938
2, MAY 2003
Classification of Publications and Models on
Transmission Expansion Planning
Gerardo Latorre, Rubén Darío Cruz, Student Member, IEEE, Jorge Mauricio Areiza, and Andrés Villegas
Abstract—In this paper, the transmission planning
state-of-the-art, which was obtained from the review of the
most interesting models found in the international technical
literature, is presented. The classification of publications was
made, keeping in mind the solution methods, the treatment of the
planning horizon, and the consideration of the new competitive
schemes in the power sector. A discussion about the available tools
for development of transmission planning models is also included.
Index Terms—Bibliography review, deregulation, heuristic op-
timization, mathematical programming, modeling tools, synthesis
algorithms, transmission planning state-of-the-art.
I. INTRODUCTION
I N a few words, a synthesis transmission planning model is
any calculation tool that, taking some input information as
a starting point, combines by itself different predefined trans-
mission expansion options in order to provide one or more qua-
sioptimal transmission plans. These models can interact with the
planner, but usually this interaction is limited to settings adjust-
ments while the model is running.
In the last few years, research in the area of synthesis trans-
mission planning models experienced an expansion. Many
papers and reports about new models have been published in
the technical literature due mostly to the improvement of the
computer power availability, new optimization algorithms, and
the greater uncertainty level introduced by the power sector
deregulation. Several publications skillfully describe the gen-
eral planning problem, see [1]–[3]. The classical transmission
planning problem has been also studied in detail, for example,
[4] shows an overview and comprehensive qualitative anal-
ysis of the major publications on transmission planning using
mathematical optimization models and sensitivity analysis. In
this paper, an updated review is presented of the most relevant
publications concerning transmission planning considering the
solution method, and the considerations of both the planning
horizon and the new competitive schemes in the power sector.
The analysis and discussion about those publications con-
tributes significantly in the data preparation for the synthesis
Manuscript received May 16, 2002; revised December 14, 2002. This work
was supported in part by COLCIENCIAS, Inter-American Development Bank,
and ISA under Contracts COLCIENCIAS-ISA-UPB \CF -261-2002, ISA-UPB
4500013513, and ISA-UPB-UIS 4500015340.
G. Latorre is with Grupo de Investigación en Sistemas de Energía Eléctrica,
Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga, Colombia (e-mail:
glatorre@uis.edu.co).
R. D. Cruz is with Instituto de Energía y Termodinámica, Universidad Ponti-
ficia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia (e-mail: rdcruz@ieee.org).
J. M. Areiza and A. Villegas are with Interconexión Eléctrica S.A., Medellín,
Colombia (e-mail: jmareiza@isa.com.co; avillegas@isa.com.co).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.811168
0885-8950/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.
planning models, the interpretation of their results, and it pro-
vides relevant information that allows us to understand the effect
of the deregulation on the transmission planning function. This
paper also tries to provide a starting point for an open exchange
of information among transmission planning experts.
Due mostly to space constraints, mainly technical papers
about synthesis transmission planning models were considered
for inclusion in this work. Only a few doctoral and master theses
were included, since the task of searching for a representative
list was beyond the available resources. The paper also does not
include all of the topics related to transmission planning. Some
readers may feel that citations within this paper do not include
analysis models, transmission pricing, transmission access,
merchant transmission, transmission regulatory schemes, input
data issues (e.g., databases) and other important issues closely
related to transmission planning models. However, it was the
decision of the authors to exclude all of this material because it
is far too numerous to exhaustively document in a single paper.
Although this paper was designed to be as complete as possible,
the authors welcome discussion about providing missing items.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II deals with pub-
lications that propose different synthesis algorithms to solve the
transmission planning problem. Section III reviews the models
according to the handling of the planning horizon (multiyear
planning). Section IV presents the works that consider the elec-
tric sector deregulation on the transmission planning problem.
Later on, some of the features of the available tools for devel-
opment of transmission planning models are discussed. Final
remarks about the bibliography review and the transmission
planning state-of-the-art close the paper.
II. SOLUTION METHODS
According to the procedure that was followed to obtain the
expansion plan, the synthesis planning models can be classified
into two types: heuristic and mathematical optimization. How-
ever, there are tools that have characteristics of both types of
models, and they are termed meta-heuristic.
A. Mathematical Optimization Models
The mathematical optimization models find an optimum
expansion plan by using a calculation procedure that solves a
mathematical formulation of the problem. Due to the impos-
sibility of considering all aspects of the transmission planning
problem, the plan obtained is the optimum only under large
simplifications and should be technically, financially, and
environmentally verified, among other examinations, before
the planner makes a decision.
LATORRE et al.: CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND MODELS ON TRANSMISSION EXPANSION PLANNING
In the formulation of these models, the transmission planning
is posed like an optimization problem with an objective function
(a criterion to measure in the same way the goodness of each ex-
pansion option), subject to a set of constraints. These constraints
try to model great part of the technical, economic, and reliability
criteria imposed to the power system expansion.
Several methods have been proposed to obtain the optimum
solution for the transmission expansion problem, mostly using
classical optimization techniques like linear programming
[5]–[9], dynamic programming [10], nonlinear programming
[11], and mixed integer programming [12]–[18]. Optimization
techniques like Benders [19]–[27] and hierarchical [28] de-
composition have been also used, as well as the combination of
decomposition techniques with other approaches, solving the
problem with a “branch and bound” algorithm [31].
Usually, big practical obstacles appear to obtain the “optimal”
solution when mathematical optimization techniques are used
for solving the transmission planning problem, which is non-
linear and nonconvex in nature. This is mostly due to the in-
trinsic limitation of the optimization process itself, for example,
convergence problems when dc load flow network model or a
more detailed model is used, unreasonably large computational
times when discrete variables are used for modeling the invest-
ments and when stochastic modeling is used for planning under
uncertainty.
B. Heuristic Models
The heuristic methods are the current alternative to the math-
ematical optimization models. The term “heuristic” (to invent,
to create) is used to describe all those techniques that, instead
of using a classical optimization approach, go step-by-step gen-
erating, evaluating, and selecting expansion options, with or
without the user’s help (interactive or noninteractive). To do
this, the heuristic models perform local searches with the guid-
ance of logical or empirical rules and/or sensitivities (heuristic
rules). These rules are used to generate and classify the options
during the search. The heuristic process is carried out until the
plan generation algorithm is not able to find anymore a better
plan considering the assessment criteria that were settled down.
These criteria usually include investment-operation costs, over-
loads, and unserved power.
One of the first heuristic approaches that tried to solve the
transmission expansion problem was proposed by Fischl et al.
[29]. Fischl introduced the “adjoin network” concept combined
with dc power flow model to produce the necessary continuous
susceptance change to minimize the investment cost. A pro-
cedure called “nearest neighbor method” was used to find the
closest discrete value of the susceptances.
A common heuristic procedure is to allocate the additional
circuits using a sensitivity analysis [31]–[39]. Some of these
models deal with purely electric sensitivities, see Bennon et al.
[36], with procedures to remove overloads. Others, use the sen-
sitivity with respect the load curtailment or other index of the
system behavior, for example, the “least effort” criterion used
by Monticelli et al. [35], with respect to susceptance reinforce-
ment, when the dc load flow is used, see Pereira et al. [32], and
Dechamps et al. [38]. All of them start from an initial plan and
after successive evaluations, they improve it until obtain a qua-
sioptimal plan.
939
Procedures based on the flow through fictitious lines of un-
limited capacity have been also proposed. Those lines form the
“overload network” used by Villasana et al. [7], Garver [8], and
Levi et al. [30]. The flow through this network is penalized using
the “guide numbers,” to assure that the mathematical model
uses all the real circuit capacity first. These procedures com-
bine heuristic rules with mathematical optimization algorithms
(linear programming) to solve the problem. They go forming
step-by-step the transmission expansion plan, installing a single
new circuit at a time. This new circuit is added in the corridor
with the largest flow through the corresponding corridor of the
overload network.
Latorre et al. [40] proposed a heuristic method that took
advantage of the natural decomposition of the transmission
expansion problem in operation and investment subproblems.
The investment subproblem is solved using a heuristic search
procedure. The search was organized using a tree format and
started from an initial solution provided by the user. The
proposed model is very efficient computationally; this fact was
verified on the planning of the Spanish transmission system.
The use of heuristic algorithms is very attractive because
good feasible solutions can be found, that is, very competitive
economically, with a small computational effort. However, they
cannot guarantee in an absolute way, mathematically speaking,
the “optimal” transmission expansion.
Computer developments in the area of parallel processing
have originated a lot of interest in the researchers that work with
optimization algorithms to solve large scale problems. Parallel
processing allows to solve complex problems in smaller com-
putational times. There are a great variety of algorithms appro-
priate for parallel processing (e.g., Rudnick et al. [41]) propose
a transmission planning model using genetic algorithms (GAs),
suitable for parallel implementation. Other applications about
GA applied in transmission expansion planning can be found in
[42]–[49].
The GA has been used to solve the transmission expansion
planning problem using both the probabilistic choice1 – PC
paradigm and the risk analysis (RA) paradigm2 [50]. These
paradigms are currently the two different tendencies for trans-
mission expansion planning.
The transmission expansion planning problem has been
also solved using object-oriented models [51], game theory
[52]–[55], simulated annealing (SA) [56], [57], expert systems
[58]–[61], fuzzy set theory [62], and greedy randomized
adaptive search procedure (GRASP) [63].
Gallego et al. [64] compare the main features of three non-
convex optimization methods for transmission planning: SA,
GA, and TS algorithms [65]–[69] and presents an integrate view
of these methodologies [70]. A hybrid approach was proposed
to solve the transmission expansion planning problem that is ex-
tended in Escobar [71].
1. The problem formulated by the probabilistic choice paradigm can be de-
scribed as follows: admit that one has defined a “welfare function” that measures
the goodness of a solution (we refer as “welfare” any criterion that may be trans-
formed into an objective of optimization); given a set of futures, each one with
a probability assigned, the optimal solution should be chosen among those that
maximize the expected welfare over the set of futures considered.
2The RA paradigm indicates a preferred solution as one that minimizes the
regret felt by the planner after verifying that the decisions they had made were
not optimal, given the future that in fact has occurred.
940
III. TREATMENT OF THE PLANNING HORIZON
Transmission planning can be classified as static or dynamic
according the treatment of the study period [4]. The planning is
static if the planner seeks the optimal circuit additional set for
a single year on the planning horizon, that is, the planner is not
interested in determining when the circuits should be installed
but in finding the final optimal network state for a future single
definite situation (static situation) [24].
On the other hand, if multiple years are considered and
an optimal expansion strategy is outlined along the whole
planning period, the planning is classified as dynamic. In this
case, the mathematical model has time restrictions to consider
the coupling among the years so that the net present value of
the considered costs along the planning horizon is minimized
while the imposed restrictions are observed [72]. The dynamic
models are currently in an underdeveloped status and they have
excessive limitations concerning the system size and the system
modeling complexity level. The dynamic planning problem is
very complex and very large because it must take into account
not only sizing and placement, but also timing considerations.
This results in a large number of variables and restrictions
to consider, and requires an enormous computational effort
to get the optimal solution, especially in real power systems.
Few works about dynamic models for real world transmission
planning problems can be found in the technical literature. In
[6], [9]–[11], [16], [17], and [72]–[75] are presented some of
the dynamic models that have been developed.
Considering the size of the dynamic problem, it has to be
simplified to achieve reasonable computational times. One of
the simplest ways to figure out the problem is solving a sequence
of static subproblems (pseudodynamic procedures) [27], [30],
[35], [37]–[39], [61], [76] and [77].
Two methods are very natural to be applied with the pseudo-
dynamic transmission planning. The first one is the “forward”
procedure, that consists in solving the static expansion problems
sequentially for all years (starting from the first one) considering
in the next years the additions implemented in the past [76]. The
second natural way is the “backward” procedure that consists in
solving the static planning problem for the last year first, and
then tries to anticipate these additions to solve violations on in-
termediate years [78]. If the additions for the last year do not
eliminate all operational violations on intermediate years, the
procedure seeks additional circuits from all options. Since the
last year usually stresses most the network and it is solved first,
the solutions produced by “backward” procedure are generally
better than those produced by “forward” procedure [79].
By taking as a starting point, the above-mentioned proce-
dures, Binato et al. [76] proposed the “backward-forward”
procedure to solve the multiyear transmission planning. This
method consists in a systematic use of the “backward” and
“forward” procedures to produce a more consistent and eco-
nomic transmission plan. The basic idea is to subdivide the
whole multiyear planning process in movements, on forward
or backward directions, besides, with comparison steps.
As previously mentioned, the computational effort to solve
the dynamic (or pseudodynamic) transmission expansion
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
problem is very large. So the use of heuristic procedures seems
to be the only way to obtain feasible solution for large-scale
dynamic transmission expansion problems.
IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE ELECTRIC SECTOR
RESTRUCTURING
During the past ten years, there has been an increasing interest
and investigation in the area of transmission planning. This in-
terest is mostly due to the worldwide restructuring of the electric
industry. The pioneering theoretical work of the National Grid
Company [80] and the experience obtained from both the Eng-
lish [81] and Chilean systems have promoted the interest about
the transmission planning issues in a deregulated environment
and consequently the number of publication in the area have in-
creased, see [82]. Works like those presented in [83]–[89] have
provided some key factors to understand how the electric sector
restructuring has affected the transmission planning function.
As the new regulatory frameworks were established, the
necessity of reviewing the transmission planning function has
become notorious. This review must include both models and
algorithms [90], as well as the emerging problems caused
by the very special characteristics of the power transmission
activity in a competitive environment [91]–[99].
Several countries have drawn up some guidelines and rules
which seek to promote a harmonic development of the trans-
mission system. These guidelines, like the “economic adapta-
tion” concept in Chile and Peru and the “minimum network”
utilized until some time ago in Colombia [100], have been also
used for transmission pricing. All of this has been done due to
the necessity to stimulate efficient investments and to optimize
the transmission system development so that the transmission
service can be provided at minimum social cost.
However, not much has been said about specific models for
transmission planning in a deregulated environment, as well as
about the related software tools. You can affirm, without fear to
be wrong, that the theory and tools for transmission planning are
still below the practical requirements of the new power markets.
This is particularly true in aspects such as
• The definition of the objective function or attribute used
to measure the goodness of a solution for each considered
scenario (e.g., minimum operation cost, maximum ben-
efit/cost ratio, maximum global welfare, etc.).
• The definition of the decision criterion used to choose
a transmission expansion plan (maximax-minimim, max-
imin-minimax, equally likely, minimax of regret, coeffi-
cient of optimism, maximum probability, expected value,
etc.).
• The flexibility3 and dynamics requirements of the trans-
mission planning process.
• The interrelationship between the transmission planning
and the generation expansion (who leads the way to who?).
• The greatest uncertainty level (particularly with respect to
generation expansion).
3Flexibility is the ability to adapt the planned development of the transmission
system, quickly and at a reasonable cost, to any change, foreseen or not, in the
conditions that were considered at the time it was planned.
LATORRE et al.: CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND MODELS ON TRANSMISSION EXPANSION PLANNING
• The difficulty to assess the cost of the expansion options.
• The interrelationship between transmission planning and
transmission pricing.
• The consideration of the special issues of developing sys-
tems or systems in transition to a deregulated scheme.
• The optimization of the existent network use.
• The need for an integrated analysis of investment and fi-
nancing decision in the context of transmission planning.
• The introduction of flexible technologies (e.g., FACTS,
etc.).
• The review of the reliability, security, and quality criteria
imposed and their economic implications.
The study of the issues mentioned before is very difficult be-
cause of the following aspects: the development of transmis-
sion is seen in a different way by each of the market agents
in a deregulated environment; the expansion decision are now
taken by several market agents that can and will affect deci-
sions taken by other agents; the difficulty to assess the influence
of the transmission payment allocation rules on the generation
expansion; the greatest uncertainty level in a competitive power
market; the necessity to take into consideration a great variety of
scenarios (hydrological conditions, demand, fuel cost, unserved
power cost, entrance date of new facilities, availability of the
systems elements, power prices, etc).
Transmission planning in a competitive economic envi-
ronment is an emerging complex issue, which does not have
received the appropriate attention until now.
Pereira et al. [86] presented a glance at the generation-trans-
mission expansion problem in a competitive environment
starting from the classic approach to optimal generation-trans-
mission expansion in a regulated environment. That work
proposes a methodology to evaluate transmission pricing
schemes by means of the analysis of the decentralized gener-
ation expansion results. However, the main objective of this
work was not to develop a transmission planning model.
Styczynski [55] proposed a new approach for transmission
planning using a multiple-objective optimization algorithm. The
main motivation of that development was the current electric
sector restructuring. Although it clarifies some issues related
to the transmission planning in a deregulated environment, that
work mostly deals with distribution expansion planning consid-
ering the particular conditions of the European power systems
(usually, close to be optimal expanded and exploited, and with
low demand growth rates).
Sun et al. [62] proposes another multiple-objective opti-
mization model for transmission planning in a competitive
environment. By applying the fuzzy set theory, the above
model is converted into a regular single-objective optimiza-
tion problem.
Contreras et al. [52]–[54] has developed a decentralized
framework using cooperative game theory to model strategic
interactions in a competitive environment and study the trans-
mission expansion problem.
Several relevant works has been developed in the context of
the SIEPAC project for the electric interconnection of Central
America [101], [102]. These works deal mostly with the consid-
941
eration of the uncertainty and risk in the transmission planning
in a competitive environment.
Pereira et al. [103] describe in a comprehensive way how the
risk in the competitive and deregulated electric power business
can be measured and how it can be hedged or reduced (risk
management).
Cruz et al. [104] implemented a transmission planning
method for the application in deregulated environments. This
methodology was developed by starting from a qualitative
analysis of the planning schemes implemented throughout the
world [100]. By taking the most promising developments as a
starting point, a new planning tool was developed, which com-
bines powerfully a heuristic planning model, a pseudodynamic
investment scheduling scheme, and a decision-sensitivity
analysis module. This methodology allows us to determine
the best expansion options and provide the planner all of the
necessary elements to identify and manage the risk in the new
competitive power markets.
[52]–[54], [86], [101]–[105] are practically the most relevant
works among the few researches that deal specifically with the
modifications that should be made to adapt the transmission
planning function for application in competitive environments.
V. TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING PLANNING MODELS
The main options available nowadays to develop transmission
planning models (optimization) are [107], [108]:
A. General Purpose Programming Languages
In this case, the planning model is developed using a gen-
eral purpose programming language (like Fortran, C, etc.) and
commonly the algorithm calls an optimization dynamic library
(*.dll). Using this option makes sense when the execution time
is critical, the model must run very often (multiple scenarios),
when made-to-measure interfaces are needed or when the model
has to be integrated to another application. That is usually the
case of planning models for real world power systems.
Some of the generic features required for development of real
world transmission planning models are:
• highly optimized code, efficient mathematics, and robust-
ness that allow maximal speed of execution;
• easy interaction with optimization packages and other ex-
ternal tools;
• availability of comprehensive diagnostic messages.
As programmers who are equally comfortable working with
several computer languages and with no intention of depreci-
ating the features of C or any other language for numerical
calculations, the authors want to clarify why Fortran is still a
good option for high performance scientific and engineering
applications. Contrary to popular belief, Fortran is not a dead
language yet. For instance, Fortran 95 is better suited for
numerical computation than most current programming lan-
guages and it is expected to further improve in this respect.
The current Fortran compilers allow Windows-based applica-
tion development and include libraries to access databases and
easily take advantage of the features of the current Window’s
942
data-oriented technologies (e.g., open database connectivity
(ODBC) 4 , ActiveX Database Objects – ADO5 ).
There is a high quality vast body of existing Fortran
code (most of which is publicly available). In particular,
many commercial optimization packages have been im-
plemented in Fortran and distributed as source code (e.g.,
MINOS – www.sbsi-sol-optimize.com/Minos.htm, CONOPT
– www.conopt.com). Some others can be acquired as Fortran
libraries (e.g., XPRESS – www.dash.co.uk) and using the
current Fortran development systems that allow mixed-lan-
guage programming (e.g., Compaq Visual Fortran V6.6 –
www.compaq.com/fortran, Lahey-Fujitsu Fortran 95 V5.7 –
www.lahey.com) it is possible to use almost all the commercial
optimization packages as dynamic link libraries (*.dll).
The design of Fortran allows maximal speed of execution and
makes numerical computation robust and well-defined. In this
sense, the relative simplicity and rigidity of Fortran has been
one of its main assets. Besides, Fortran compilers usually emit
much better diagnostic messages.
In addition to Fortran and C, there are other powerful
and free languages that could also be considered: func-
tional programming languages as Haskell (www.haskell.org);
concurrent programming languages as Erlang (www.er-
lang.org); and constraint programming languages as Mozart
(www.mozart-oz.org).
B. Languages or Environments for Numerical/Symbolic
Calculations
This option includes spreadsheets (e.g., Excel – www.mi-
crosoft.com), or environments for technical computing
(e.g., MATLAB http://www.mathworks.com, Scilab
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/, etc.), or symbolic compu-
tation (e.g., MAPLE http://www.maplesoft.com, Mathematica
http://www.wolfram.com, Fermat http://www.bway.net/
~lewis/, etc.).
Spreadsheets have several advantages for building optimiza-
tion models. All of its powerful facilities allow us to create,
modify, format, and audit models. It is easy to handle data al-
ready saved in this format and add charts and graphics to present
results. And since the spreadsheets are very common and well-
known applications, it is easier to communicate results to others
and the learning curve is reduced to a minimum. When a model
becomes larger, however, the spreadsheet approach runs into
problems. When there are hundreds or thousands of formulas
copied into different cells on a spreadsheet, it becomes increas-
ingly difficult to track down errors. It is also hard for others to
understand the model and extend it.
The environments for numerical or symbolic computation,
for instance MATLAB, were not specially designed to solve
4ODBC is a widely accepted application programming interface (API) for
database access. It is based on the call-level interface (CLI) specifications
from X/Open and ISO/IEC for database API’s and uses structured query
language (SQL) as its database access language. Additional information
about accessing databases using Fortran applications can be found on
www.canaimasoft.com (F90SQL, F90ADO, and F90VB).
5ADO is a high level object oriented interface to all kinds of data in
native format and constitutes the latest standard for Microsoft Windows
database connectivity. It allows access to ODBC and OLE-DB databases.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
optimization problems, but make easy to deal with matrices
or vectors. All of these alternatives can be used for prototype
quick development since they have great graphic visualization
features but it is very hard to use them to solve very large
optimization problems as transmission planning for real world
power systems.
Despite MATLAB’s useful features for doing numerical cal-
culations and exchanging algorithms, programming languages
as Fortran or C have not become obsolete because of MATLAB
yet. The computational speed of MATLAB is lower than using
Fortran or C because MATLAB has to pay for its great program-
ming features (see prologue of [109]).
C. Modeling Systems
Modeling systems are designed to help modelers formulate
optimization problems and analyze their solutions. A modeling
system takes as input a description of an optimization problem
in a form that modeler finds reasonably natural and convenient,
and allows the solution output to be viewed in similar terms;
conversion to the forms required by optimization algorithms is
done automatically.
The modeling systems are especially useful with large,
complex problems (usually a single scenario), which may
require many revisions to establish an accurate model, because
they allow the user to concentrate on the modeling problem by
making the setup simple. The modeler can change the formu-
lation quickly and easily, can pinpoint the location and type
of errors before a solution is attempted, can change from one
solver to another, and can even convert from linear to nonlinear
with little trouble. Some of the most popular modeling systems,
among others, are GAMS [110]), AMPL [111]), LINGO
(http://www.lindo.com), AIMMS (http://www.parangon.nl),
and XPRESS (http://www.dash.co.uk). Most modeling
systems support a variety of algorithmic optimization
codes (solvers), while the more popular solvers can be
used with many different modeling systems. Some of
the solvers provided by most of the modeling systems
are: CPLEX (http://www.cplex.com), OSL (http://www-
3.ibm.com/software/data/bi/osl/index.html), FORTMP
(http://www.optirisk-systems.com), and LAMPS (http://www-
fp.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Guide/SoftwareGuide/Blurbs/lamps.html)
for linear programming and mixed integer programming;
MINOS (http://www.sbsi-sol-optimize.com) and CONOPT
(http://www.conopt.com) for nonlinear programming; MILES
(http://www.cs.wisc.edu/cpnet/cpnetsoftware/#MILES) and
PATH (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/cpnet/cpnetsoftware/) for
mixed complementarity problems.
Although modeling systems are powerful tools, they are not
appropriate if it is necessary to solve many different variations
of an optimization problem in the same run (e.g., multiple
scenarios) or solution time is a critical factor. Besides, they
usually do not use heuristic solvers (appropriate for very hard
problems).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have presented a classified list of major pub-
lication on transmission expansion planning (synthesis models).
LATORRE et al.: CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND MODELS ON TRANSMISSION EXPANSION PLANNING
This list is by no means complete. They are, however, essential
guidelines and a succinct account for anyone entering this re-
search field.
Transmission planning researchers have worked and set their
interest mostly on static planning models. The dynamic and
pseudodynamic planning models are still in an undeveloped
status and they have some limitations for their application to
real power systems.
In general, regardless of the approach used to solve the
problem, the models developed until now have one or more of
these drawbacks.
• The network modeling does not consider the ohmic losses.
• The operation, reliability, security, and quality costs are
not taken into account by the planning algorithm (i.e., usu-
ally these costs are calculated a posteriori considering a set
of alternative plans that were selected minimizing only the
investment and load curtailment costs).
• The demand change in each year in the planning horizon
is neglected.
• Hydrological scenarios are not considered.
• Multiple contingencies are not considered (failure of more
than one system element).
• The treatment of the highest uncertainty level introduced
by the electric sector deregulation is limited (e.g., genera-
tion expansion).
• Usually, the models are not interested in establishing when
the circuits should be installed, that is, they only seek the
optimal addition set for a single year (static planning).
• The change in the load curtailment cost according its
magnitude is neglected. In some other cases the same
load curtailment cost is considered for the entire power
system.
• Alternative options like redesigning, rearranging,
upgrading, etc., are not considered by the planning
algorithm.
In addition to the limitations mentioned before and given the
current state-of-the-art, the mathematical optimization models
have intrinsic limitations (no guarantee regarding their conver-
gence when dc load flow is used, unreasonable large computa-
tional times when discrete variables are used).
The heuristic models proposed until now have also limitation
about the expansion options selection process itself. In some
other cases, the limitations of the heuristic models are due to
the use of particularized approaches to specific cases in which
the operation costs are neglected or relate the model to specific
characteristics of a particular power system.
In short, an integral heuristic model does not exist yet.
The models proposed until now have some limitations for its
application to solve real world transmission planning problems.
However, the heuristic methods have proven to be a viable
alternative for the solution of this problem.
[40], [45], [52], [56], [62], [63], [65], and [104] present some
of the most interesting heuristic models proposed. However, the
transmission planning tools do not satisfy yet the practical re-
quirements of the new power markets. Nowadays, the transmis-
sion planning problem is a matter of “decision making” and not
solely of “optimization” [106].
943
A transmission planning model can be developed used
several different tools, from spreadsheets to custom-written
programs. Transmission planning for real world power systems
requires analyzing many different operation-contingency-
uncertainty scenarios in the same run and as a consequence
of this, solution time is a critical factor. Besides, a custom
user interface must be required in order to import/export data
from/to other applications (e.g., hydrothermal coordination
model, etc.). That is why using a general purpose programming
language (like Fortran, C, etc.) seems to be the best way to
develop a transmission planning model for a real world power
system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the entire professional staff
of the Gerencia Servicio Transporte de Energía and the Direc-
ción Desarrollo STE of Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. –
ISA (Medellín, Colombia). The technical contributions of R. A.
Gallego and A. Escobar from the Universidad Tecnológica de
Pereira are also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, T. Gómez, and A. Ramos, “State-of-the-Art Status
on Transmission Networks Planning,” (in Spanish), Instituto de Investi-
gación Tecnológica, Madrid, Spain, 1987.
[2] W. R. Puntel, H. M. Merrill, M. A. Sager, and A. J. Wood, “Power
System Planning Techniques Course,” Power Technologies, Inc., 1984.
[3] R. L. Sullivan, Power System Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1977.
[4] G. Latorre, “Static Models for Long-Term Transmission Planning,”
Ph.D., Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 1993.
[5] R. S. Chanda and P. K. Bhattacharjee, “Application of computer soft-
ware in transmission expansión planning using variable load structure,”
Electric Power Systems Research, no. 31, pp. 13–20, 1994.
[6] K. J. Kim, Y. M. Park, and K. Y. Lee, “Optimal long term transmission
expansion planning based on maximum principle,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 3, pp. 1494–1501, Nov. 1988.
[7] R. Villasana, L. L. Garver, and S. L. Salon, “Transmission network plan-
ning using linear programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-104, pp. 349–356, Feb. 1985.
[8] L. L. Garver, “Transmission network estimation using linear program-
ming,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-89, pp. 1688–1697,
Sept./Oct. 1970.
[9] J. C. Kaltenbatch, J. Peshon, and E. H. Gehrig, “A mathematical opti-
mization technique for the expansion of electrical power transmission
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-89, pp. 113–119,
Feb. 1970.
[10] Y. P. Dusonchet and A. H. El-Abiad, “Transmission planning using dis-
crete dynamic optimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-92, pp. 1358–1371, July 1973.
[11] H. K. Youssef and R. Hackam, “New transmission planning model,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, pp. 9–18, Feb. 1989.
[12] L. Bahiense, G. C. Oliveira, M. Pereira, and S. Granville, “A mixed
integer disjunctive model for transmission network expansion,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 560–565, Aug. 2001.
[13] S. Haffner, A. Monticelli, A. Garcia, J. Mantovani, and R. Romero,
“Branch and bound algorithm for transmission system expansion
planning using a transportation model,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Gen.
Transm. Dist., vol. 147, pp. 149–156, May 2000.
[14] A. Seifu, S. Salon, and G. List, “Optimization of transmission line plan-
ning including security constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, pp.
1507–1513, Oct. 1989.
[15] A. Santos, P. M. França, and A. Said, “An optimization model for long-
range transmission expansion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
4, pp. 94–101, Feb. 1989.
[16] A. Sharifnia and H. Z. Aashtiani, “Transmission network planning: A
method for synthesis of minimum-cost secure networks,” IEEE Trans.
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 2026–2034, Aug. 1985.
[17] A. P. Meliopoulos, R. P. Webb, R. J. Bennon, and J. A. Juves, “Op-
timal long range transmission planning with AC load flow,” IEEE Trans.
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp. 4156–4163, Oct. 1982.
944
[18] S. T. Lee, K. L. Hocks, and E. Hnyilicza, “Transmission expansion
using branch-and-bound integer programming with optimal cost-ca-
pacity curves,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-93, pp.
1390–1400, July 1974.
[19] S. Binato, M. V. F. Pereira, and S. Granville, “A new Benders decompo-
sition approach to solve power transmission network design problems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 235–240, May 2001.
[20] P. Tsamasphyrpu, A. Renaud, and P. Carpentier, “Transmission network
planning: An efficient Benders decomposition scheme,” in Proc. 13th
PSCC in Trondheim, 1999, pp. 487–494.
[21] G. C. Oliveira, A. P. C. Costa, and S. Binato, “Large scale transmission
network planning using optimization and heuristic techniques,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp. 1828–1834, Nov. 1995.
[22] S. N. Siddiqi and M. L. Baughman, “Valued-based transmission plan-
ning and the effects of networks models,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
10, pp. 1835–1842, Nov. 1995.
[23] R. Romero and A. Monticelli, “A zero-one implicit enumeration method
for optimizing investment in transmission expansion planning,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, pp. 1385–1391, Aug. 1994.
[24] G. Latorre, A. Ramos, I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, J. F. Alonso, and A. Sáiz,
“PERLA: A static model for long-term transmission planning –
Modeling options and suitability analysis” (in Spanish), in Proc. 2nd
Spanish-Portuguese Conf. Elect. Eng., July 1991.
[25] G. Latorre, I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, A. Ramos, and J. Román, “A static model
for long-term transmission planning” (in Spanish), in Proc. 1st Spanish-
Portuguese Conf. Elect. Eng., July 1990.
[26] S. Granville, M. V. F. Pereira, G. B. Dantzing, B. Avi-Itzhak, M. Avriel,
A. Monticelli, and L. M. V. G. Pinto, “Mathematical Decomposition
Techniques for Power Systems Expansion Planning – Volume 2: Anal-
ysis of the Linearized Power Flow Model Using the Bender Decompo-
sition Technique,”, Project 2473–6 EPRI EL-5299, 1988.
[27] M. V. F. Pereira, L. M. V. G. Pinto, S. H. F. Cunha, and G. C. Oliveira, “A
decomposition approach to automated generation/transmission expan-
sion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst, vol. PAS-104, pp. 3074–3083,
Nov. 1985.
[28] R. Romero and A. Monticelli, “A hierarchical decomposition approach
for transmission network expansion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 9, pp. 373–380, Feb. 1994.
[29] R. Fischl and W. R. Puntel, “Computer aided design of electric power
transmission network,” in Proc. IEEE Winter Power Meeting, 1972.
[30] V. A. Levi and M. S. Calovic, “A new decomposition based method
for optimal expansion planning of large transmission networks,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 937–943, Aug. 1991.
[31] L. M. V. G. Pinto and A. Nunes, “A model for the optimal transmission
expansion planning,” in Proc. 10th Power Syst. Comput. Conf., 1990,
pp. 16–23.
[32] M. V. Pereira and L. M. V. G. Pinto, “Application of sensitivity analysis
of load supplying capability to interactive transmission expansion plan-
ning,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 381–389,
Feb. 1985.
[33] A. O. Ekwue and B. J. Cory, “Transmission system expansion plan-
ning by interactive methods,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-103, pp. 1583–1591, July 1984.
[34] A. O. Ekwue, “Investigations of the transmission systems expansion
problem,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 6, pp. 139–142,
July 1984.
[35] A. Monticelli, A. Santos Jr, M. V. F. Pereira, S. H. F. Cunha, B. J. Parker,
and J. C. G. Praça, “Interactive transmission network planning using a
least-effort criterion,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-101,
pp. 3919–3925, Oct. 1982.
[36] R. J. Bennon, J. A. Juves, and A. P. Meliopoulos, “Use of sensitivity
analysis in automated transmission planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Ap-
parat. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp. 53–59, Jan. 1982.
[37] H. D. Limmer, “Long-Range Transmission Expansion Models,”, TPS
79–728 EPRI EL1569, 1980.
[38] C. Dechamps and E. Jamoulle, “Interactive computer program for plan-
ning the expansión of meshed transmission networks,” Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst., vol. 2, pp. 103–108, Apr. 1980.
[39] C. Serna, J. Durán, and A. Camargo, “A model for expansion planning
of transmission systems, a practical application example,” IEEE Trans.
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-97, pp. 610–615, Mar./Apr. 1978.
[40] G. Latorre-Bayona and I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, “Chopin, a heuristic model
for long term transmission expansion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 9, pp. 1886–1894, Nov. 1994.
[41] H. Rudnick, R. Palma, E. Cura, and C. Silva, “Economically adapted
transmission systems in open access schemes – Application of genetic
algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 1427–1440, Aug.
1996.
[42] E. L. da Silva, H. A. Gil, and J. M. Areiza, “Transmission network ex-
pansion planning under an improved genetic algorithm,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 1168–1175, Aug. 2000.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
[43] J. Peco, T. Gómez, and E. F. Sánchez, “Planning model of a high voltage
distribution network” (in Spanish), in Proc. 6th Spanish-Portuguese
Conf. Electr. Eng., July 1999.
[44] K. Yoshimoto, K. Yasuda, and R. Yokohama, “Transmission expansion
planning using neuro-computing hybridized with genetic algorithm,” in
Proc. 1995 Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., pp. 126–131.
[45] R. A. Gallego, A. Monticelli, and R. Romero, “Transmission expansion
planning by extended genetic algorithm,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Gen.,
Transm. Dist., vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 329–335, May 1998.
[46] R. A. Gallego, R. Romero, and A. Escobar, “Planning of the Pereira
power system using an efficient genetic algorithm” (in Spanish), in Proc.
1st Int. Meeting G&T CIER, Bog., Colombia, 1999.
[47] R. Romero, M. Mantovani, R. A. Gallego, and A. Monticelli, “Experi-
mental analysis of selection methods in a genetic algorithm applied to
the planning electrical transmission,” in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. CAD/CAM
Robotic & Factories of the Future, Aguas de Lindoia, Brazil, 1999.
[48] R. A. Gallego, R. Romero, and A. Escobar, “Static planning of the
colombian transmission system using genetic algorithms,” in Proc.
16th Int. Conf. CAD/CAM, Trinidad & Tobago, June 2000.
[49] A. Escobar, R. A. Gallego, R. L. Romero, and S. A. de Oliveira, “Hy-
brid model analysis and constructive algorithms in the performance of
a genetic algorithm for the planning of an electric power transmission
system,” in Proc. 17th Int. Conf. CARS & FOF, Durban, South Africa,
2001.
[50] V. Miranda and L. M. Proença, “Probabilistic choice vs. risk analysis –
Conflicts and synthesis in power systems planning,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1038–1043, Aug. 1998.
[51] E. Handschin, M. Heine, D. König, T. Nikodem, T. Seibt, and R. Palma,
“Object-oriented software engineering for transmission planning in open
access schemes,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 94–100, Feb.
1998.
[52] J. Contreras and F. F. Wu, “A kernel-oriented algorithm for transmission
expansion planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 1434–1440,
Nov. 2000.
[53] , “Coalition formation in transmission expansion planning,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 1144–1152, Aug. 1999.
[54] J. Contreras, “A Cooperative Game Theory Approach to Transmission
Planning in Power Systems,” Ph.D., Univ. California, Berkeley, 1997.
[55] Z. A. Styczynski, “Power network planning using game theory,” in Proc.
13th Power Syst. Comput. Conf. Trondheim, 1999, pp. 607–613.
[56] R. A. Gallego, A. B. Alves, A. Monticelli, and R. Romero, “Parallel sim-
ulated annealing applied to long term transmission network expansion
planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, pp. 181–188, Feb. 1997.
[57] R. Romero, R. A. Gallego, and A. Monticelli, “Transmission system
expansion planning by simulated annealing,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 11, pp. 364–369, Feb. 1996.
[58] R. C. G. Teive, E. L. Silva, and L. G. S. Fonseca, “A cooperative ex-
pert system for transmission expansion planning of electrical power sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 636–642, May 1998.
[59] R. C. G. Teive and L. G. S. Fonseca, “A hybrid system based on
knowledge to the electrical power networks expansion planning,” in
IEEE/KTH Power Tech Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, June 1995.
[60] J. R. Shin and Y. M. Park, “Optimal long-term transmission planning
by expert systems approach,” Proc. IEEE Region 10 Tech. Conf., pp.
713–717, 1993.
[61] F. E. N. Nasser, A. P. A. Silva, and L. A. P. Araujo, “Development of an
expert system for long-term planning of power transmission networks,”
in Proc. 2nd Symp. Experts Syst. Applicat. Power Syst., Jul. 1989, pp.
237–242.
[62] H. Sun and D. C. Yu, “A multiple-objective optimization model of trans-
mission enhancement planning for independent transmission company
(ITC),” Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting 2000, vol. 4, pp.
2033–2038.
[63] S. Binato, G. C. Oliveira, and J. L. Araújo, “A greedy randomized adap-
tive search procedure for transmission expansion planning,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 247–253, May 2001.
[64] R. A. Gallego, A. Monticelli, and R. Romero, “Comparative studies on
nonconvex optimization methods for transmission network expansion
planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 822–828, Aug. 1998.
[65] E. L. da Silva, J. M. Areiza, G. C. de Oliveira, and S. Binato, “Transmis-
sion network expansion planning under a tabu search approach,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 62–68, Feb. 2001.
[66] R. A. Gallego, R. Romero, and A. J. Monticelli, “Tabu search algorithm
for network synthesis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 490–495,
May 2000.
[67] E. L. Silva, J. M. Areiza, and H. A. Gil, “Transmission planning based
on heuristic methods” (in Portuguese), in Proc. VII Symp. Specialists in
Elect. Oper. Expansion Planning, Curitiba, Brazil, 2000.
LATORRE et al.: CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND MODELS ON TRANSMISSION EXPANSION PLANNING
[68] J. M. Areiza, “A Methodology for Automatic Transmission Network
Expansion Planning Using a Tabu Search Algorithm,” M.Sc. (in Por-
tuguese), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil, 1997.
[69] F. Wen and C. S. Chang, “Transmission network optimal planning using
the tabu search method,” Electric Power Systems Research, no. 42, pp.
153–163, Aug. 1997.
[70] R. A. Gallego, “Long-Term Transmission Systems Planning Using
Combinatorial Optimization Techniques,” Ph.D. (in Portuguese),
FEEC-DSEE, UNICAMP, Brazil, 1997.
[71] A. Escobar, “Dynamic Transmission Planning Using Combinatorial
Algorithms,” M.Sc. (in Spanish), Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira,
2002.
[72] J. C. Dodu and A. Merlin, “Dynamic model for long-term expansion
planning studies of power transmission systems: The Ortie model,”
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 3, pp. 1–16, Jan. 1981.
[73] O. Bertoldi and R. Cicora, “The Loden program: A linear methodology
for the automatic selection of long-term-expansion alternatives, with se-
curity constraint, for a power transmission systems,” in Proc. 8th Power
Syst. Comput. Conf., Helsiski, Finland, 1984.
[74] A. Escobar, R. A. Gallego, and R. L. Romero, “Static and dynamic trans-
mission planning in competitive environments” (in Spanish), in Proc.
Int. Conf. Electr. Power (“Jornadas Internacionales de Energía Eléc-
trica”), Bogotá, Colombia, Oct. 2001.
[75] S. L. Haffner, A. Garcia, A. Monticelli, and R. Romero, “Dynamic power
transmisión expansion planning considering multiple stages” (in Por-
tuguese), in Proc. XV SNPTEE, pp. 1–6.
[76] S. Binato and G. C. Oliveira, “A heuristic procedure to cope with
multi-year transmission expansion planning,” in Proc. IEEE/KTH
Stockholm Power Tech. Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 1995.
[77] M. V. F. Pereira, L. M. V. G. Pinto, G. C. Oliveira, and S. H. F. Cunha,
“Composite Generation-Transmission Expansion Planning,”, Project
2473–9 EPRI EL-5179, 1987.
[78] J. E. Platts, R. M. Sigby, and L. L. Garver, “A method for horizon-year
transmission planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-89,
pp. 1356–1361, July/Aug. 1972.
[79] S. Binato and G. C. Oliveira, “Dynamic planning applied to transmission
network expansion,” in Proc. 9th Automat. Brazilian Congr., Vitória,
Brazil, 1992.
[80] E. G. Cleobury, “Transmission planning in today’s environment,” in
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. Colloquium on Alternatives to More Overhead
Lines, 1993, pp. 1/1–1/10.
[81] A. Henney, “A global perspective on the impact of competition on trans-
mission,” in Proc. IEEE Colloquium on Network Pricing, Investment
and Access, Oct. 1995, pp. 7/1–7/6.
[82] R. Baldick and E. Kahn, “Transmission planning issues in a compet-
itive economic environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, pp.
1497–1503, Nov. 1993.
[83] I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, “The transmission function: Access, investment
and remuneration” (in Spanish), in Proc. Int. Seminar on Electr. Sector
Deregulation, Bogotá, Colombia, 1995.
[84] H. Rudnick, “Transmission systems expansion in generation competi-
tive markets” (in Spanish), in Proc. 1st Int. Meeting G&T Comisión de
Integración Energética Regional, Bogotá, Colombia, 1999.
[85] H. Rudnick and R. Quinteros, “Power system planning in the south
america electric market restructuring,” in Proc. VI Symp. Specialists
Elect. Oper. and Expansion Planning, Bahia, Brazil, 1998.
[86] M. V. F. Pereira and B. G. Gorenstin, “Transmission pricing methods” (in
Spanish), in Seminar: Remuneration and Pricing of the Power Services,
Bogotá, Colombia, 1996.
[87] G. Latorre and R. D. Cruz, “Toward a generation-transmission integrated
planning model in deregulated environments” (in Spanish), in Seminar:
Remuneration and Pricing of the Power Services, Bogotá, Colombia,
1996.
[88] P. H. Corredor, “Transmission planning in a competitive environment”
(in Spanish), in Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar on Energy Planning, Bogotá,
Colombia, 1996.
[89] A. Villegas, “Transmission privatization” (in Spanish), in Proc. 2nd En-
ergy and Telecommun. Sectors Nat. Forum, Bucaramanga, Colombia,
1998.
[90] R. E. Clayton and R. Mukerji, “System planning tools for the competi-
tive market,” IEEE Comput. Applicat. Power, pp. 50–55, July 1996.
[91] H. Singh, S. Hao, and A. Papalexopoulos, “Transmission congestion
management in competitive electricity markets,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, pp. 672–680, May 1998.
[92] F. A. Rahimi and A. Vojdani, “Meet the emerging transmission market
segments,” IEEE Comput. Applicat. Power, pp. 26–32, Jan. 1999.
[93] D. Shirmohammandi, B. Wollemberg, A. Vodjani, P. Sandrin, M.
Pereira, F. Rahimi, T. Schneider, and B. Scott, “Transmission dispatch
and congestion management in the emerging energy market structures,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1466–1474, Nov. 1998.
945
[94] R. S. Fang and A. K. David, “Transmission congestion management in
an electricity market environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14,
pp. 877–883, Aug. 1999.
[95] , “An integrated congestion management strategy for real-time
system operation,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., vol. 19, pp. 52–54, May
1999.
[96] T. W. Gedra, “On transmission congestion and pricing,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 241–248, Feb. 1999.
[97] J. M. Aganagic, K. H. Abdul-Rahman, and J. G. Waight, “Spot pricing
of capacities for generation and transmission of reserve in an extended
poolco model,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1128–1135, Aug.
1998.
[98] S. Hunt and G. Shuttleworth, “Unlocking the grid,” IEEE Spectr., pp.
20–25, July 1996.
[99] J. D. Mountford and R. R. Austria, “Keeping the lights on!,” IEEE
Spectr., pp. 34–39, June 1999.
[100] R. D. Cruz, J. M. Areiza, and G. Latorre, “The international experience
in transmission planning in deregulated environments” (in Spanish), in
Revista Comisión de Integración Energética Regional, vol. 10, June/July
2001, pp. 43–64.
[101] T. de la Torre, J. W. Feltes, T. Gómez, and H. M. Merril, “Deregula-
tion, privatization, and competition: Transmission planning under un-
certainty,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 460–465, May 1999.
[102] J. C. Enamorado, T. Gómez, and A. Ramos, “Multi-area regional in-
terconnection planning under uncertainty,” in Proc. 13th Power Syst.
Comput. Conf. Trondheim, 1999, pp. 599–606.
[103] M. V. F. Pereira, M. F. McCoy, and H. M. Merrill, “Managing risk in the
new power business,” IEEE Comput. Applicat. Power, pp. 18–24, Apr.
2000.
[104] R. D. Cruz and G. Latorre, “HIPER: Interactive tool for mid-term trans-
mission expansion planning in a deregulated environment,” IEEE Power
Eng. Rev., vol. 20, pp. 61–62, Nov. 2000.
[105] S. L. Haffner, “Power Systems Planning in a Competitive Environment,”
Ph.D., FEEC UNICAMP, 2000.
[106] V. Miranda and L. M. Proença, “Why risk analysis outperforms prob-
abilistic choice as the effective decision support paradigm for power
system planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 643–648, May
1998.
[107] R. Sharda and G. Rampal, “Algebraic modeling languages on PC’s,”
OR/MS Today, vol. 22, pp. 58–63, June 1995.
[108] A. Ramos, “Languages for model development” (in Spanish), in CREG
Course on Energy Management Models, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2000.
[109] S. Nakamura, Numerical Analysis and Graphic Visualization With
MATLAB. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[110] A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, and A. Meeraus, GAMS: A User’s Guide:
GAMS Development Co., 1996.
[111] R. Fourer, D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernighan, AMPL: A Modeling Lan-
guage for Mathematical Programming. San Francisco, CA: Scientific,
1993.
Gerardo Latorre was born in Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 1958. He received
the Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Universidad Pontificia Comillas,
Madrid, Spain, and the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the “Univer-
sidad Industrial de Santander,” (UIS) Bucaramanga, Colombia.
He joined UIS in 1985 and he is presently Titular Professor of Electrical En-
gineering, founder-member of the “Grupo de Investigación en Sistemas de En-
ergía Eléctrica” – GISEL, and Director of the “Escuela de Ingenierías Eléctrica,
Electrónica y de Telecomunicaciones” -E3T. He has participated in several con-
sultancy and research projects concerning transmission planning and pricing,
ancillary services, generation feasibility, etc.
Dr. Latorre is the author of several technical papers in the above mentioned
areas.
Rubén Darío Cruz (S’98) was born in Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 1972. He
received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering in 2000, and the B.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from the Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS),
Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 1996.
He was a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering (ECE) of the University of Texas at Austin. He held a
teaching fellowship at the UIS as professor of electrical engineering. He
was also Assistant Professor at the Unidades Tecnológicas de Santander
(TS), Bucaramanga, Colombia. His employment experience also includes
the Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos (ECOPETROL), Barrancabermeja and
Cartagena, Colombia. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering at the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB) Medellín,
Colombia, sponsored by Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. (ISA).
946
Jorge Mauricio Areiza was born in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968. He received
the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering in 1991 from the Universidad Pontif-
icia Bolivariana (UPB), Medellín, Colombia, and the M.Sc. degree in electrical
power system planning in 1997 from the Universidade Federal de Santa Cata-
rina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil.
He has been with Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. (ISA) in Colombia since
1993 where he is currently a specialist engineer at the Network Development-
Optimization Team. He has published several technical papers in power systems
planning methods.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
Andrés Villegas received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering in 1987
from the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB), Medellín, Colombia, and
the M.Sc. degree in electrical power engineering in 1997 from the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) Manchester, U.K.
He has been with Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. (ISA) in Colombia since
1988 where he is currently the Director of Power Transmission Service Devel-
opment. His technical concerns include transmission expansion planning and
pricing and also the public policy and regulatory issues associated with electric
transmission under deregulation.