See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238182135

Operational Planning of Power System: An Integrated Approach

Article  in  Energy Sources · January 1994

DOI: 10.1080/00908319408909062

CITATIONS READS

7 2,828

1 author:

Deb Chattopadhyay
World Bank
145 PUBLICATIONS   1,827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Maintenance planning View project

Transmission economic analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deb Chattopadhyay on 18 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Sources

ISSN: 0090-8312 (Print) 1521-0510 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso19

Operational Planning of Power System: An

Integrated Approach

DEBABRATA CHATTOPADHYAY

To cite this article: DEBABRATA CHATTOPADHYAY (1994) Operational Planning of Power

System: An Integrated Approach, Energy Sources, 16:1, 59-73, DOI: 10.1080/00908319408909062

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00908319408909062

Published online: 16 May 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso19
E n e w Sources, Volume 16. pp. 59-73 OUYO-8312/94 SIO.UU + .OO
Printed in Ihc UK. All rights rcscrved. Copyright 0 1994 Taylor & Francis

Operational Planning of Power System: An

Integrated Approach
DEBABRATA CHATTOPADHYAY
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research
Gen. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon(E)
Bombay 400 065, India

Abstract Power system operational planning to utilize the existing capacity in the
best possible manner is of prime importance and is particularly releuarzt in a
deueloping economy. This modeling exercise presents an integrated approach for rhe
multiarea short-term operationolplanning of the power system. It cor~sidersuarious
related actiuities like coal mining, transportation, generating uttit maintenome and
generation scheduling, dematzd-side management options, and unmet enerby distri-
bution among different areas in case of inadequate system cupaciy. The powo
system operations are required to meet multiple objectives namely rrlinimizing rhe
total costs, minimizing the total emissions, and mmimizing the generating system
reliability (minimizing the loss of load expectation). A conlpromise programming
approach is adopted to am've at the best compromise among these noncompensatory
objectities. Thus it is a systems approach to power system planning that uses a
multiohjectiue framework to integrate all related activities in system operation.
Finally, a mtmber of potential applications of the model for policy analysis purposes
houe been suggested.

Keywords power system, cost-emission-reliability trade-off, compromise pro-

gramming, coal mining and transport, demand side management

Introduction
Electricity is a key input to the process of development. It is a vital part of the
infrastructure of a country's economy. The performance of the power system and
that of the economy at large are closely interlinked because the bulk of electricity
is consumed in other productive sectors of the economy, namely commercial,
agriculture, industry, and transport. The growth of these sectors thus largely rely on
proper supply of electricity. In India, for example, 1% increase in industrial growth
calls for 2% increase in electricity supply, and the electricity sector, as a whole,
continues to grow at almost twice the rate of growth of the economy over last two
decades. A shortage of electricity has an almost immediate effect on the rest of the
economy. In the longer term, the substantial resources devoted to develop the
power sector have a direct bearing on the availability of resources to other sectors,
the power sector being highly capital intensive. Constraints affecting the operations
of the power system are the most important constraints on the process of develop-
ment. The operation of the existing power system is, therefore, crucial both in
terms of meeting the power demand in the best possible manner and in terms of
reducing the need for additional capacity through better utilization of existing
capacity.
60 D. Chattopadhyay

Power system operational planning is a complex task involving a wide range of

activities, and a number of criteria have to be fulfilled. The activities are fuel
production, fuel transportation, maintenance and generation scheduling of generat-
ing units, interarea transmission. scheduling, use of demand-side management
options, and distribution of unmet energy among various areas (if there is inade-
quate capacity to meet the demand). The interdependence of these activities, if not
considered through a systems approach, leads to either suboptimal operation or
planning inconsistent with the reality.

Literature Overview
In the concept of "total energy system perspective" introduced by Hoffman (1980),
technologies are represented for all operations involving specific fuels, including
their extraction, refinement, conversion, transport, distribution, and utilization. A
network flow formulation for a typical energy supply-transportation-transforma-
tion-distribution-demand system is presented by Debanne (1980). There have been
several modeling approaches incorporating environmental considerations in power
system operations, namely single-criterion optimization for the real-time NO,
dispatch problem (Gent and Lamont 1971) and the multistrategy SO, control
problem (Cadogan and Eisenberg 1977). Various environmental dispatch models
are reviewed in a recent paper by Petrovic and Kralj (1993). Multiobjective
formulation of the power system has been attempted using the €-constrained
mcthod, which essentially decomposes the original n-criteria problem into n
independent subproblems (Yokoyama et al. 1988). Wadhva and Jain (1990) pre-
sented a goal programming formulation of optimal active and reactive load flow
problem. Some examples of multicriteria formulation in long-term resource plan-
ning can be seen in Climaco et al. (19901, Heslin and Hobbs (19891, and Amagai
and Leung (1989). Evaluation of demand-side management (DSM) options and the
concept of capacity response ratio (CRR) of the DSM program were introduced by
Ruane and Whyte (1985). Various methods of integrating DSM options in electric
utility planning are discussed in Hill et al. (1992). The equivalence of DSM options
and supply-side generating resources is described in Sinha (1991). The present
exercise is different from previous modeling approaches in terms of (1) a new
multiobjective formulation (cost, emission, and reliability) of the operational plan-
ning problem using a compromise programming technique and (2) integrating the
following activities of a multiarea power system operation: coal production and
transportation, maintenance and generation scheduling of generating units, inter-
area transmission scheduling, demand-side management options, and unmet energy
distribution among areas (if capacity is inadequate to meet the demand). The
advantage is the scope of various policy analyses, which is discussed in a later
section.

Present Modeling Framework

The model described here is developed with special reference to the Indian power
system, which has the following features:
(1) The major source of energy is coal, with coal resources concentrated in
relatively small areas.
 Operational Planning of Power Sysfern 61

(2) The various regions operate independently in terms of maintenance

scheduling of generating units and power exchange.
(3) Supply shortfall resulting in power cut is prevalent in the system.
(4) DSM options are not considered in operational planning.
(5) There are concerns about environmental impact and generation system
reliability.
A multiarea (region) system is considered for the present modeling framework
having only coal-based and hydro stations. Given the existing system (coal produc-
tion to end use), the aim is to optimize activity levels satisfying certain criteria.
Figure 1 shows the steps and input requirements to arrive at the optimal activity
levels.
Step 1: The pooled maintenance schedule of the system as a whole is obtained
given the generating unit capacities and monthly peak loads. The pooled
maintenance schedule takes into account the interarea seasonal load
diversities and leads to substantial improvement in the system reliability. It
involves levelizing the system load on a monthly basis.
Step 2: After obtaining the maintenance scheduling, the availability of gener-
ating capacity in various months is known (except for forced outages,

,
which are random events). The various other inputs required are:
(1) Monthly/quarterly load duration curves: the monthly/quarterly load du-
ration curves can be approximated as consisting of three time blocks-peak,
intermediate, and base.

Generatine Capacity of the System

Objective: Levelize Load +Capacity on Maintenance over the Year

I
I Pooled Maintenancs Schedule 1

eliabiiity- the best Compromise

Figure 1. Operational planning of power system-the steps and input requirement at each
step.
62 D. Chattopadhyay

(2) Coal supply: mine-mouth cost of coal, coal mine-power plant linkages,
and transportation capacity of each link.
(3) Generating unit characteristics: derated capacity, average operating cost
(excluding coal and coal transportation cost for coal-based plants) per unit
of generation, unit input-output characteristics, forced outage rate, auxil-
iary consumption, maximum and minimum power output, monthly hydro
energy availability.
(4) Transmission: transmission links existing between various areas, line ca-
pacity, length, and transmission loss factor.
( 5 ) Generating reliability: relationship between the probability of having a
certain MW on outage and the load for each area for calculating the loss
of load expectation (LOLE). LOLE is a consistent and sensitive measure
of generating system reliability. A "loss of load" is said to occur when the
capability of generating capacity remaining in service is exceeded by the
load level. LOLE calculation for forced (random) outage requires three
types of information-unit capacities (taking into account maintenance
scheduling), forced outage rates, and load demand. First, a cumulative
outage state enumeration is carried out; that is, the probabilities of various
capacity outage states are calculated using a convolution algorithm that
reduces the number of outage states to be evaluated. In the probability
range 0.001-0.01 the outage table thus obtained can be approximated as
Probability( 2 X MW on outage) = a,e-x/"'
( 6 ) Outage costs: these are needed to incorporate the monetary losses due to
supply shortfall of electricity to the other sectors of the economy in the
cost-objective function. This cost may vary from area to area and also with
duration of outage.
(7) DSM options: the load impacts, costs, and the basis of implementation
(market driven or utility controlled) for each option are needed to inte-
grate the supply- and demand-side resources. Based on the load impacts,
DSM programs can be categorized into:
(a) Local control program: controlling customer load for a fixed period of
time (e.g., water heater and air-conditioning control).
(b) Load curtailment program: curtailing load temporarily. Customers ei-
ther shut down operations or switch to backup generators. These
programs may be based on interruptible rates.
(c) Load reduction program: permanently reducing energy consumption-
for example, efficiency improvement program (efficient lighting, insula-
tion, motors, etc.). Essentially all conservation programs belong to this
category.
(d) Load-shifting program: moving electricity usage from peak to off-peak
hours (e.g., time of use tariffing, promoting heating and cold storage
systems).
The load control programs can be treated as generic thermal units which can
be brought into operation at any point in time. Load curtailment programs are
equivalent to limited energy plants (e.g., hydro plants) whose total energy availabil-
ity is limited in a period. Each load reduction program has a distinct load impact
and should be modeled accordingly as nondispatchable sources. Load-shifting
programs are equivalent to pumped storage units. These equivalences enable
 Operational Planning of Power System 63

various DSM options to be included along with supply-side generating units for
meeting the end-use demand. The cost effectiveness of DSM options should be
evaluated periodically rather than by a one-time "proving-in" evaluation. The CRR
of a DSM option can be calculated in this kind of resource reliability model. The
CRR is calculated in the following way: the LOLE with and without the DSM
alternative is calculated. The LOLE with a modified load shape is lower than the
original LOLE. Next, the modified load shape is scaled up incrementally until the
original LOLE value is obtained. The difference between DSM peak load and
model peak load at the original reliability level is divided by the DSM alternative's
peak load reduction to determine CRR.

Three Objective Functions

Power system planning is intrinsically multiobjective in nature. The present exer-
cise considers the following three objectives:
(1) Minimizing total costs ( f , ( x ) ) ,which include fuel costs, fuel transportation
costs, other operating costs, and electricity outage costs. The cost thus
obtained is the societal cost.
(2) Minimizing total emissions ( f , ( x ) ) of one pollutant or a weighted average
of several pollutants. The weights may be decided on the basis of priorities
for environmental control identified by the government or regulatory
agency.
(3) Minimizing the loss of load erpectatiorr ( L O L E ) fs(x)).
There are trade-offs between these objective functions. The cost-minimizing
generation schedule, for example, may be different from the emission-minimizing
generation schedule. Thus, it may be impossible to obtain simultaneously the
minimum values of each. In a multiobjective situation, "optimization" really means
finding the best compromise among the objectives, which is the sum of the relative
deviations of the objective functions from the ideal point. A compromise program-
ming technique is adopted for the present problem. Compromise can be defined as
"an effort to approach the ideal solution as closely as possible". The "ideal"
solution comprises the optimal values of the objective functions ( f , ( x * )and f , ( x * )
in case of two objective functions; Figure 2 obtained by individually optimizing
f , ( x ) and f,(x). The other points on the curve are the nondominated solutions.
A compromise solution is achieved as follows:
. Vector minimization problem:

. Ideal solutions: fJx* 1, i = l , 2 , . . . , m.

Compromise solutions of the vector minimization problem:
 ObJecdve2 Min 1 2 0

(1(0.
R(0

Figure 2. The compromisc solution between two minimizing objectives.

. Compromise solution set H ( d , , d,)

f i ( x ) -f,(x*)
p = m, Min d, = Max wi
f;Cx*,

where wi are weights on the objective function such that

The value of p depends on the nature of compensation between the ohjectives,

with p = 1 representing a case of perfect compensation between the objectives
(i.e., having more of one objective compensates for less of the other objective). On
the other hand, p = 03 refers to the case of absolute noncompensation among the
objectives. The present case is best explained by absolute noncompensation be-
cause an increase in emission or LOLE cannot be compensated by a lower cost and
SO on.
 Operational Planning of Power System 65

The Model Structure

Pooled Maintenance Scheduling. Generating units are maintained and inspected
periodically and generation planning must take into account maintenance schedul-
ing for the year. The factors which need to be considered are seasonal load
demand profile, period of maintenance, capacity of units, and elapsed time after
previous maintenance. The most widely accepted method (El-Shiekhi and Billinton
1983) is used, which consists of the following four steps:
(1) Arrange the units by size in decreasing order.
(2) Largest unit scheduled for maintenance in period of lowest load, consistent
with minimum and maximum time constraints.
(3) Monthly peak load adjusted by generating capacity on maintenance.
(4) Steps (2) and (3) repeated until all units are scheduled.
This maintenance schedule is to be carried out on a pooled basis for all areas to
levelize the interconnected system reserves.

Generation Scheditling and Other Related Activities. The next step is to arrive at the
generation schedule, coal production and coal supply schedule, interarea transfer
schedule, DSM schedule, and unmet energy distribution among areas which give
the best compromise among the three objectives. The following simplifications are
made in the model:
(1) Start-up and back-down cost, lead times, and minimum uptime and mini-
mum downtime are not taken into consideration, the load being considered
in the form of a load duration curve.
(2) Spinning reserve also cannot be modeled for the same reason.
(3) Various grades of coal, transportation modes are not considered.
The following notations are used:
i objective function
=
j constraints
=
r, s = area index
t = time blocks of load duration curve (peak,
intermediate, and base)
HT(t) = duration of time blocks (hours)
m = coal mines
1 = pollutants
g, h = generating unit (include both coal-based and
hydro units; only relevant constraints for each
type would be applicable)
C, = unit g's average operating costs (Rs per
MWh). For coal-based plants it excludes coal
and coal transportation costs.
SP,(P,) = unit g's input-output characteristics (meal/
h). This is usually a quadratic function of the
power output level P,.
AUX, = auxiliary consumption of unit g
EMN, = emission factor of pollutant 1 (Kg/mcal)
a,, M, = parameters of LOLE expression for area r
 D. Chattopadhyay

load demand of area r at t (MW)

L,(t) =
maximum and minimum power output limits
Pmax,, Pmin, =
(MW) of g
CAPA, = derated capacity of unit g
AVAIL, = capacity availability of unit g in that period,
which is obtained knowing the planned out-
age (the maintenance scheduling) from step
(1)
T,, = transmission link (MW) existing between area
r and s
MCAP,,, = mine m's monthly production capacity in tons
MC", = mine-mouth cost of coal in Rs/ton
TRPTlrn, g ) = transport link (tons) between mine rn and
unit g
TRPTLOSS = fraction of coal lost during transportation
INITSTOCK, = initial coal stock (tons) at unit g
MAXSTOCK,, MINSTOCK, = maximum and minimum levels of coal stock
at unit g
DIST(m, g ) = distance between mine rn and unit g in km
F = fixed cost of transportation
T R C = coal transport charges in Rs/ton-km
OC, = outage cost of electricity for area r (Rs/
MWh)
CAL = calorific value of coal in kcal/kg
MAXENG,,,,, = maximum energy for each hydro plant (in-
cluded in the set g ) in a month (MWh)
Similar to the input-output characteristics of thermal unit, hydro plant input-
output characteristics can also be incorporated. The variables in the model are:

P,(t)power output from g at t (MW)

=
U,(t)on-off status (1 = ON, 0 = OFF) of unit g at time block t
=
COAUm, g )
= coal supply from mine rn to g (in a month/quarter) net of
transportation losses
CLOSESTOCK = closing stock of coal of unit g (tons)
UP,(^!
= unmet power in area r at (MW)
TRAN&) = power exchange schedule between area r and s at t (MW)
The three objectives ( fj(x)) can be formulated as follows:
(1) Minimizing total cost: f,(x)

min f,(.x) = min COST =

6
z (c, P,(I)HT(~) + z z c O A ~ ( r n g)MC,
1 m 6
,
 Operational Planning of Power System

(2) Minimizing total emissions: f,(x)

min f2(x) = min EMISSION, = x x SP,(P,(~))EMN,HT(~)

g f

(3) Minimizing the loss of load expectation (LOLE): f,(x)

min f,(x) = min LOLE = x a , exp[(L,(t) - SUPPLY,(~)]/M,)HT(~)

f r

where

SUPPLY,(t) = own generation - all export + all net import

where TRLOSS = LOSS(TRAN,,(~))' and LOSS = transmission loss factor

Note that the importing area has to bear the transmission losses.
The compromise objective function is given as

COST - COST,,,

K[
EMISSION - EMISSIONmi,
EMISSIONmin )' 1' LOLE -

LOLEmin
LOLE,;,
11
COST,,,,, ,LOLE,,, ,EMISSION,,, - ideal solution

where Wc, We,and W, are weights on cost, emission, and reliability objectives.
The three objective functions under consideration are noncompensatory and
competitive in nature, hence the above form of compromise is obtained (see
Zeleny 1982).

Constraints
(1) Electricity demand and supply constraint. The power demand for each area
in each time block has to be fulfilled,

The energy demand supply balance is given as

P,(t)HT(t)(l - AUX,) + z
S
T R A N , , ~)[l - TRLOSSlHT(t1

(2) Coal production capacity constraint. The total coal productionfor a mine
68 D. Chattopadhyay

in the period is limited by the production capacity,

'
6
COAL(m, g )
(1 - TRPTLOSS)
+ (CLOSESTOCK, - INITSTOCK,) IMCAP,

(3) Coal transportation capacity constraint. The net amount of coal trans-
ported is constrained by the carrying capacity of the linkage (in terms of
number of railway wagons available, maximum number of trips possible,
etc.),

(4) Energy balance for each generating unit. The hydro units are constrained
by the total energy available in the period,

The coal-based units must satisfy the following calorific balance (i.e., the
coal demand supply balance)

Coal received from all mines + initial stock - closing stock

= coal consumed to generate electricity

~ C O A L ( ~g )I ,+ INITSTOCK, - CLOSESTOCK,
I,,

( 5 ) Minimum and maximum levels of coal stock. The coal-based units must
keep a closing stock within permissible limits given by minimum and
maximum levels of stock.

MINSTOCK, I CLOSESTOCK, IMAXSTOCK,

(6) Minimum and maximum power output limits. The power output from a
unit must be within the maximum and minimum limits,

(7) Generating capacity availability constraint. The pooled maintenance

scheduling described in step (1) gives the planned outages, which give the
availability in a month/quarter of all the units. This availability limits the
total energy output from the unit,
 Operational Planning of Power System

(8) Must-run and must-off units

Must-run units: Ug(r) = 1 , V t
Must-off units: Ug(t) = 0, V t
(9) Interarea transmission capacity constraint. The interarea power transfer
(import/export) is limited by transmission capacity,

h~regratingDemand-Side Managemenf (DSM) Options. The DSM measures should

be integrated in utility operational planning based on a simultaneous integration
method. It involves assigning generating unit characteristics to DSM options and
obtaining the "generation" scheduling of demand side "resources." The integration
process has the following steps:
(1) Choose a set of DSM options (often termed a DSM plan) on the basis of
some a priori criteria (e.g., cost-benefit ratio, applicability).
(2) Calculate the CRR for the set. This gives an indication of the effective
peak load reduction. This can be tried out for several DSM plans.
(3) Categorize the DSM options according to their impact on the load shape as
generic thermal units, limited energy plants, pumped storage plants, and
nondispatchable technologies.
(4) Estimate the load impacts (in terms of MW and MWh in each of the time
blocks, peak, intermediate and base) and the total cost per MWh savings.
(5) Include these "generating" resources in the set g described earlier with
additional constraints on "generation" from DSM options (e.g., all conser-
vation programs give constant energy output all the time). The resulting
optimal activity levels would, thus, include optimal DSM usage in each
time block.

Scope of Policy Analysis in the Modeling Framework

This model can be used for several policy analysis purposes, as this provides a
systems approach integrating all related activities in power system operation in a
multiobjective framework. The following analysis can be done.

Trade-off Between the Objectives

The multiobjective framework allows the planner to quantify the trade-off existing
between cost, emission, and reliability objectives. The weights W, in the compro-
mise objective function can be altered to see how these objectives vary in relation
to each other. In particular, questions like "What is the cost and emission impact
of an x% rise in LOLE?" can be answered.

Coal Mines Short-Term Productiorr Scheduling

A postoptimality analysis to decide whether to increase the production from a coal
mine in Ihe period under consideration (month/quarter/year). Integrated opera-
tion of different areas enables utilizing the cheap coal-based plants situated near
70 D.Chattopadhyay
the coal mines and transferring power from that area to the connected areas where
generation is costly. A decision may have to be made about whether to increase the
coal production in the month/quarter/year of a mine which is connected to cheap
coal-based plants, generate from relatively expensive plants, use DSM options, or
resort to unmet energy. The systems approach adopted in the model can help
answer such question. The mine production capacity (parameter MCAP in the
model) can be raised incrementally and the associated cost benefits arc noted to
obtain the marginal benefits from such a production increase. The marginal
benefits decrcase with increase in production. This is shown in Figure 3-the first
few tons of coal may be used to generate electricity for meeting the unmet demand
which has a very high outage cost (parameter OC, in the model), the next few tons
may be utilized in cheap coal-based plants to substitute the generation from
expensive plants, and so on. The marginal benefit from meeting unmet demand is
higher than the marginal benefit from substitution of expensive generation. The
marginal benefit may eventually become zero, implying that even if coal is
produced, it would not be utilized. Given the marginal cost characteristics of coal
production for the mines (which is nonlinear, implying that every additional ton is
costlier to produce), the optimal production increase is at the level where marginal
cost and benefit are equal.

Coal Supp[y Linkage

The benefit from strengthening of coal linkages [parameter T R P n m , g ) in t h e
model] o r new linkages can be obtained. If the cost associated with it is known, the
planner may decide whether it is worth doing so.

Marplm Benun -
Unmel Ensrgy Cost

Marglnd Benem
Substhutlon d
-
Expenah Generatiat
Marginal Cost or B e n d Marplnal Cost d Rodunion
RSJ ton

Figure 3. The short-run coal production capacity expansion.

 Operational Planning of Power System 71

Alternative Maintenance Schedules

The maintenance scheduling of generating units in a real-life system may have to
consider several other constraints (crew availability, etc.) and may deviate from the
pooled maintenance schedule suggested. The alternative maintenance schedule
[which essentially means different sets of capacity availability (parameter AVAIL,
in the model)] can be compared in terms of the total system cost (objective COST
in the model) resulting.

Interarea Transmission Link

The cost and reliability benefits from strengthening interarea transmission links
(parameter T,, in the model) can be enumerated. The annualized capacity cost and
the annual cost benefits can be compared to check whether such a transmission
link is needed.

.
Evaluation of Demand-Side Management Options
The planner can compare between supply- and demand-side options (e.g.,

. whether to build a new plant or encourage cogeneration by industry).

Comparison among various sets of DSM options in terms of cost, emission,
and reliability benefits.
The time period of application of various DSM options is also known from
the model, and this is important for utility-controlled options like direct load
control, time of use tariff setting, and curtailable tariff. In case the utility
does not have direct control, indirect approaches are still possible; for
example, if the MW and MWh savings from cogeneration in various time
blocks are known from the model, the industries may be encouraged to use
their cogeneration facility during such hours through some incentive or
legislation.

Unmet Energy Distribution Among Areas

The cost of unmet energy (parameter OCi in the model) is different for different
end uses, the opportunity cost of not having electricity being different. Since each
area (region) differs in terms of share of various end-use consumption, the outage
cost varies from area to area. If there is not adequate capacity to meet the
electricity demand, the distribution of unmet energy over various areas in a way to
minimize the total losses due to outage is important. For example, if an area is
highly industrialized with a high outage cost, the neighboring areas with lower
outage cost may supply power, keeping part of its own demand unmet so that
monetary losses of the system as a whole are minimized. Of course, such transfers
are limited by transmission capacity available. The outage cost may also vary with
level of outage (MW) and duration of outage, and such features can also be
incorporated.

Conclusion
Utilization of existing capacity in a power system in the best possible manner
meeting a number of criteria is of prime importance for an economy. The present
72 D. Chattopadhyay

approach for short-term operational planning of a power system (multiarea)

integrates the various related activities ranging from fuel production t o demand-side
management in a multiobjective framework. A compromise programming approach
is adopted to arrive at the best compromise between the three noncompensatory
objectives-minimizing cost, emission, and loss of load expectation. T h e model
uses a systems approach to integrate interdependent activities like coal production
and transportation, power plant unitwise maintenance and generation scheduling,
interarea transfer scheduling, demand-side management option selection, and
unmet energy distribution among areas. The model is developed with special
reference t o the Indian power system, which has a large share of coal-based
generation (about 62%), a coal transport cost that is a significant share of the total
cost, different areas (state electricity boards) operating independently in terms of
maintenance scheduling and power transfer, and DSM measures that a r e yet t o
find a place in operational planning. The model can be useful for various policy
analyses related to operational planning, namely quantifying trade-offs between the
conflicting objectives, coal mine production capacity expansion in the short run,
comparing alternative maintenance schedules, decisions related to establishing or
strengthening new coal supply linkages and interarea transmission lines, evaluation
of DSM options, and unmet energy distribution among areas.

Acknowledgment
I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments by the two anonymous referees of
the journal review committee. However, I am responsible for any remaining errors.

References
Amagai, H., and P. Lcung. 1989. Multiple criteria analysis for Japan's electric power
gcncration mix. Eneay Systems crnd Policy 13(3):219-236.
Cadogan, J., and L. Eisenberg. 1977. Sulphur oxide emissions management for electric
power systems. IEEE Tram. PAS 96(2):393-401.
Climaco, J., A. Gomes Martins, and A. de Alemida. 1990. On the use of multicriteria for
electrical energy planning. Internutiunal Journal of Global en erg^ lssrres 2(3):194-203.
Dchannc, J. 1980. Application of generalised transhipment and integer programming algo-
rithm in regional energy planning models. Proceedings of the IIASA/IFAC Symposium
on Modelling of Large Scale Energy Systems 12:401-409.
El-Shiekhi, F. A,, and R. Billinton. 1983. Generation unit maintenances scheduling for single
and interconnected systems. IEEE Trans. PAS. PAS-103:1038-1044.
Gent, M. K., and J. W. Larnont. 1971. Minimum emission dispatch. IEEE Trans. PAS.
PAS-90:2650-2660.
Heslin, J. S., and B. F. Hobbs. 1989. A multiobjcctive production costing model for analyzing
c&ission dispatching and fuel switching. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 4(3):836-842.
Hill, L. J., E. Hirst, and M. Schweitzer. 1992. Thc process of integrating DSM and supply
resources in the electrical utility planning. Utilities Policy 2(2):100-107.
Hoffman, K. C. 1980. Planning and analysis of energy research and development programs.
Proceedings of the IIASA/IFAC Symposium on Modelling of Large Scale Energy Systenzs
l2:2Sl-264.
Petrovic, R., and B. Krajl. 1993. Economic and environmental power dispatch. European
Journal of Operational Research 64:2-11.
Ruanc, J., and M. Whyte. 1985. Evaluation of demand side management. Proc. IEEE
73(10):1489-1495.
 Operational Planning of Power System 73

Sinha, J. 1991. Integrating supply and demand resources in long term resourcc planning.
Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy 1(2):125-138.
Wadhva, C. I-., and N. K. Jain. 1990. Multiple objective optimal load flow: A new
perspective. IEE Proc. C 137:13-18.
Yokoyama, R., S. H. Bae, T. Morita, and H. Sasaki. 1988. Multiobjectivc optimal generation
dispatch based on probability security criteria. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 3:317-324.
Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple Crileria Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

View publication stats