Generation Planning Model Including Frequency
Stability Constrains to Mitigate Large-Scale
Integration of Photovoltaic Plants
Marcelo Cortés-Carmona, MIEEE Marcelo Cortés-Olivares
Depto. Ingeniería Eléctrica Depto. Ingeniería Eléctrica
Universidad de Antofagasta Universidad de Antofagasta
Antofagasta, Chile Antofagasta, Chile
marcelo.cortes@uantof.cl marcelo.cortes.023@gmail.com
Abstract—In the last two decades, electricity systems have
undergone structural changes due to the incorporation of large-
scale variable generation technologies (VGTs). Some of the VGT
such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind power produces undesirable
effects in the system. In power systems, synchronous generators
are the primary sources of inertia. During power imbalance, the
inertia of the generators prevents frequency stability issues. The
VGTs do not naturally provide inertia, so when their participation
in the production matrix is high; the system loses robustness since
the inertia is decreased. This paper proposes a generator-planning
model that includes the effects of lower inertia due to the increase
of VGTs. The objective is to obtain a limited frequency deviation
during contingencies. The proposed model adds restrictions
related to the frequency variation to the capacity of the units that
are in fault. The simulations show that to comply with the specified
frequency deviations, the model must oversize the park in the
order of 13 % in small meshed systems, while in real size systems
the oversize is in the order of 1 %.
Index Terms--Frequency regulation, inertial response, power
generation planning, renewable energy sources.
I. INTRODUCTION
Large-scale integration of variable generation technologies
(VGTs) brings significant challenges. Solar photovoltaic (PV)
and wind power bring economic and environmental benefits.
However, they have limitations in terms of service continuity,
increases in uncertainty, and reduced system inertia. The
generation of energy through conventional technologies use
synchronous generators, which are the primary source of inertia
in power systems. The inertia gives to the system the capacity to
dispose of an inertial response against disturbances. Wind
generation systems use converters that decouple the frequency
associated with the rotational mass of the turbine from the
frequency of the grid, while PV systems produce electrical
energy through direct transformation, so both technologies do
not provide inertia to the system [1] [2].
Currently, the reduction of inertia produced by the VGTs,
are being addressed with different techniques in the short term.
The work developed in [3] studies the impact that large-scale
photovoltaic plants have on frequency stability by incorporating
inertial response through a deloaded operation. This means that
This work was supported in part by projects CONICYT/FONDAP 15110019
Solar Energy Research Center SERC-Chile and ING2030 CORFO 16ENI2-
71940.
978-1-5386-8218-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Jorge Vega, GS IEEE Jessica Guevara-Cedeño, MIEEE
Depto. Ingeniería Eléctrica Depto. Ingeniería Eléctrica
Universidad de Antofagasta Universidad Tecnológica Panamá
Antofagasta, Chile Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá
jorge.vega@uantof.cl jessica.guevara@utp.ac.pa
the PV units operate at a sub-optimal point, which creates a
power margin that can be used as a reserve during contingencies.
In [4], the impact of VGTs on frequency control and their
capacity to support frequency is analyzed. For the authors, it is
evident the deterioration of the inertia of the system when
increasing the VGTs. They also mention that the effect of
renewables is more noticeable when the demand is low since the
use of renewables displaces traditional generation. Therefore,
there is a decrease in the inertia of the system.
Energy storage systems have been proposed to address the
frequency issues due to the penetration of VGTs. In [5], the use
of storage elements such as batteries, supercapacitors,
superconducting coils, and flywheels of inertia is discussed.
Several control strategies for frequency control based on energy
storage systems are proposed in [6]-[9]. These strategies aim to
improve the inertia response of the system using hybrid energy
storage, composed of batteries and supercapacitors.
Other control strategies of VGT have been proposed to give
support for frequency control. The concept of synthetic or
virtual inertia appears from these strategies. In [10], the authors
develop a mathematical model that focuses on providing inertia
to the system as a service. Similar developments are found in
[11], [12] and [13]. In [14] it is stated that although the use of
synthetic inertia is beneficial in the system, it does not avoid the
worst-case scenarios in terms of frequency drop, so it proposes
further research.
An interesting work oriented to cost-risk is the one presented
in [15], where the authors present a cost-risk optimization model
that can adequately balance the benefits of diversification of
energy sources and the costs of security, including the
preservation of the system's inertia levels.
In the current literature, work has focused on counteracting
the negative effects of VGTs in the short term. However, it has
not contemplated analyzing frequency stability as a design
variable in generation expansion planning.
This work has been based on the planning models developed
in [16], [17] and on the robust unit commitment model presented
in [18]. The latter presents a robust unit commitment model that
includes frequency stability constraints, which is applied in this
paper. The proposed idea is to include the methodology
proposed in [18] in a generation planning model.
 This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
frequency stability constraint used in the proposed generation
expansion-planning model. Section III presents the
mathematical generation planning model. In section IV, the
proposed model is validated by means of a small-scale example.
In section V, the model is applied to a real size system. Finally
in section VI, the conclusions obtained in this research are
presented.
II. STABILITY CONSTRAINT APPLIED TO GENERATION
EXPANSION PLANNING
The use of stability constraints has been applied in the
context of unit commitment. In this section, we present the
stability constraint developed for the unit commitment, which
has been modified for planning. This constraint is given by:
∆ á
, + , ≤ ∙∑ ∙ ∙ , (1)
where , is the generation of unit i during period t in the
scenario . , is the positive secondary reserve provided by
unit i during period t in the scenario , ∆ á is the maximum
deviation of frequency in Hertz, a’ and b are constants obtained
from a linear regression, is the state of unit i in period t (after
contingency). is the inertial constant of unit i (in seconds),
is the nominal power of the unit i (in MVA) and is the
common base of the system (in MVA).
The constants a’ and b are obtained using linear regression.
This is applied to historical contingency records of the system
under study. Fig. 1 shows the frequency deviations for different
power imbalances in the system studied in [18], where ∆ is the
power imbalance in p.u, normalized by the system inertia
constant after the contingency, and ∆ is the deviation of the
frequency in Hz.
The stability constraint shown in (1) is based on the
assumption that the rate of change of the frequency (ROCOF)
during the first seconds has a direct influence on the nadir
frequency after a power imbalance occurred. Furthermore, it is
assumed that loads do not provide an inertial response.
Immediately after a contingency, the mechanical power of prime
movers does not change during the first seconds after the failure
occurred.
The constraint shown in (1) must be modified to be applied
in the generation expansion planning. This modification is
made to maintain coherence. In order to simplify the notation,
the expression , + , will be denoted by , , which
represents the power injected by the generator l in the block k
before a contingency. The superscript , which represents the
scenarios, will not be used. The term refers to the nominal
power of a generator, which in this case becomes decision
variables, that is, capacity of the unit i. On the other hand, the
binary variable plays no role in this case, thus it is not
considered in the planning process.
Finally, the equation used for the planning is:
∆ M
, ≤ á
∙∑ ∙ ; , ∈ , ≠ , = 1, . ,
Figure 1. Maximum deviation of the frequency as a function of ∆x⁄H .
where , is the power injected by the generator l in the block k
before the contingency, is the capacity of the candidate unit i,
is the power in a common base of the system, M is the number
of blocks of the load duration curve and N represents the total
set of generators. Equation (2) aims to limit the power injection
of generating plants according to the level of inertia of the
synchronized generators in the system.
III. MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR EXPANSION PLANNING
INCLUDING STABILITY CONSTRAINTS
The proposed planning model (OGPLDC) uses the Load
Duration Curve (LDC) methodology. This methodology allows
modeling the system by representing the demand in a non-
chronological way. The operating cost of each plant depends on
the type of technology only and power generated. To further
simplify the problem, demand can be ordered in descending
order. Thus, it allows a representation of the total demand curve
in fewer blocks [16].
The objective function of the OGPLDC contains two parts:
planning and operation. Planning is made up of the sum of the
investment costs of the plants under construction (candidate
plants). The operation consists of the sum of the operation costs
of the plants. Equation (3) shows the objective function of the
optimization problem.
min{ =∑ +∑ ∑ (3)
where:
ai : Annualized investment cost of central i, in
[US$/MWh]
bi : Central operating cost i in [US$/MWh]
Ci : Capacity of plant i in [MW]
Pik : Generation of plant i in block k in [MW]
Dmax : Maximum system demand in [MW]
Sk : Number of hours in block k, in hours
Lk : Height of block k, in [MW]
N1 : Number of candidate or new plants
N : Total number of plants (existing and new)
: Number of blocks of LDC.
, (2)
 This model is subject to the restrictions detailed below. frequency added to the planning model. In this case, it is shown
Equation (4) states that the power of the generator park must be how the stability constraints are applied to two different power
higher, or at least equal, to the maximum demand of the system. plants in the same block. This means that it is designed for a
The current unit capacity is subtracted from the maximum double simultaneous fault. However, depending on the
demand, so it is assumed that the current generators cover part objective, it could be applied to any number of machines.
of the maximum demand. Also, the peak presence factor (PPF) Typically, it is considered only one unit in fault (criterion N-1).
is considered, which weights each technology by a factor Equation (10) is divided into two cases. If the power plant in
(between 0 and 1) that determines the real participation of those fault is a candidate, what is determined is the capacity of the unit,
so in this case (10) it remains unchanged. Conversely, if the
technologies that are present during peak demand.
faulty power plant is existent, then the term is replaced by
max á
∑ ∙ ≥ max −∑ ∙ (4) , which corresponds to the maximum power that the unit i
can supply. For this example, it is considered that the existing
PPF is the peak presence factor of central i and is the power plant is number 4.
capacity of the current plant j, in MW.
Equation (5) ensures that the power output of the candidate It is considered a system with two demand blocks, where
block 1 has a demand of 70 MW and width 2121 hours, while
plants does not exceed the capacity of the technology.
block 2 has a demand of 30 MW and width 6639 hours. Power
− ≥ 0; = 1, … , 1, = 1, … , (5) plant data are presented in Table I, where the investment annuity
was calculated with a 10% discount rate, and a useful life of 30
Equation (6) presents the energy balance of each block. years. Finally, the value of ∆ á was set at 0.5 [Hz], a’ = 21
Here, the production of each plant is multiplied by its respective and b = 0.4817.
capacity factor (CF).
TABLE I. SYSTEM GENERATOR DATA FOR THE EXAMPLE
∑ ∙ ∙ ≥ ∙ ; = 1, … , , (6)
Capacity H bi ai
where is the capacity factor of the central i. N° Type
[MW] [s] [USD/MWh] [USD/kW]
Equation (7) establishes the production lower limit of 1 Candidate 250 3 50 1200
renewable technologies, a requirement imposed by law in Chile 2 Candidate 250 4 90 300
that obliges the production of more than this limit with 3 Candidate 250 5 10 1000
4 Existing 10 3 50 -
renewable sources.
The results for this example are shown in Table II. In this
∑ ∙ ∙ ≥ ∙ ∙ ; = 1, . , (7) case, the stability restriction was activated for all power plants
is the generation of the renewable power plant i, in block with the purpose of contrasting the results with the original case.
k in MW. FNCRE is the factor of participation in the production TABLE II. RESULTS OF THE PLANNING OF THE SYSTEM EXAMPLE.
of energy of the renewable energy required by the Law.
Capacity without Capacity with
Equation (8) imposes the limits of capacity for the candidate N° Type
constraint [MW] constraint [MW]
plants. 1 Candidate 0 26,5
max 2 Candidate 0 250
0≤ ≤ ; = 1, … 1 (8) 3 Candidate 70 27,4
4 Existing 10 10
Equation (9) establishes the production limits of the existing
plants.
In this simple example, the effect of considering stability
0≤ ≤ ; = 1 + 1, … , , = 1, … (9) restrictions is demonstrated, which results in an oversized
generation park.
Finally, the stability restriction specifies that the energy
contribution of the plant l may not exceed the value specified in min{ + + +
(10). + + + + (11)
, , , , , , , ,
∆ á
, ≤ ∙∑ ∙ ; , ∈ , ≠ (10) , , + , , + , , + , , }

where , is the power supplied by the generator l in the block Subject to:
k before the contingency, in p.u.
á
+ + ≥ á −
A. Small application example , ≤ ; , ≤ ; , ≤
In order to clarify the mode of use of the equations, a small ≤ ; ≤ ; , ≤ (12)
, ,
system is presented as an example. This system consists of 4 ∙ , + ∙ , + ∙ , + ∙ , ≥ ∙
plants (3 candidates, 1 existing) and two demand blocks of ∙ , + ∙ , + ∙ , + ∙ , ≥ ∙
height L and width S. It is desired to find the size of the pool that
0≤ ≤ á ;0≤ ≤ á ;0≤ ≤ á
minimizes the investment and operation costs. Equation (11) á á
shows the objective function, while (12) shows the constraints 0≤ , ≤ ; 0≤ , ≤
of the problem. Equation (13) shows the stability constraints of
 á Table IV shows that integrating the stability restriction
∆ á − produces an oversize of 13.3% in the capacity of the generators,
, ≤ ∙ + +
(13) and because it is a traditional system without VGTs, it increases
á
systemic inertia.
∆ á −
, ≤ ∙ + +
B. Scenario 2: Planning of system A with VGT.
Considering VGTs, the results obtained from the generation
IV. VALIDATION OF THE GENERATION PLANNING MODEL planning changes considerably compared to the case without
INCLUDING STABILITY CONSTRAINTS VGTs. In Table V, the obtained results for this scenario are
For the validation of the model, a small system is considered shown.
with 5 power plants of different technologies and several load TABLE V. PLANNING OF SYSTEM A WITH TGV.
bars (system A, from now on), with a maximum demand of 600
[MW]. This problem was extracted from [19], exercise 11.18, to Case Installed capacity [MW] H total [s]
which some modifications were made. The original frequency S/R 1639 24
C/R 1836 28
of 60 [Hz] was maintained as all data refer to that frequency.
The details of the capacities, inertia constants, operating costs
and system investment are presented in Table III. It can be seen that without considering stability constraints,
there is more installed capacity than in the similar case without
The candidate generating units are similar to those shown in VGT; however, the total system inertia is lower due to the install
Table III. However, the generation units 3 and 5 are changed by capacity of PV generation units. This overestimation is different
photovoltaic (PV) generation. The maximum technical limit from the one produced by the stability constraint which is caused
imposed on PV plants is 100 [MW], with an investment cost of by the Capacity Factor (CF) and the Peak Presence Factor (PPF).
1640 USD/kW, an operation cost of 7 [USD/MWh], and These factors in a duration curve model, operate as energy and
assuming no inertial contribution. It is assumed that there are 5 system power weight, forcing the optimization model to increase
candidate generation units for each technology. the installed capacity to compensate for the lower generation of
TABLE III. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SYSTEM A. VGTs. The overestimation due to the presence of VGTs is 31%.
On the other hand, the effect of the overestimation by including
Type of Capacity H ai stability constraints and presence of VGTs is 12%. The
N° bi [USD/MWh]
unit [MW] [s] [USD/kW]
1 Coal 100 3 3000 50
combined effect is of 47%, this means that the system with
2 Hydropower 200 4 4000 0 VGTs and stability constraints is compared with itself but
3 Coal 100 3 3000 50 without VGTs and stability constraints.
4 Gas 100 2 1200 70
5 Gas 100 2 1200 70 C. Sensivity analysis
In order to better understand how the model works, a
The generation expansion planning is carried out for a time sensitivity analysis is performed under two critical conditions.
horizon of 22 years, where maximum demand reaches a value The planning of system A without VGTs has been taken as a
of 1219 [MW], assuming 3% of annual growth. This system has reference.
5 demand blocks, where the maximum demand is 1219 [MW].
1) Reduction of constant inertias
As described in section II, a linear fitting is needed from the The inertia of some conventional candidate generation units
historical faults of the system A. Since this is a hypothetical (coal, hydro, gas) is reduced to zero. We aim that the model finds
system, random faults are carried out with different levels of other generation plants with high inertia to supply the load and
power loss and at different locations. For each fault, time domain the system inertia. Once this is done, the model plans the same
simulations are carried out to study system stability and to units, and there is no variation in the configuration of system A.
determine the frequency nadir. Thus, the constant a’ and b
obtained were 10.23 and 0.4817 respectively. The constant a’ To deepen analysis, the inertia of existing plants is reduced
was modified by inspection to make the constraint slightly to zero. In this case, the system planning is similar to previous
stricter, taking a new value of a’= 21 results, choosing the same generation plants as in the original
case without VGTs and with stability constraints. It is evident
A. Scenario 1: Traditional system without VGT that the complete new planned system has no inertia.
If VGT presence is not considered, then the planning of 2) Modification of operation costs
system A is as shown in Table IV, where "S/R" refers to without In this case, we consider the existing traditional plants
stability constraint and “C/R" is the opposite case. The stability without inertia and the new plants that were planned with their
constraint was activated for only one generation unit, the original values of inertia. Besides, we reduce the variable cost
existing hydropower plant. and the inertia constant to zero in the unplanned generation
TABLE IV. PLANNING OF SYSTEM A WITHOUT TGV. units. The obtained results show that the model changes the
configurations of the system and plans new generation units,
Case Installed capacity [MW] H total [s] without inertia, and lower variable costs.
S/R 1.219 28
C/R 1.416 32
 This analysis shows that the decision-making criteria of the
optimization model is purely economic and does not
discriminate the solution in favor of the inertia of the system.
This is due to the inertia is included as constrain, and its effects
in the generation planning decision consist on oversize the total
generation capacity. An alternative to model these issues may be
including an equation that represents the stability constraints in
the objective function.
V. APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY TO A LARGE-SCALE
POWER
This section applies the proposed methodology to a real
large-scale power system. The two power systems from Chile
are analyzed, the SING and the SEN.
A. The interconnected power system of northern Chile (SING)
The SING has an installed capacity of 5,025 [MW], in which
48% corresponds to thermal generation through coal, 30% to
natural gas (LNG), 7% to photovoltaic solar and the rest to other
technologies. The percentage of VGTs in the system is of 13 %
corresponding to photovoltaic and wind power plants. The
maximum load in the system during the year 2018 was of 2874
[MW] [20] [21]. One of the main characteristics of this system
is that it has a longitudinal topology.
The SING is planned for the year 2046, wherein the total
maximum load reaches to 5828 [MW] [20] [21]. The values of
the constants a’ and b for the stability constraints are obtained
from the data related to the system contingencies [1]. The
stability constraint has been applied to the largest power plant in
the system. This is Kelar power plant and has a rated capacity of
517 [MW]. Table VI shows the SING planning for the year 2046
of the base case including the stability constraint.
TABLE VI. PLANNING OF THE SING FOR 2046
System [MW]
Maximum
Hsys [s]
Ratio of inertia
demand [s/MW]
SING 2018 2.874 5.025 256.9 0,0511
S/R 5.828 13.275 418.8 0,0315
SING 2046
C/R 5.828 13.345 422.9 0,0317
Given all the elements that interact in the optimization
model, it is observed an overestimation in both cases; in the base
case and when the stability constraints are included. However,
since the system is a large-scale system, the differences between
the base case and the case considering stability constraints are
only of the 0.52 % of the total installed generation capacity. This
in turn makes that the stability constraints in the large-scale
system are not significant impacts regarding the generation
expansion planning. The ratio of inertia is an indicator that
express a quantity in [s] by [MW] installed. This ratio decreases
in 2046 due to the increase of installed capacity of VGTs.
B. National Electric System (SEN)
The interconnection of the SING with the SIC (Central
Interconnected System) took place at the end of 2017, thus
leading to a new large electrical system in Chile, the National
Electrical System (SEN). The SEN has an installed capacity of
22902 [MW], in which 31% corresponds to hydraulic
generation, 21 % corresponds to coal generation, 16 %
corresponds to diesel generation, 15 % to gas generation, 7% to
wind generation, 7 % to photovoltaic generation, and the
remainder installed capacity corresponds to others type of
generation technologies. The maximum total load of the system
during 2018 reaches to 10.242 [MW] [20] [21]. In this system,
the longitudinal characteristic is even more pronounced reaching
a value of 3600 [km].
This system is also planned for the year 2046, where
maximum demand would reach 20,890 [MW] [20] [21]. For
constants a’ and b, the SING values are considered, since the
SEN is a new system and does not have enough data related to
the contingencies to model an equation. The stability constraint
has been applied to the Ralco power plant. This is a hydraulic
generation unit and it is the largest power plant in the system
with a rated capacity of 539 [MW]. We perform simulations
with and without stability constraints; the results show that there
is no change in the planning concerning to the base case. These
results are due to the overestimation of the generation power
plants, which makes that the impacts of the generation units
subjected to stability constraints being negligible concerning the
total capacity of the system. Therefore, the stability constraints
do not impact significantly in the results obtained by the model.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a mathematical model for the generation
expansion-planning problem is developed. The model includes
frequency stability constraints in order to mitigate the inertia
reduction introduced by the VGTs. The simulations show that
to comply with the specified frequency deviations, the model
must oversize the park in the order of 13 % in small meshed
systems, while in real size systems the oversize is in the order
of 1 %. It is therefore concluded that the model responds
adequately to the objective of maintaining a frequency
deviation below a certain threshold.
In order to improve the methodology proposed in future
research, frequency stability restrictions using hourly demand
profiles will be included.
On the other hand, in order to improve the sensitivity of the
model to inertia, the constraint will be included in the objective
function, a problem that will be solved using multi-objective
optimization.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] F. Pérez-Illanes, “Efectos de incluir requerimientos de respuesta
inercial en el predespacho de sistemas de potencia con energías
renovables no convencionales,” Pregrado dissertation, Dept. Electrical
Eng., Univ. Chile, 2015.
[2] A. C. Bugueño, “Respuesta inercial de sistemas de potencia con grandes
inyecciones de generación fotovoltaica,” Pregrado dissertation, Dept.
Electrical Eng., Univ. Chile, 2013.
[3] C. Rahmann y A. Castillo, “Fast frequency response capability of
photovoltaic power plants: The necessity of new grid requirements and
definitions,” Energies, vol. 7, nº 10, pp. 6306-6322, 2014.
[4] P. Tielens y D. V. Hertem, “Grid inertia and frequency control in power
systems with high penetration of renewables,” in Proc. 2012 Young
Researchers Symposium in Electrical Power Engineering, pp. 1-6.
[5] M. Farhadi y O. Mohammed, “Energy storage systems for high power
applications,” in Proc. 2015 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting.
[6] J. Hernández, F. Sáchez-Sutil y P. Bueno, “Large photovoltaic systems
providing frequency containment reserves,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE PES
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC).
[7] X. Zhou, C. Dong, J. Fang y Y. Tang, “Enhancement of load frequency
control by using a hybrid energy storage system,” in Proc. 2017 Asian
Conference on Energy, Power and Transportation Electrification
(ACEPT).
[8] X. Wang, M. Yu y E. Muljadi, “PV generation enhancement with a
virtual inertia emulator to provide inertial response to the grid,”» in
Proc. 2014 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition
(ECCE).
[9] Y. Wen, W. Li, G. Huang y X. Liu, “Frequency dynamics constrained
unit commitment with battery energy storage,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 31, nº 6, pp. 5115-5125, 2016.
[10] T. Xu, W. Jang y T. Overbye, “Commitment of fast-responding storage
devices to mimic inertia for the enhacement of primary frequency
response,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, nº 2, pp.
1219-1230, 2017.
[11] I. Taczi, “Enhancing power system frequency stability with synthetic
inertia,” in Proc. 2017 EUROCON 2017 -17th International
Conference on Smart Technologies.
[12] I. Vokony, “Effect of inertia deficit on power system stability -
synthetic inertia concepts analysis,” in Proc. 2017 6th International
Youth Conference on Energy (IYCE).
[13] E. Riquelme y H. Chávez, “Towards system-wise synthetic inertia
models to study power system frequency response,” in Proc. 2017
CHILEAN Conference on Electrical, Electronics Engineering,
Information and Communication Technologies (CHILECON).
[14] F. Gonzalez-Longatt, “Effects of the synthetic inertia from wind power
on the total system inertia: Simulation study,” in Proc. 2012 2nd
International Symposium On Environment Friendly Energies And
Applications.
[15] A. Inzunza, R. Moreno, A. Bernales y H. Rudnick, “CVar constrained
planning of renewable generation with consideration of system inertial
response, reserve services and demand participation,” Energy
Economics, vol. 59, pp. 104-117, 2016.
[16] Á. F. Quiroz, «Planificación de la expansión en generación en
escenarios de alta penetración de energías renovables,» M.Sc
dissertation, Dept. Electrical Eng., Univ. Chile, 2014.
[17] C. R. Araya, “Evaluación de la integración de energía renovable no
convencional en el sistema integrado nacional chileno,” Pregrado
dissertation, Dept. Electrical Eng. Univ. Antofagasta, 2015.
[18] F. Pérez-Illanes, E. Álvarez-Miranda, C. Rahmann y C. Campos-
Valdés, “Robust unit commitment including frequency stability
constraints,” Energies, vol. 9, nº 11, p. 957, 2016.
[19] H. Saadat, Power System Analysis, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1999, pp.
460-526.
[20] Ministerio de Energía, (2018), Planificación energética de largo plazo.
[En línea]. Available: http://pelp.minenergia.cl/informacion-del-
proceso/insumos-para-proyecciones.
[21] Coordinador Eléctrico Nacional. (2018). Coordinador Eléctrico
Nacional. [Online]. Available: https://www.coordinador.cl/.