives lab since 2001. He is presently
working on his thesis in distributed
energy hardware system simulation. His
main topics of interest include control
theory and application in addition to
network based automation.
Ramzi N. Hawa obtained his BE in electrical engineering from the
American University of Beirut (AUB) in June 2001. He is expected
to obtain his ME degree in Computer and Communications
Engineering also from AUB in June 2003. His thesis work was on
content data base management in web sites using a single index file.
He is currently working as an electrical instrumentation engineer
with Consolidated Contractors Company in Kazakhstan supervising
the construction of an oil processing plant for the Karachaganak
Petroleum Company.