Decentralised security constrained DC-OPF of

interconnected power systems

P.N. Biskas and A.G. Bakirtzis
Abstract: A method for the decentralised solution of the security constrained optimal power ow
(SCOPF) problem in large interconnected power systems is presented. The method decomposes the
overall SCOPF problem of a multi-area system into independent SCOPF subproblems, one for
each area. The solutions of the SCOPF subproblems of the different areas are co-ordinated
through a pricing mechanism until they converge to a reduced scope central SCOPF solution. The
prices used for the co-ordination of the subproblem solutions are the prices of electricity exchanges
between adjacent areas. The reduced scope SCOPF of a multi-area power system is a SCOPF with
a reduced set of security constraints, in which the effects of contingencies outside an area on
monitored elements within the area are ignored. Test results from the application of the method to
the IEEE three-area RTS-96 and to the Balkan power system are presented.

List of symbols

X Atie

XA

ij
Ng
N7
Ci(Pi)
P
D
h
yref
B
xij
Fij
A
AA
TA
PA
DA
hA
BA
~A

nA
tA
7A

unit index, identical to bus index; for simplicity

of notation it will be assumed that only one unit
is connected to every bus
line from bus i to bus j index, also used for tielines
total number of units
total number of transmission lines
fuel cost function of unit i, here a quadratic
function
unit active power output vector
bus active power demand vector
bus voltage phase angle vector
reference bus voltage phase angle
network admittance matrix (imaginary part
only)
reactance of line ij
power ow on line ij
area (region) index
area adjacent to area A index
set of area A tie-lines
area A unit active power output vector
area A bus active power demand vector
area A bus voltage phase angle vector
area A network admittance matrix; identical to
block of B, corresponding to area A, excluding
admittances of area A tie-lines
area A modied network admittance matrix;
tie-line admittances are added to the diagonal
entries of the corresponding border buses
number of area A nodes
number of area A tie-lines; identical to number
of area A border buses
number of area A internal lines

r IEE, 2004
IEE Proceedings online no. 20041063
doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:20041063
Paper rst received 15th December 2003 and in revised form 19th July 2004
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

H Atie

HA

ei
k
LODFij,mn

GGDFkij

tA
tA diagonal tie-line primitive reactance

matrix of area A
7A
7A-diagonal line primitive reactance matrix
of area A
nA
tA node to tie-line incidence matrix of area
A:
A
Htiem;ij
{1, for m i; 0, otherwise}
(ij: tie-line from iAA to jAAA)
nA
7A node to branch incidence matrix of area
A:
A
Hm;ij
{1, for m i; 1, for m j; 0, otherwise}
ith singleton vector, eij ei-ej
decentralised algorithm iteration index
line outage distribution factor, equal to the
fraction of the power owing on line mn before
it is outaged, which ows over line ij after the
outage of line mn
generalised generation distribution factor, equal
to the fraction of generation of unit k before it
is outaged, that ows over line ij after the
outage of unit k

Introduction

After the restructuring of the electric power industry, forprot generating companies have been developed to deliver
electric energy in a competitive market and independent
regulated transmission system operators (TSOs) manage the
operation of the transmission system. An important goal of
the restructuring of the electric power industry is to move
from command and control decision making for the
planning and operation of generation and transmission to a
decentralised market-driven approach with the goal of
achieving total lowest cost to end-users without sacricing
reliability.
The recent trend is towards large multinational electricity
markets, such as the internal electricity market (IEM)
in Europe. Ideally, the transmission management of a
large, interconnected system is performed centrally by a
747

systemwide, super TSO. To this purpose the U.S. Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order 2000
[1] requiring the establishment of robust U.S. wholesale
markets and large regional transmission organisations
(RTOs). FERC proposed four RTOs, while the NorthAmerican Electric Reliability Council (NERC) foresees that
all existing U.S. ISOs will ultimately be consolidated into
four or six RTOs [2]. Each RTO will conduct transmission
management inside its territory and co-operate with its
neighbours to solve interregional problems and problems at
the seams. In other cases, however, especially in cases
where the interconnected transmission system spans different countries, e.g. in Europe, the consolidation of TSOs is
hindered by several organisational and technical issues.
Therefore, the IEM will be operated in the near future by
the co-ordinated actions of regional TSOs. Each TSO will
be responsible for the operation of its regional transmission
system, as well as crossborder trading with its neighbouring
TSOs. Co-ordinated RTO actions will also be required in
the U.S. interconnected system to resolve problems at the
seams, although to a lesser extent.
Reliability is of increasing importance in modern power
systems. Reliability has been dened by NERC [2] as the
combination of two basic functional aspects: adequacy, the
ability of the power system to supply the aggregate electrical
demand, and security, the ability of the system to withstand
sudden disturbances or unanticipated loss of system
elements. The responsibility of the regional TSOs (RTOs)
to maintain power system reliability is acknowledged by
energy organisations throughout the world [1, 3].
The reliable operation of the power systems requires that
the transmission system be operated within transfer limits,
including thermal limits, voltage limits and stability limits,
with the most restrictive applying at any given time [4].
Limits are set to encompass both normal operation (n0
case) and the event of unplanned outages of a transmission
line or a generating unit (n1 case). In some cases, several
critical n2 contingencies are also considered.
Several decentralised algorithms have been developed for
the solution of the OPF problem without security
constraints [515]. In [58] between any two adjacent
regions, an overlap region is dened, containing a border
bus. The associated border variables of the border bus are
duplicated and coupling constraints are introduced to force
all duplicated copies of a variable to be equal at optimum.
In [9] one or two ctitious buses are added on each tie-line
and the power balance equations of the ctitious buses are
the coupling constraints of the problem. In [1013] the
coupling constraints are the active and reactive power
balance equations at the from and to buses of the tielines, as well as the tie-line ow limits. In contrast to
previous approaches, in which the OPF decoupling is
performed around an existing or ctitious border bus, in
[14, 15] the problem decoupling is performed around tielines connecting neighbouring areas.
In [16] a distributed implementation of the security
constrained OPF (SCOPF) problem is presented, based on
the OPF algorithm described in [57]. The distributed OPF
is initially solved to determine the maximum secure
simultaneous transfer capability of each tie-line between
adjacent regions, by taking only the security constraints
imposed on tie-lines into account (precontingency base-case
OPF). In this case a tie-line outage is treated as a generator
outage. Generalised generation distribution factors
(GGDFs) and line outage distribution factors (LODFs)
are then computed to formulate postcontingency constraints, which are appended to the base-case OPF dening
regional SCOPFs solved via an iterative procedure, during
748

which the tie-line ows are held xed to the values of the
base-case OPF. Here, it is assumed that each regional
SCOPF can be solved, namely each region has enough units
to correct any overloads on transmission lines, therefore the
infeasible case is not considered. Furthermore, the method
is not fully decentralised, since a global power ow is
required in each iteration of the algorithm to determine
possible overloaded lines and the associated LODFs and
GGDFs.
This paper uses the decentralised DC-OPF algorithm
described in [15] to solve the decentralised SCOPF problem.
The resulting decentralised SCOPF algorithm is an iterative
algorithm in which the TSO of each region iteratively solves
a modied SCOPF subproblem for its own region and
exchanges tie-line information with the TSOs of neighbouring regions. The iterative solution of the regional SCOPF
subproblems converges to a reduced scope central SCOPF
solution, in which the contingency analysis performed by
each region does not take into account the effects of outages
of elements outside the regions borders. Test results from
the application of the method to the 73-bus IEEE 3-area
RTS96 and to the Balkan power system are presented.
2

Central SCOPF

The SCOPF problem of the entire interconnected power

system is formulated as a mathematical optimisation
problem as follows:
Ng
X

Ci Pi

B
yPD

yref 0





1



yi  yj
 F max for all lines ij
ij

x


ij

min

i1

S. t.

Pimin  Pi  Pimax

for all units i

1



yi  yj LODFij;mn
1 ym  yn


x


xmn
ij
 Fijmax;c

4
5

for all monitored lines ij and outaged lines mn

6

1



yi  yj GGDF k
Pk

ij

x


ij
 Fijmax;c

for all monitored lines ij and outaged units k

7

where (2) represent the system DC power ow equations,

(3) denes the slack bus voltage phase angle since detB
0 (the slack bus is not omitted in (2)), (4) represents the
transmission line power ow limits, (5) represents the unit
active power output limits, and (6) and (7) represent the
transmission line power ow limits in the case of line or unit
outages, respectively, (security constraints) [4]. The term
Fijmax;c is the short-time emergency rating of line ij and is
usually 1020% greater than the normal rating, Fijmax .
Problem (1)(7) is a linearly constrained optimisation
problem, which in case of quadratic unit cost functions
can be solved as a quadratic programming (QP) problem
for the unknown vectors P and h.
LODFs in (6) and GGDFs in (7) are used to quantify the
effect of line and unit outages to the remaining system lines.
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

LODFij;mn is dened as the fraction of the power owing on

line mn before it is outaged, which ows over line ij after the
outage of line mn, and is computed as in [4]. GGDFkij is
dened as the fraction of generation of unit k before it is
outaged, that ows over line ij after the outage of unit k
[17], and is computed as follows:
GGDFkij

1 T 1
e B rk
xij ij

where P
rk is a vector having value 1 at the kth row and
6 k. Here, it is assumed
Pimax = Pjmax at all other rows, i
j6k

that the lost generation of unit k, Pk , is distributed to the

remaining system units in proportion to their nominal
power output.
If all contingencies were considered, there would be a
constraint for each line and unit outage for each monitored
line. The number of the security constraints (6) and (7)
would be Nj
Nj  1 and Nj
Ng , respectively. This would
make the problem size too large for efcient computation.
To limit the number of constraints, the OPF problem
without contingency constraints (1)(5) is initially solved,
and then contingency analysis is performed to determine the
contingencies that result in overloads (critical contingencies). The OPF problem (1)(7) is solved again with new
constraints added only for critical contingencies.
3

Decentralised SCOPF problem

This section is divided in four parts. In the rst part, the

DC-OPF problem decoupling is described, and the regional
DC-OPF sub-problem is dened. In the second part, the
regional DC-OPF sub-problem is transformed resulting in a
small, dense QP problem. Note that in the rst two parts
the DC-OPF without security constraints is considered. In
the third part, critical contingency constraints are incorporated into the regional sub-problem. Finally, in the forth
part the nodal prices and export prices of electricity are
computed.

3.1 DC-OPF decoupling and definition of

regional DC-OPF subproblem
The OPF decoupling principle is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Consider a simple power system with two areas, A and
AA, connected by tie-line ij (AA stands for adjacent area).
The tie-line is cut, and new variables, TijA and TjiAA , are added
representing the tie-line ows on the two sides of the tie-line.
The terms aAij , aAA
ji express the export prices of electricity
owing over tie-line ij. The same principle is applied in
systems with more than two areas.
A decentralised solution to the multi-area DC-OPF
problem without security constraints, based on tie-line
information exchange between adjacent areas, has been
presented [14]. The method iteratively solves a modied
DC-OPF sub-problem for each area until the DC-OPF
area A

area AA

ref
ref A

Fig. 1

i

AA

TijA

TjiAA

ijA

jiA

j
j

OPF decoupling principle

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

solution of the entire power system is reached. At the

beginning of each iteration each area, A, receives from its
neighbouring areas three pieces of information per tie-line:
(i) tie-line power ow, T^jiAA ; (ii) electric energy import price,
^aAA
ji , through the tie-line; and (iii) neighbouring area border
bus phase angle, ^yAA
j , as computed by the neighbouring
areas modied DC-OPF of the previous iteration. If all tieline power ows, as computed by the neighbouring areas,
T^jiAA , are equal, within tolerance, to the values, T^ijA , that area
A computed during the previous iteration, then the modied
OPF problem of area A has converged. Otherwise, area A
uses the other two pieces of information exchange to dene
its modied regional DC-OPF subproblem as follows [14]:
min

Ci PiA 

i2A

X ^aAA
ji
ij2TA

xij

yAi

S.t.
B A hA H Atie T A PA  DA
yAref 0

10
only

11

PiA;min  PiA  PiA;max for all i 2 A

1 A



y  yA
 F A;max for all lines ij 2 A
ij
i
j


x
ij

12

for

reference area

1 A
1
y  TijA ^yAA
for all tie-lines ij 2 TA
xij i
xij j




A

A;max
for all tie-lines ij 2 TA

Tij
 Tij

13

14
15

where (14) are area A tie-line ow equations, and (15)

represent area A tie-line power ow limits. Equation (14)
invokes variables from area AA, namely the bus voltage
phase angle of the boundary buses that belong to
neighbouring areas, so they constitute the coupling
constraints of the area A subproblem.
Assuming quadratic unit cost functions, the regional DCOPF subproblem (9)(15) is a large, yet highly sparse QP
problem, which must be solved for the unknown vectors
PA , T A and hA . The bounds on decision variables (12), (15)
are treated implicitly by most QP software. The size of the
sparse QP constraint matrix is large owing to the power
ow and the transmission loading constraints (10), (13). The
number of tie-line constraints (14) is small.
In the DC-OPF of single-area systems it is common
practice [18] to separate the solution of the power ow
equations from the optimisation by eliminating the bus
voltage phase angles from the QP problem constraints. The
numerous power ow constraints are thus replaced by a
single system power balance constraint resulting in a drastic
reduction of the QP constraint matrix size. The size of the
QP constraint matrix is further reduced by omitting all
branch power ow constraints, which are deemed to be
inactive in the optimal solution. This is achieved by
including in (13) only the, so called, e-effective branch
power ow constraints [19], i.e. constraints on the power
ow of branches loaded above (1e)
Fmax (e.g. 90% of
their rating). The branch loading is computed from a load
ow solution in which all units are economically dispatched
(according to a classic economic dispatch, without transmission loading constraints). In practice, the number of eeffective branch power ow constraints is much smaller
than the number of branches.
749

3.2 Reduced-size regional DC-OPF

subproblem

3.3

Substituting yAi from (14) in the objective function (9) and,

also, substituting TijA from (14) in (10) the area A
subproblem is converted to an equivalent sparse
subproblem, which is then converted to a small, dense QP
problem by eliminating the voltage phase angle variables
and by including only the e-effective branch power ow
constraints [15]
X
X
A
^
Ci Pi 
16
aAA
min
ji
Tij
ij2TA

i2A

S.t.

X
i2A

PiA 

TijA

ij2T A

DAi

i2A

17

for reference area only

PA;min  PA  PA;max

18

~ A j  F A;max
jZ Aeff T
PA  D
eff

19

~A
Z Atie T PA  T A X Atie 1 ^
hAA Z Atie T
D

20

jT A j  T A;max

21

AA
~ A DA  W A
^
D
tie h

22

W Atie H Atie X Atie 1

23

h i1
Z Atie B~A H Atie X Atie 1

24

where

Z Aeff

h i1
B~A H Aeff X Aeff 1

25

which is solved for PA and T A . The area A objective (16)

represents area A production cost net the revenues from
area A exports, priced at the import prices of adjacent areas.
Constraints (18)(21) are the vector versions of constraints
(12)(15), respectively, and the vector absolute values in (19)
and (21) are taken in an element-by-element basis. Note
that the network admittance matrix, B A , has been replaced
~ A . The
by the modied network admittance matrix B
A
~
modied area admittance matrix, B , is not singular and
the area A power ow equations can be solved for hA , given
PA , DA and ^
hAA
~ A 1 PA  D
~ A
hA B

26

without the need for selection of an area reference (slack)

bus. Only one reference bus is selected for the entire system,
in the system reference area.
~ A , in (22) is the area
The modied area demand vector, D
A
A ^AA
load D net of the term W tie
h , which represents active
power injections at every border bus, equal to the
neighbouring area border bus phase angle.
The dense sensitivity matrices Z Atie and Z Aeff , which
contain the sensitivities of tie-line and internal-line
power ows with respect to nodal active power
injections, are computed one column at a time using a
sparse forward and back substitution [20] of a very sparse
vector (containing one or two nonzero entries only) with
the sparse table of factors of the modied network
~ A.
admittance matrix, B
750

Security constraints

During contingency analysis each area considers only

contingency constraints with monitored and contingent
elements inside its territory. The effect of outages outside
area A on the power ow of lines within area A are ignored,
in order to preserve the fully decentralised nature of the
solution algorithm.

3.3.1 Line outages: LODFij;mn for ij 2 A, is com-

puted in a decentralised manner by TSOA only when line

mn is either internal line of area A or tie-line connected to
area A [21]. Therefore, TSOA considers only outages of
lines inside area A (internal- or tie-lines), since otherwise
the central computation of LODFij;mn is required by a
central TSO, which makes the method not fully decentralised [21].
The following auxiliary vectors are initially dened:
1
~ A 1
emn
LODFij;mn
B
27
smn
ij
xmn
tij

1 ~ A 1
B  eij
xij

28

Four cases of contingencies are studied. In each case, a new

constraint is added to regional subproblem (16)(21) for
each critical contingency, as follows:
(a) Overloading of internal line ij 2 A, when internal line
mn 2 A is outaged
~A
29
jsmn tij T
PA j  F A;max;c smn tij T
D
ij

ij

ij

(b) Overloading of tie-line ij 2 TA , when internal line mn 2

A is outaged
~A
30
jsmn T
PA T A j  F A;max;c smn T
D
ij

ij

ij

ij

(c) Overloading of internal line ij 2 A, when tie-line mn 2

TA is outaged
A
~ A 31
j  FijA;max;c tTij
D
jtTij
PA LODFij;mn
Tmn
(d) Overloading of tie-line ij 2 TA , when tie-line mn 2 TA is
outaged
A
j  TijA;max;c
jTijA LODFij;mn
Tmn

32

3.3.2 Unit outages: Regional TSOs are unaware

of the number and capacity of the units outside their
area. Therefore, TSOA considers only outages of units
inside area A. In the case of an outage of unit k 2 A,
it is assumed that the lost generation of unit k is distributed to the remaining units of area A in proportion
(pro rata) to their nominal power. The value of GGDFkij is
given by
1 h i1
33
GGDFkij eTij B~A rAk
xij
where rAk is a vector having value 1 at the kth row and
P
6 k.
PiA;max = PjA;max at all other rows, i
j6k

The difference between the driving vectors rAk of (33) and

rk of (8) should be noted. The driving vector rk is computed
assuming that the lost generation of the outaged unit is
distributed pro rata to all other generators in the entire
system (central management), while rAk is computed
assuming that the lost generation is distributed pro rata to
the generators inside area A only (area A is the area in
which the outaged unit belongs).
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

A new constraint is appended to regional subproblem

(16)(21) for each critical contingency, as follows:
(a) Overloading of internal line ij 2 A, when unit k 2 A is
outaged
~A
jtTij GGDFkij
eTk
PA j  FijA;max;c tTij
D

34

(b) Overloading of tie-line ij 2 TA , when unit k 2 A is

outaged
jTijA GGDFkij
PkA j  TijA;max;c

35

3.4 Computation of nodal and export prices

of electricity
The subproblem solutions are co-ordinated during an
iterative algorithm (Section 4) using the export prices of
electricity between adjacent areas. The export prices of
electricity as well as the nodal prices of electricity are
computed based on the comparison of the rst-order (f/o)
conditions regarding PA and T A of problems {(9)(15)} and
{(16)(21), (29)(32), (34)(35)} [15]. The resulting relationships are
k lref
1 Z Atie
m tie  Z Aeff
leff RAcon
qcon
for reference area
k Z Atie
m tie  Z Aeff
leff RAcon
qcon
for all other areas except the reference area
a H Atie T
k c J Acon
qcon

36

37
38

where l are the Lagrange multipliers of constraints (10)

(nodal prices), lref , leff , mtie , c are the Lagrange multipliers
of constraints (17), (19)(21), respectively, qcon are the
Lagrange multipliers of binding contingency constraints
(29)(32) and (34)(35), RAcon is the matrix having the
vectors with the coefcients of PA of the binding
contingency constraints (29)(32), (34)(35) as its columns,
and J Acon is the matrix having the vectors with the
coefcients of T A of the binding contingency constraints
(29)(32), (34)(35) as its columns.
The regional SCOPF subproblem (16)(21), (29)(32),
(34)(35) is solved during an iterative algorithm, which is
discussed in Section 4.
4

Decentralised SCOPF solution algorithm

Based on the analysis of the previous section the

decentralised SCOPF algorithm is developed. An initialisation phase is initially performed (Fig. 2), in which each area:
(i) Initialises all tie-line ows and export prices of area A to
zero.

(ii) (a) Solves a classic economic dispatch (without network

constraints) to compute the active power output, PA , of all
units.
(b) Solves power ow equations (26) and computes the
set of e-effective branch power ow constraints.
(c) Performs contingency analysis to determine critical
contingencies.
(d) Solves autonomous area SCOPF problem (16)(19),
(29)(32), (34)(35) for PA .
(e) Solves power ow equations (26) for hA . If any branch
power ow limits are violated or critical contingencies exist,
TSOA modies the set of e-effective and critical contingency
constraints and loops back to (iid).
(f) Computes nodal prices, kA , using (36) or (37).
(g) Computes export prices, aAij , using (38), where
gAij 0.
iii) Exchanges aAij , yAi with neighbouring areas.
Next, an iterative process follows. At each iteration each
area solves the SCOPF subproblem. During the solution
process each area:
(i) Uses the set of area e-effective and critical contingency
constraints of the previous iteration.
(ii) Solves modied regional SCOPF subproblem (16)(21),
^AA
(29)(32), (34)(35) for PA and T A , in which ^aAA
ji and yj are
treated as constants taking the values they were assigned
AA k1
during the previous iteration, k1, i.e. ^aAA
and
ji aji
k1
AA
AA
^y y .
j
j
(iii) Solves power ow equations (26) for hA . If any branch
power ow limits are violated, TSOA modies the set of eeffective constraints.
(iv) Performs contingency analysis. If critical contingencies
exist, TSOA modies the set of critical contingency
constraints and loops back to (ii).
(v) Computes nodal prices, kA , using (36) or (37).
(vi) Computes export prices, aAij , using (38).
Next, each area exchanges aAij , yAi and TijA of each tie-line
ij with neighbouring areas. The algorithm converges only if
tie-line ows computed on both sides of each tie-line
converge within tolerance e (MW)
jT^ijA T^jiAA j  e

( )k

( )k

Initialisation: 1) TijA = 0,  ijA = 0 , for all ij

2) Solve autonomous area SCOPF problem

( )k ( )k

3) Exchange
iA ,  ijA with neighbouring areas

WHILE (k < k max )
Next k
Solve area SCOPF subproblem using QP

( )k ( )k

( ) k for each tie-line ij with

Exchange
iA ,  ijA and TijA

neighbouring areas
IF ( TijA + T jiAA  for all ij ) EXIT
END WHILE

Fig. 2

Decentralised SCOPF algorithm

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

39

The values of T^ijA and T^jiAA in (39) are the values assigned
during the current iteration, k.
5

k=1

for all tie-lines ij

Test results

The proposed algorithm is evaluated using the IEEE 3-area

RTS-96 [22] consisting of 73 buses, 96 units, 115 internal
lines and 5 tie-lines. Unit cost data are derived from the heat
rate data provided in [22] (tted by quadratic functions) and
the fuel cost data listed in Table 1. The value of water is
zero assuming excessive inows. Maximum and minimum
unit active power outputs are given in [22]. Peak load
conditions are studied [22], in which the peak demand is
8550 MW. The system optimal cost of the nonsecurity
constrained solution is equal to 236307 h/h.
The (n1) case causes no line overloads. To create
branch ow violations, eight different cases are tested, in
751

which the short-time emergency ratings of several lines are

reduced. The associated normal ratings are reduced
accordingly. The lines, whose ratings have been reduced
in each case (monitored elements), as well as their reduced
ratings, are shown in the second and third columns of
Table 2, respectively. Table 2 also shows the results of both
central and decentralised SCOPF solutions. It should be
noted here, that GGDFs are computed differently in central
and decentralised transmission management analysis (see
discussion in Section 3.3.2). To compare the central solution
with the decentralised one, GGDFs are computed by (32) in
both cases, namely, it is assumed that the lost generation of
unit k 2 A is distributed pro rata to the remaining units of
area A only. The central solutions contingent elements,
whose outage restricts the ow on monitored elements, are
shown in the fourth column. The double entry in the rst
case means that both contingent elements restrict the ow
on the monitored element, namely, the corresponding
security constraints are both binding in the optimal
solution. The fth column shows the optimal cost of the
nal central solution in each case. As shown, in all cases the
optimal cost is higher than the non-security constrained
optimal cost given above. The difference is the cost of
security of supply and is given in the sixth column of
Table 2. The corresponding decentralised solution results
are shown on the next columns of the table, including also
the number of iterations needed for convergence within
tolerance e equal to 2 MW.
Comparing the central with the decentralised solution of
Table 2, it is easily seen that in cases 17 they are almost
identical (small differences to optimal cost are due to the
MW tolerance) and the contingent elements are the
same in both solutions (The contingent element is the
element whose outage limits the power ow on the
monitored element, i.e. the corresponding security constraint on the monitored element emergency power ow is
binding at optimum). In case 8, however, the contingent

Table 1: Fuel costs for the IEEE 3-area RTS-96

Fuel/unit
type
Price,
Gcal

Coal/
steam

h/ 6.660

Oil/steam Oil/CT

Hydro

Nuclear

20.874

0.00

6.549

46.046

element of the central solution is line 114116 (outside areas

2 and 3), while the contingent elements of the decentralised
solution are the third unit connected to bus 223 (inside area
2) and tie-line 121325. This difference occurs because the
TSOs of areas 2 and 3, the only ones who can monitor the
power ow on tie-line 223318 (monitored element, whose
power ow is binding at optimum), ignore the effects of
outages outside their own area. The TSO of area 2 observes
the third unit of bus 223 as contingent element, while the
TSO of area 3 observes tie-line 121325 as contingent
element. The optimal cost of the decentralised solution,
236318.5 h/h, is lower than the optimal cost of the central
solution, 236324 h/h. This is expected since the set of the
security constraints of the decentralised solution is a subset
of the one of the central solution. However, the decentralised solution of case 8 is not feasible (line 223318 is
overloaded if line 114116 is outaged) if tested against the
full set of security constraints.
Next, the proposed algorithm is evaluated using a
real power system, a part of the Balkan power system
[14] consisting of Bulgaria, Romania and former
Yugoslavia. The system consists of 310 buses, 77 units,
485 internal lines and 5 tie-lines. The total demand of
the system is 12264.1 MW. The system optimal cost of
the nonsecurity constrained solution is equal to 188913.1 h/h.
The (n1) case causes a line overload (JHPERU2
JPODGO2) inside former Yugoslavia, when another
line (JPODGO1WTREBI11) inside the same region is
outaged.
Several cases are tested, in which the short-time
emergency rating of several lines (monitored elements) is
reduced. The results of three of these cases are presented.
The Balkan power system is illustrated in Fig. 3. The
numbers beside certain lines or units denote the cases in
which these lines or units participate. In the rst case the
monitored element is a tie-line connecting Bulgaria with
Romania, while in the second and third case the monitored
elements are internal lines inside former Yugoslavia and
Romania, respectively. Table 3 shows the monitored and
contingent elements in all three cases, the reduced ratings
imposed to create overloads, the number of iterations
needed for convergence within tolerance e 2 MW, the
optimal cost of the nal solution and the related security
cost in each case. In all cases studied, the decentralised
SCOPF solution coincides with the central SCOPF
solution, and the contingent elements are the same in both
solutions.

Table 2: Summary of solution results in all test cases on IEEE 3-area RTS-96
Case

Monitored
element

316317

Fijmax;c , MW

320

Central solution results

Decentralised solution results

Contingent
elements

Optimal
cost, h/h

Security
cost, h/h

Contingent
elements

315321,
223318

237,500.3

1,193.3

16

315321,
318

223

Optimal
cost, h/h

Security
cost, h/h

237,502.1

1,195.1

210212

250

210211

236,555.3

248.3

18

210211

236,554.0

247.0

103124

250

114116

237,859.5

1,552.5

11

114116

237,862.4

1,555.4

121122

200

117122

240,824,8

4,517.8

14

117122

240,826,1

4,519.1

310312

250

310311

236,510.6

203.6

16

310311

236,508.9

201.9

301305

80

310312

237,560.1

1,253.1

24

310312

237,562.3

1,255.3

217218

200

217222

238,847.4

2,540.4

16

217222

238,849.1

2,542.1

223318

100

114116

236,324.0

17.0

15

3rd unit of 223,

121325

236,318.5

11.5

752

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

Djerdap
(JHDJER1)

Portile De Fier
(RPFER41)

WTREBI11
JPODGO2
1,2,3

1,2,3

JBOR1
G

JPODGO1

RCERNA1

TKOSB1

JHPERU2

Isac.
(RISACC1)

RSLATI1
3

RSIBIU1A

Tintareni
(RTINTR1B)

Nis
1

former
Yugoslavia

Romania
1,2,3

case
monitored element

Dobru.
(VDOBRU11)
Sofia

Kozlodui

contingent element
220 150 kV

Bulgaria

400 kV

Fig. 3

Balkan power system

Table 3: Summary of decentralised solution results on the Balkan power system

Case

Monitored line

Reduced
rating, MW

Continent elements
Line

From

To

VDOBRU11

RISACC1

JHPERU2
JBOR1

To

100

RCERNA1

JPODGO2

JPODGO1

WTREBI11

JHDJER1

350

JTKOSB1

RPFER41

JHDJER1

JHPERU2

JPODGO2

JPODGO1

WTREBI11

RSLATI1

RTINTR1B

400

RSIBIU1A

RTINTR1B

JHPERU2

JPODGO2

JPODGO1

WTREBI11

A method for the decentralised solution of the SCOPF

problem of an interconnected power system has been
presented. The decentralised SCOPF solution is achieved
through an iterative algorithm, during which each area
solves its own SCOPF subproblem and exchanges tie-line
information with its neighbouring areas.
Test results from the application of the method to the
IEEE three-area RTS-96 and to the Balkan power system
have been presented. In most cases the decentralised
solution coincides with the central solution. However, the
decentralised SCOPF algorithm solves, in general, a
reduced scope central SCOPF problem, in which the effects
of contingencies outside an area on monitored elements
within the area are ignored. Although ignoring crossregional security constraints seems to be a reasonable
practice in the operation of interconnected systems, it may
lead to problems in real-time operation.
The decentralised DC-SCOPF solution method can be
applied to the congestion management problem of interconnected power systems. If all systems in the interconnecIEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004

Optimal
cost, h/h

Security
cost, h/h

28

188.917,6

4,5

26

188.948,6

35,5

19

188.929,3

16,2

Unit

From

Conclusions

tion follow the pool model, the application is

straightforward: generator cost functions are constructed
by regional TSOs from generator offer information. If all
systems follow the bilateral model, the SCOPF problem
must express deviations around unconstrained schedule
(derived from satisfaction of bilateral trades regardless of
transmission limitations) and cost information deduced
from generator adjustment offers (as well as possible
demand reduction bids), as discussed in [23].
7

Acknowledgement

This research was nancially supported by the Greek

Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs
under the PYTHAGORAS project.
8

References

1 US. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:Regional transmission

organizations. Order No. 2000, 20 December 1999
2 North-American Electric Reliability Council: Reliability assessment
20012010. , 2001, (Available online at http://www.nerc.com/Blez/
rasreports.html)
753

3 European Transmission System Operators:Evaluation of congestion

management methods for cross-border transmission Florence Regulators Meeting, 1999
4 Christie, R.D., Wollenberg, B.F., and Wangensteen, I.: Transmission
management in the deregulated environment, Proc. IEEE, 2000, 88,
(2), pp. 170195
5 Kim, B.H., and Baldick, R.: Coarse-grained distributed
optimal power ow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1997, 12, (2),
pp. 932939
6 Baldick, R., Kim, B.H., Chase, C., and Luo, Y.: A fast distributed
implementation of optimal power ow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
1999, 14, (3), pp. 858863
7 Kim, B.H., and Baldick, R.: A comparison of distributed optimal
power ow algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2000, 15, (2),
pp. 599604
8 Contreras, J., Losi, A., Russo, M., and Wu, F.F.: Simulation
and evaluation of optimization problem solutions in distributed
energy management systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2002, 17, (1),
pp. 5762
9 Conejo, A.J., and Aguado, J.A.: Multi-area coordinated decentralized
DC optimal power ow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (4),
pp. 12721278
10 Aguado, J.A., Quintana, V.H., and Conejo, A.J.: Optimal power
ows of interconnected power systems. Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 1999, Vol. 2, pp. 814819
11 Aguado, J.A., and Quintana, V.H.: Inter-utilities power-exchange
coordination: a market-oriented approach, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2001, 16, (3), pp. 513519
12 Aguado, J.A., Quintana, V.H., and Conejo, A.J.: A computational
comparison of two different approaches to solve the multi-area
optimal power ow problem. Proc. IEEE Canadian Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1998, Vol. 2, pp. 681684

754

13 Nogales, F.J., Prieto, F.J., and Conejo, A.J.: Multi-area AC optimal

power ow: A new decomposition approach. Proc. PSCC Conference, Trondheim, Norway, June-July 1999, pp. 12011206
14 Bakirtzis, A.G., and Biskas, P.N.: A decentralized solution to the DCOPF of interconnected power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2003, 18, (3), pp. 10071013
15 Biskas, P.N., Bakirtzis, A.G., Macheras, N.I., and Pasialis, N.K.: A
decentralized implementation of DC optimal power ow on a network
of computers, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., (in press)
16 Kim, J.H., Park, J.K., Kim, B.H., Park, J.B., and Hur, D.: A method
of inclusion of security constraints with distributed optimal power
ow, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2001, 23, pp. 189194
17 Wai, Y.: Generalized generation distribution factors for power
system security evaluations, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1981, 100,
(3), pp. 10011005
18 Stott, B., and Hobson, E.: Power security control calculations using
linear programming, Parts I and II, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst.,
1978, 97, (5), pp. 17131731
19 Meliopoulos, A.P., and Bakirtzis, A.G.: Corrective control computations for large power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1983,
102, (11), pp. 35983604
20 Tinney, W.F., Brandwajn, V., and Chan, S.M.: Sparse vector
methods, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1985, 104, (3), pp. 295301
21 Bakirtzis, A.G., and Biskas, P.N.: Decentralised DC load ow and
applications to transmission management, IEE Proc. Gener., Transm.
Distrib., 2002, 149, (5), pp. 600606
22 Grigg, C., Wong, P., Albrecht, P., Allan, R., Bhavaraju, M., and
Billinton, R.: The IEEE reliability test system-1996, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 1999, 14, (3), pp. 10101020
23 Biskas, P.N., and Bakirtzis, A.G.: Decentralised congestion management of interconnected power systems, IEE Proc., Gener. Transm.
Distrib., 2002, 149, (4), pp. 432438

IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004