Load following in a bilateral market with local controllers

Rajesh Joseph Abraham

a,b,
, D. Das
a
, Amit Patra
a
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, West Bengal, India
b
Department of Avionics, Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram 695 547, Kerala, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 January 2008
Accepted 13 June 2011
Available online 13 September 2011
Keywords:
AGC
Deregulation
Load-following
Two area interconnected system
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, the conventional Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of two-area interconnected power
system is modied to take into account the effect of bilateral contracts between the supplier and cus-
tomer. A load following controller on each generator involved in the bilateral contract is considered. A
separate control scheme for generators taking part in load-following is proposed to share the uncon-
tracted power demanded by some customers. Simulation studies show that both the control schemes
are very effective for the generators taking part in load following.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Electric power utilities throughout the world are currently
undergoing major restructuring processes and are adapting the
deregulated market operation. Competition has been introduced
in power systems around the world based on the premise that it
will increase the efciency of the industrial sector and reduce the
cost of electrical energy of all customers. Most of the ancillary ser-
vices of a vertically integrated utility will have a different role to
play in restructured environment and hence these ancillary services
have to be modelled differently. Automatic Generation Control
(AGC) is one of these ancillary services. In the new environment,
a customer can contract individually with a supplier for power.
Recent literature on AGC shows that researchers have paid
attention to reformulate the AGC problem in restructured environ-
ment. The various issues of load frequency control after deregula-
tion have been discussed in length in [1]. The authors of [2] have
studied the AGC problem in a deregulated environment and pro-
posed a ramp following controller which ensures that selected gen-
erators will automatically follow the load changes. The differences
between the AGC operation in a vertically integrated industry and a
horizontally integrated industry have been reported in [3,4]. The
market structure proposed by them is kept generic enough to cap-
ture all possibilities in marketing load following capability. Donde
et al. [5] have also reformulated the two area AGC model in a
restructured environment similar to that of [3,4]. The feasibility
of providing load following competitively has been demonstrated
in [6]. They have attempted to decentralise the market for load fol-
lowing. Delno et al. [7] have addressed the subject of load fre-
quency control from the point of view of the restructuring
process of the electrical industry. They have treated load frequency
control as an ancillary service essential for maintaining the electri-
cal systemreliability at an adequate level and proposed two control
schemes namely, the pluralistic and hierarchical load frequency
control. Liu et al. [8] have proposed a framework for optimal load
frequency control in deregulated environments. They have opti-
mised an objective function which incorporates both the indices
of economy as well as stability. A decentralised controller for mul-
tiarea AGC for the restructured electricity markets using the Eigen
structure assignment technique has been suggested in [9].
In view of the above developments, the present work reformu-
lates the AGC problem in the deregulated environment and the
main objectives of the present work are:
(1) To study the performance of load following controller on
each generator involved in the bilateral contract.
(2) To propose a suitable control scheme such that a generator
can take part in load following as well as share the portion
of uncontracted power demanded by the customer.
2. Restructured environment
In restructured environment, the generation companies (GEN-
COs) supply power to various distribution companies (DISCOs) at
competitive prices. Thus, DISCOs may or may not have contracts
with the GENCOs in their own area because they have freedom
to choose the GENCOs of other areas too. For the sake of clarity,
consider a two-area system as shown in Fig. 1. In area-1, there is
one generation company designated by GENCO
1
with two
0142-0615/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.06.033

Corresponding author. Address: Department of Avionics, Indian Institute of

Space Science & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram 695 547, Kerala, India.
E-mail address: rajeshja@gmail.com (R.J. Abraham).
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Electrical Power and Energy Systems
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ i j epes
generating units Unit
1
and Unit
2
and two distribution compa-
nies designated by DISCO
1
and DISCO
2
. Similarly in area-2, there
is only one generation company, GENCO
2
and two distribution
companies designated by DISCO
3
and DISCO
4
. GENCO
2
has also
got two generating units Unit
3
and Unit
4
. Following the concept
given in [35], we dene the DISCO Participation Matrix (DPM) as
given by Eq. (1) to make the realisation of contracts much easier.
DPM
cpf
11
cpf
12
cpf
13
cpf
14
cpf
21
cpf
22
cpf
23
cpf
24
cpf
31
cpf
32
cpf
33
cpf
34
cpf
41
cpf
42
cpf
43
cpf
44
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
1
DISCO
1
DISCO
2
Unit
1
Unit
2
GENCO
1
DISCO
3
DISCO
4
Unit
3
Unit
4
GENCO
2
Tie-Line
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a two area interconnected system in restruc-
tured environment.
T1
sT 1
1
+
T2
sT 1
1
+
G1
sT 1
1
+
G2
sT 1
1
+
apf
1
1
1
R
2
1
R
apf
2
s
K
I1

B
1
+
s
T
12
2
+
+
+
f
1
P2
P2
sT 1
K
+
s
K
I2

B
2
a
12
+
+
+
u
1
u
2

a
12
P1
P1
sT 1
K
+
error tie12,
P +

scheduled tie12,
P
actual tie12,
P
+
+
+

LOC L1,
P
UC L1,
P
+
LOC L2,
P

+
gc1
P
gc2
P
+
+
T3
sT 1
1
+
T4
sT 1
1
+
G3
sT 1
1
+
G4
sT 1
1
+
apf
3
3
1
R
apf
4
+

gc3
P
+
+
gc4
P
4
1
R
+
s
K
1
+

s
K
2
+

s
K
3
+

+
s
K
4
+

+
g1
P
g2
P
g3
P
g4
P
gv1
P
gv2
P
gv3
P
gv4
P
f
2
v
1
v
2
v
3
v
4
1
ACE
2
ACE
+
UC L2,
P
+
Fig. 2. Two area interconnected system.
R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657 1649
In Eq. (1), cpfs are the contract participation factors. In DPM, the
number of rows is equal to the number of generating units i.e., Unit
1
and Unit
2
of GENCO
1
and Unit
3
and Unit
4
of GENCO
2
while, the
number of columns is equal to the number of DISCOs i.e., DISCO
1
,
DISCO
2
, DISCO
3
and DISCO
4
. Each entry in this matrix represents
the fraction of the total load contracted by a DISCO towards a gen-
erating unit of GENCO
1
or GENCO
2
. For example, cpf
23
is the fraction
of the total load contracted by DISCO
3
from Unit
2
of GENCO
1
in
area-1. The sum of all the entries in a column in this matrix is unity.
i.e.,
X
NUNIT
i1
cpf
ij
1:0; j 1; 2; . . . ; NDISCO 2
where NUNIT = total number of generating units, NDISCO = total
number of distribution companies.
For the case illustrated in Fig. 1, NUNIT = 4 and NDISCO = 4.
Therefore, the expression for contracted power of generating units
with DISCOs is given as
DP
gci

X
NDISCO
j1
cpf
ij
DP
Lj
; i 1; 2; . . . ; NUNIT 3
where DP
gci
= contracted power of ith generating unit, DP
Lj
= total
demand of DISCO
j
, cpf
ij
= contract participation factor.
The scheduled steady state power ow on the tie-line is given
as:
DP
tie12,scheduled
= (Demand of DISCOs in area-2 from the generat-
ing units in area-1) (Demand of DISCOs in area-1 from the gener-
ating units in area-2). Thus,
DP
tie12;scheduled

X
2
i1
X
4
j3
cpf
ij
DP
Lj

X
4
i3
X
2
j1
cpf
ij
DP
Lj
4
The tie-line power error is dened as:
DP
tie12;error
DP
tie12;actual
DP
tie12;scheduled
5
At the steady state, the tie-line power error, DP
tie12,error
, vanishes as
the actual tie-line power ow reaches the scheduled power ow.
This error signal is used to generate the respective Area Control Er-
ror (ACE) signals as in the traditional scenario, i.e.,
ACE
1
B
1
Df
1
DP
tie12;error
6
ACE
2
B
2
Df
2
a
12
DP
tie12;error
7
0 50 100 150
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
(a)
0 50 100 150
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
(b)
0 50 100 150
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
-3
(c)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)

f
1
(
H
z
)

f
2
(
H
z
)
T
i
e
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r

(
p
u

M
W
)

Error
Actual
Fig. 3. Case 1: variations in area frequency deviations and tie-power uctuations.
1650 R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657
where a
12
= (P
r1
/P
r2
) with P
r1
and P
r2
being the rated area capaci-
ties of area-1 and area-2 respectively.
3. Block diagram representation
Fig. 2 shows the block diagram representation of the two area
system shown in Fig. 1. Each area is equipped with an AGC control-
ler. In addition, each unit of the GENCOs is equipped with a load
following controller. For example, consider Unit
1
in area-1
(Fig. 2). A demand signal DP
gc1
that arrives directly from the load
is compared with the power output of Unit
1
(DP
g1
) to yield a mis-
match and this mismatch is given as an input to a reset controller
(load following controller) that will force the mismatch to zero so
that the generator follows the load. In Fig. 2, the inputs, DP
L1,LOC
and DP
L2,LOC
are part of the power system model, but not part of
AGC. DP
L1,LOC
is the total local demand in area-1 whereas, DP
L2,LOC
is the total local demand in area-2. There is a possibility that a DIS-
CO violates a contract by demanding more power than that speci-
ed in the contract. This excess power is not contracted out to any
GENCO. This uncontracted power must be supplied by the GENCO
in the same area as the DISCO that violates the contract. In the
block diagram (Fig. 2), DP
L1,UC
and DP
L2,UC
are the uncontracted
power demanded by DISCOs in area-1 and area-2 respectively. In
each area, the ACE participation factors (apfs) decide the distribu-
tion of uncontracted power in the steady state among various gen-
erating units. In each area, two nonreheat thermal units, each with
a Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) of 10% per min. are considered
[10,11]. The system parameters used for simulation are given in
Appendix A.
4. State space representation
The state space equation for Fig. 2 can be described as
_
X AX BU B
0
V CP C
0
P
0
8
where X is the state vector, U and V are the control vectors and P and
P
0
are the disturbance vectors. A, B, B
0
, C and C
0
are real constant
matrices of appropriate dimensions associated with them which
in turn depend on the system parameters and the operating point.
For the system under consideration,
X Df
1
Df
2
DP
tie12;actual
DP
g1
DP
g2
DP
g3
DP
g4
DP
gv1
DP
gv2
DP
gv3
DP
gv4

T
9
U u
1
u
2

T
10
V v
1
v
2
v
3
v
4

T
11
P DP
L1
DP
L2
DP
L3
DP
L4

T
12
and
P
0
DP
L1;UC
DP
L2;UC

T
13
The AGC integral control law for ith area is given by
0 50 100 150
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
x 10
-3
(a)
0 50 100 150
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
(b)
Time (s)
Time (s)

P
g
1

&

P
g
2

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g
3

&

P
g
4

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g1
[Unit
1
]
P
g2
[Unit
2
]
P
g3
[Unit
3
]
P
g4
[Unit
4
]
Fig. 4. Case 1: variations in generated powers of Unit
1
and Unit
2
of GENCO
1
and Unit
3
and Unit
4
of GENCO
2
.
R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657 1651
u
i
K
Ii
Z
ACE
i
dt 14
and the integral control law for load following for ith unit is given as
v
j
K
j
Z
DP
gcj
DP
gj
dt 15
where K
Ii
= integral gain setting for AGC controller of the ith area,
K
j
= integral gain setting of the load following controller of ith gen-
erating unit.
5. Simulation results
5.1. Case 1
Let us assume that Unit
2
and Unit
4
are under load following con-
tract only and Unit
1
and Unit
3
are for speed regulation purpose
only. Further, no centralised supplementary control is available.
i.e., K
I1
= K
I2
= 0. All the DISCOs have a total demand of 0.005 pu MW
each which is contracted to the various generating units as per the
DPM given in Eq. (16). It may be noted that, since, Unit
1
and Unit
3
are not in load following, the corresponding rows in the DPM have
all zero entries and also K
1
= K
3
= 0.0. Thus DP
L1
= DP
L2
= DP
L3
= DP
L4
= 0.005 pu MW. Also, there is no uncontracted power de-
mand in both the areas. i.e., DP
L1,UC
= DP
L2,UC
= 0 pu MW.
DPM
0 0 0 0
0:25 0:10 0:75 0:60
0 0 0 0
0:75 0:90 0:25 0:40
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
16
At steady state, the power generation of each generating unit is
equal to the contracted power of the respective generating unit as
given by Eq. (3). Thus,
P
gi;ss
DP
gci
17
Hence, for the case under consideration with given DPM in Eq. (16)
and using Eqs. (3) and (17), we obtain DP
g1,ss
= 0 pu MW, DP
g2,ss
= 0.0085 pu MW, DP
g3,ss
= 0.0 pu MW and DP
g4,ss
= 0.0115 pu MW.
The scheduled tie-line power ow is given by Eq. (4) and for this
case, it is DP
tie12,scheduled
= [0.75 + 0.60 (0.75 + 0.90)] 0.005
= 0.0015 pu MW.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the dynamic responses for this case. Despite
the absence of AGC controllers in both the areas, the steady state
0 50 100 150
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
(a)
Time
0 50 100 150
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06 (b)
0 50 100 150
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
-3
(c)
(s)

Time (s)
Time (s)
f
1
(
H
z
)

f
2
(
H
z
)
T
i
e
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r

(
p
u

M
W
)

Error
Actual
Fig. 5. Case 2: variations in area frequency deviations and tie-power uctuations.
1652 R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657
frequency deviation from the nominal value in both the areas de-
cays to zero as in Fig. 3. This is due to the fact that there is no
uncontracted power demand in either of the areas.
The actual tie line power ow is equal to the scheduled value at
the steady state as in Fig. 3c. Also, it is seen that at steady state, the
tie power error is zero. Fig. 4 shows that the generations of the
units are as desired and given by Eq. (17). Of course, it is unlikely
that the power system can perform adequately without classical
supplementary control for AGC.
5.2. Case 2
In this case, Unit
1
and Unit
3
are under AGC only while Unit
2
and
Unit
4
are under load following only. The DPM remains the same as
given by Eq. (16) in Case 1. Since, in each area only one generating
unit is under AGC, its ACE participation factor is unity, i.e.,
apf
1
= 1.0 and apf
3
= 1.0. The ACE participation factors of the units
under load following only are zero, i.e., apf
2
= 0 and apf
4
= 0.
As in Case 1, all the DISCOs have a contracted demand of
0.005 pu MW each and there is no uncontracted demand in either
area. The steady state power generations of the generating units
is again given by Eq. (17) and is DP
g1,ss
= 0 pu MW, DP
g2,ss
=
0.0085 pu MW, DP
g3,ss
= 0 pu MW and DP
g4,ss
= 0.0115 pu MW.
The scheduled tie line power ow is given by Eq. (4) and is
DP
tie12,scheduled
= 0.0015 pu MW.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the dynamic responses for this case and the
results are as desired. In this case, the AGC controllers have some
effect on the transient behaviour of the responses but have no ef-
fect on the steady state performance.
5.3. Case 3
In this case, the role of the generating units is the same as in
Case 2. The contracted demand of the DISCOs, DPM and ACE partic-
ipation factors are also the same as in Case 2. However, in addition
to the contracted demand of 0.005 pu MW for DISCO
1
, it also de-
mands an additional power of 0.005 pu MW which is uncontracted
i.e., DP
L1,UC
= 0.005 pu MW. When an excess demand occurs, and is
not contracted out to any GENCO, the change in load appears only
in terms of the Area Control Errors. Hence, the additional demand
or shortfall of generation has to be shared by all the GENCOs of the
area in which the contract violation occurs and the generation in
other areas remains unaffected. Thus, at steady state, on the occur-
rence of an uncontracted demand, the unit generations given by
Eq. (17) get modied to
DP
g1;ss
DP
g2;ss
DP
g3;ss
DP
g4;ss
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
APF
DP
L1;UC
DP
L2;UC
DP
L3;UC
DP
L4;UC
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5

DP
gc1
DP
gc2
DP
gc3
DP
gc4
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
18
0 50 100 150
-2
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
-3
(a)
0 50 100 150
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
x 10
-3
(b)
Time (s)
Time (s)

P
g
1

&

P
g
2

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g
3

&

P
g
4

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g1
[Unit
1
]
P
g2
[Unit
2
]
P
g3
[Unit
3
]
P
g4
[Unit
4
]
Fig. 6. Case 2: variations in generated powers of Unit
1
and Unit
2
of GENCO
1
and Unit
3
and Unit
4
of GENCO
2
.
R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657 1653
where
APF
apf
1
0 0 0
0 apf
2
0 0
0 0 apf
3
0
0 0 0 apf
4
2
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
5
19
As is expected, at the steady state, this uncontracted power demand
is met by the generating unit under AGC in area-1 itself, i.e., by
Unit
1
. Thus, DP
g1,ss
= (apf
1
DP
L1,UC
) + DP
gc1
= (1 0.005) + 0.0
= 0.005 pu MW. It may be noted that, the generations of other GEN-
COS at steady state i.e., DP
g2,ss
, DP
g3,ss
, and DP
g4,ss
are same as in
Case 2. Since, at steady state, DP
tie12,scheduled
is same as DP
tie12,actual
,
the tie-power error, DP
tie12,error
vanishes to zero. The corresponding
dynamic responses are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. Due to
uncontracted power demand, oscillations are more in the tie-power
responses as in Fig. 7c but steady state values are not affected. From
Fig. 8a, it is seen that, Unit
1
of GENCO
1
in area-1 generates the
uncontracted power demanded by DISCO
1
at steady state.
5.4. Case 4
In Case 3, it was seen that the uncontracted power demand in
area-1 was met completely by Unit
1
since it was the only unit un-
der AGC in that area. However, if it is so desired that some portion
of the uncontracted demand be taken up by the other unit (i.e.,
Unit
2
, assuming that it has some reserve capacity), then a different
control scheme is required. This control scheme is shown in Fig. 9.
In this case, a fraction of the output of the AGC controller in area-1,
i.e., (apf
2
u
1
) is given as an input to the load following controller of
Unit
2
such that Unit
2
generation can chase the contracted power
demand plus this fraction of the uncontracted power demand. If
we take the ACE participation factors as apf
1
= 0.8 and apf
2
= 0.2,
then, with all other conditions remaining the same as in Case 3,
the uncontracted demand in area-1 will be shared in proportion
to the ACE participation factors of the units in area-1. Then, at stea-
dy state, Unit
1
and Unit
2
will generate the following powers as per
Eq. (18): DP
g1,ss
= (apf
1
DP
L1,UC
) + DP
gc1
= (0.8 0.005) + 0.0 =
0.004 pu MW and DP
g2,ss
= (apf
2
DP
L1,UC
) + DP
gc2
= (0.2
0.005) + 0.0085 = 0.0095 pu MW. Note that, at steady state,
u
1
= DP
L1,UC
. As in Case 3, it may be noted that, the steady state
generations of Unit
3
(DP
g3,ss
) and Unit
4
(DP
g4,ss
) remain same at
0 50 100 150
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
(a)
0 50 100 150
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
(b)
0 50 100 150
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
x 10
-3
(c)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)

f
1
(
H
z
)

f
2
(
H
z
)
T
i
e
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r

(
p
u

M
W
)

Error
Actual
Fig. 7. Case 3: variations in area frequency deviations and tie-power uctuations.
1654 R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657
0 50 100 150
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
x 10
-3
(a)
0 50 100 150
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
x 10
-3
(b)
Time (s)
Time (s)

P
g
1

&

P
g
2

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g
3

&

P
g
4

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g1
[Unit
1
]
P
g2
[Unit
2
]
P
g3
[Unit
3
]
P
g4
[Unit
4
]
Fig. 8. Case 3: variations in generated powers of Unit
1
and Unit
2
of GENCO
1
and Unit
3
and Unit
4
of GENCO
2
.
apf
1
2
1
R
apf
2
s
K
I1

+
u
1
1
1
R
G1
sT 1
1
+
gv1
P
G2
sT 1
1
+
gv2
P
s
K
2
v
2
+
+

g2
P
gc2
P
1
ACE
f
1 f
1
Fig. 9. Control scheme that enables Unit
2
of GENCO
1
to share some desired portion of uncontracted power demand.
R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657 1655
0 pu MW and 0.0115 pu MW respectively. Further, at steady state,
the tie-power error, DP
tie12,error
= 0 pu MW since DP
tie12,actual
= DP
tie12,scheduled
.
For this case, the variations in area frequency deviations and
tie-power uctuations are as expected and are given in Fig. 10.
Fig. 11a shows the generations of Unit
1
and Unit
2
and Fig. 11b de-
picts the Unit
3
and Unit
4
generations which are generating the de-
sired powers at steady state.
Thus with this new control scheme, units under load following
can also be made to share any desired portion of an uncontracted
power demand in the system, provided sufcient reserve capacity
is available. Units under load following are expected to have less
generation reserve and hence can be given lower ACE participation
factor, so that the major portion of an uncontracted power demand
is taken up by those units which are under AGC only.
6. Conclusions
In this work, an attempt has been made to examine the feasibil-
ity of providing load following capability in the deregulated envi-
ronment. A two area interconnected model of AGC and load
following in the restructured environment has been proposed by
considering AGC controllers as well as load following controllers.
Several cases for load following have been examined and it was
found that the generating unit taking part in load following gener-
ates the required contracted power in the steady state. It was also
observed that at least one generating unit in each area must be un-
der AGC to force the frequency deviation and tie power error to
zero in the steady state and actual tie power ow to equal the
scheduled tie power ow following an uncontracted power de-
mand by DISCOs in either of the areas. At the same time, it was also
observed that generating units which are taking part in AGC can
supply the uncontracted power demand. A new control scheme
has also been proposed for those units taking part in load following
so that they can also share the uncontracted power demand in pro-
portion to their ACE participation factors.
Acknowledgements
Rajesh Joseph Abraham gratefully acknowledges the nancial
support from the All India Council for Technical Education
(A.I.C.T.E), New Delhi, India, in the form of National Doctoral Fel-
lowship (NDF 2003) awarded to him, with which, this research
work was carried out.
0 50 100 150
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
(a)
0 50 100 150
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
(b)
0 50 100 150
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
x 10
-3
(c)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)

f
1
(
H
z
)

f
2
(
H
z
)
T
i
e
-
l
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r

(
p
u

M
W
)

Error
Actual
Fig. 10. Case 4: variations in area frequency deviations and tie-power uctuations.
1656 R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657
Appendix A
All the notations carry the usual meanings.
P
R1
= P
R2
= 1200 MW.
T
P1
= T
P2
= 20 s.
K
P1
= K
P2
= 120 Hz/pu MW.
T
T1
= T
T2
= T
T3
= T
T4
= 0.3 s.
T
12
= 0.0866.
T
G1
= T
G2
= T
G3
= T
G4
= 0.08 s.
R
1
= R
2
= R
3
= R
4
= 2.4 Hz/pu MW.
B
1
= B
2
= 0.425 pu MW/Hz.
D
1
= D
2
= 8.33 10
3
pu MW/Hz.
K
I1
= K
I2
= 0.05.
K
2
= K
4
= 0.09, K
1
= K
3
= 0.0.
References
[1] Christie RD, Bose A. Load frequency control issues in power system operations
after deregulation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1996;11(August):1191200.
[2] Bakken BH, Grande OS. Automatic generation control in a deregulated power
system. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1998;13(November):14016.
[3] Kumar J, Ng K-H, Sheble G. AGC simulator for price-based operation, Part 1: A
model. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1997;12(May):52732.
[4] Kumar J, Ng K-H, Sheble G. AGC simulator for price-based operation part 2:
case study results. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1997;12:5338.
[5] Donde V, Pai MA, Hiskens IA. Simulation and optimisation in an AGC system
after deregulation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2001;16:4819.
[6] Nobile E, Bose A, Tomsovic K. Feasibility of a bilateral market for load
following. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2001;16:7827.
[7] Delno B, Fornari F, Massucco S. Load frequency control and inadvertent
energy interchange evaluation in restructured power systems. IEE Proc Gener,
Transm Distrib 2002;149:60714.
[8] Liu F, Song YH, Ma J, Mei S, Lu Q. Optimal loadfrequency control in
restructured power systems. IEE Proc Gener, Transm Distrib 2003;15:8794.
[9] Tyagi B, Srivastava SC. A decentralized automatic generation control scheme
for competitive electricity markets. IEEE Tran Power Syst 2006;21:3129.
[10] IEEE Committee Report. Dynamic models for steam and hydro turbines in
power system studies. IEEE Trans Power Appar Syst 1973;PAS-92:190415.
[11] IEEE Working Group on Power Plant Response to Load Changes. MW response
of fossil fuelled steam units. IEEE Trans Power Appar Syst 1973;PAS-92:455
63.
0 50 100 150
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
x 10
-3
(a)
0 50 100 150
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
x 10
-3
(b)
Time (s)
Time (s)

P
g
1

&

P
g
2

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g
3

&

P
g
4

(
p
u

M
W
)

P
g1
[Unit
1
]
P
g2
[Unit
2
]
P
g3
[Unit
3
]
P
g4
[Unit
4
]
Fig. 11. Case 4: variations in generated powers of Unit
1
and Unit
2
of GENCO
1
and Unit
3
and Unit
4
of GENCO
2
.
R.J. Abraham et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33 (2011) 16481657 1657