Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No.
4, November 1991
15’18
A Reliability Test System For Educational Purposes - Spinning
Reserve Studies in Isolated and Interconnected Systems
N. Chowdhury
Power Systems Research Group
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7N OW0
Abstract - Operating reserve in a system is
requ’lred to make the system capable of handling
unforeseen load changes and possible outages of
generation. This paper presents the basic results of
an assessment of operating reserve requirements in a
small reliability test system. Results are presented
for both isolated and interconnected configurations.
The results presented in this paper provide a basic
understanding of probabilistic assessment of operating
reserve requirements and can be included in a power
systems reliability teaching program.
Keywords: Reliability test system, operating
reserve, spinning reserve, interconnected system, unit
commitment risk and response risk.
INTRODUCTION
The basic objective of an electric power system is
to generate and supply electrical energy to its
customers as economically as possible with an
acceptable degree of reliability and quality. In
general, the ability of the system to provide an
adequate supply of electrical energy is designated by
the term reliability. The concept of p e r system
reliability covers numerous aspects of power system
performance with respect to satisfying the wide
variety of customer demands. Due to the wide ranging
implications of the term reliability, power system
reliability is divided into two basic aspects; system
adequacy and system security. System adequacy relates
to the existence of sufficient. generation,
transmission and distribution facilities within the
system to satisfy the load demand. Adequacy
evaluation does not take system disturbances into
account. Security evaluation deals with the
responding capability of a system to perturbations
arising within the system. Adequacy evaluation has
received much attention in the past years. There has
been relatively little published material on security
evaluation. This paper deals with spinning reserve
assessment which falls in the domain of security
evaluation.
The material presented in this paper can be used
to good advantage in a graduate teaching and research
program. These concepts and the results obtained for
the educational test system presented in Reference 1
can be utilized in a graduate level course on power
system ’Peliability or used in conjunction with a
course in economic system operation. The results
91 SM 3 0 9 - 5 PWRS A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power Engineering Education Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1991 Summer Meeting, San Diego,
California, July 28 - August 1, 1991. Manuscript
submitted January 2 4 , 1991; made available for
printing April 16, 1991.
O885-8950/91$01.WO1991 IEEE
R. Billinton
presented in this paper could be used as datum against
which the effectiveness or success of other computer
programs can be judged before utilizing the programs
to study more complex systems. A one-term graduate
course on the subject of power system reliability
evaluation is offered at the University of
Saskatchewan. Reference 2 is used as the basic text
for this graduate class and in supplemented by
additional texts and published materials. The
graduate class covers all the basic concepts required
for an understanding of the subject matter of this
paper. Three one-hour lectures would be required to
present the material in this paper in a class room
environment once the prerequisites are adequately
covered. The concepts then can be applied to perform
small projects OK assignments.
A number of deterministic methods are presently
used to establish the spinning reserve requirements in
a power system. Deterministic approaches do not
specifically take into account the likelihood of
component failure in the assessment of
spinning/operating reserve. The emphasis when using a
deterministic approach to unit commitment and spinning
reserve assessment is to minimize the total operating
cost and in doing so a system faces different degrees
of risk throughout the day. A probabilistic approach
can be used to recognize the stochastic nature of
system components and to incorporate them in a
consistent evaluation of the spinning reserve
requirements. The actual magnitude and even the type
of spinning reserve is therefore determined on the
basis of system risk. This risk (unit commitment
risk) can be defined as the probability that the
system will fail to meet the load OK just be able to
meet the load for a specified time period.
The selection of a suitable risk level is somewhat
arbitrary as there is no simple direct relationship
between risk and corresponding worth and sufficient
Operating experience is required before arriving at a
particular risk level. The operating risk, however,
can be decreased by providing more spinning reserve,
i.e. scheduling more generating units. Decreasing the
risk level will result in increased operating cost.
The additional operating cost for any improvement in
reliability should be judged against the worth of the
improved reliability.
Multi-area unit commitment techniques do not
~Ormally involve probabilistic risk assessment.
Operating reserve requirements are usually based on
deterministic approaches in which the reserve is
specified as either a fixed margin OK some combination
of the capacities of the units in operation and the
system load. The set of generating units in different
systems of an interconnected pool are usually
different. The operating units in different systems
usually differ in their size, unavailability, response
rate etc. Deterministic approaches do not take these
factors into consideration in a consistent manner
during the allocation of spinning reserves between the
pool members. There exists, therefore, a possibility
that a system whose generating units are more likely
to fail than the units of its neighbor is neither

nmintaining an adequate spinning reserve nor buying it
from others. A system whose units are less likely to
fail than the units of its neighbor, however, may
carry more than its share of spinning reserve due to
the same reason. The fact may not be obvious to the
pool numbers due to the very nature of the
deterministic approach used. The basis of an
equitable sharing of spinning reserves among utilities
in an interconnected pool lies in the fact that two
generating units of identical size are not identical
as far as unit commitment and spinning reserve
requirement are concerned if one of them fails more
frequently than the other. The unit that fails more
often will carry a given load with a risk higher than
that of the other unit carrying an equal load. A new
probabilistic technique [ 3 ] has recently been
developed to assess the operating reserve requirements
in interconnected systems. The technique, designated
as the 'Two Risks Concept', involves the determination
of probabilistic risks at two different levels. AII
interconnected system is required to meet a Single
System Risk (SSR) in which possible assistance from
its neighbors is not taken into account. In addition,
the interconnected system is required to meet its
Interconnected System Risk (ISR) in which assistance
from its neighbors is considered.
1579
identical RBTS interconnected through a tie line. The
details of theoretical concepts and the related
methodologies are not presented in this paper. These
materials are covered in detail in Reference 4.
Spinning Reserve in the Isolated RBTS
The RBTS has 11 generating units of which 7 are
hydro units ranging from 5 MW to 40 MW. The hydro
units can be started, synchronized and loaded up to
the full output capacity in 5 minutes. The annual
peak load of the RBTS is 1 8 5 MW. The generating units
in the RBTS and the corresponding running cost data
are shown in Table I.
The hydro units which are not committed during a
scheduling period are considered as standby units
provided they are available. The standby units are
included in the spinning reserve requirement
assessment usirig the Area Risk Technique [ 2 1 .
Table 11 shows the units that must be committed in
the RBTS and the corresponding reserves for a load of
l10 The specified unit commitment risk is varied
from 0 . 1 to 0.0001 in discrete steps. The system lead
time is 240 minutes.

Table I1 Unit Commitment and Reserve in the RBTS

Spinning Reserve Assessment
~ ~~

The basic objective in using a probabilistic Unit No. of Total Spinning Ready
technique to evaluate unit commitment and spinning Conunitment Units Spinning Reserve Reserve
reserve requirements is to maintain the unit Risk Capacity
comnitment risk equal to or less than a certain (MW) (MW) (m)
specified value throughout the day. The magnitude of
the required spinning reserve depends among other
things on the specified unit commitment risk and the 0.1 4 120 10 50
time delay for additional capacity to be placed in 0.05 4 120 10 50
service. This delay is known as the system lead time. 0.01 4 120 10 50
In the case of a spinning reserve study, a capacity 0.005 4 120 10 50
model is built in the form of a capacity outage 0.001 4 120 10 50
probability table utilizing outage replacement rates. 0.0005 5 160 50 50
The unit commitment risk and spinning reserve can be 0.0001 5 160 50 50
found from the capacity outage probability table given
the forecast load. The available standby units (hydro
and rapid start units) form ready reserve which The RBTS must commit 4 units to meet its load of
together with spinning reserve is referred to as 110 MW with a specified unit commitment risk from 0.1
operating reserve. to 0.001. The spinning reserve is 10 MW and the ready
reserve is 50 MW.
This paper presents the basic results of spinning
reserve assessment in a reliability test system The RBTS must commit its 5th unit in addition to
designated as the RBTS [l]. Unit commitment for a the already committed four units when the specified
typical 24 hour period are presented. Results of unit commitment risk is changed to 0.0005 or 0.0001
spinning reserve assessment in an isolated RBTS are even though the system load stays at 110 MW. The
presented first. commitment of 5 units makes the spinning reserve 50
MW. The ready reserve stays at its previous value of
Spinning reserve requirement assessment in 50 MW. Table I11 shows similar results for a system
interconnected RETS is illustrated by utilizing two load of 130 MW.

Table I RETS Generating Units and Cost Data

Unit Unit Priority Failure Running Cost Cold Maximum Minimum Response
Size Type Loading Rate Parameter Start-up Output Output Rate
(M) Order (f/yr) a: b: c; cost ( $ ) (Mw) (MW) (MW/min)
40 hydro 1 3.0 0 0.50 0.0 0 40 0 8
20 hydro 2 2.4 0 0.50 0.0 0 20 0 4
20 hydro 3 2.4 0 0.50 0.0 0 20 0 4
40 thermal 4 6.0 26 12.00 0.01 70 40 10 2
40 thermal 5 6.0 28 12.00 0.01 75 40 10 2
20 thermal 6 5.0 16 12.25 0.02 36 20 5 1
10 thermal 7 4.0 14 12.50 0.02 30 10 3 1
20 hydro 8 2.4 0 0.50 0.0 0 20 0 4
20 hydro 9 2.4 0 0.50 0.0 0 20 0 4
5 hydro 10 2.0 0 0.50 0.0 0 5 0 1
5 hydro 11 2.0 0 0.50 0.0 0 5 0 1
1530

Table I11 Unit Commitment and Reserve in the RBTS forecast load. The load distribution can be
discretized into several class intervals fOK
computational simplicity. The probability associated
Unit No. of Total Spinning Ready with a class interval can be assigned to the load
representing the class interval mid-point. The load
Conunitment Units Spinning Reserve Reserve
Risk Capacity uncertainty in the RBTS is assumed to be normally
(MW) (MW) (m) distributed and the distribution has been approximated
by seven discrete steps as shown in Figure 1. The
distribution beyond f 3.5 standard deviation is
neglected. Table V shows the units that must be
0.1 5 160 30 50 committed in the RBTS when the forecast load has an
0.05 5 160 30 50 uncertainty of 4% of the forecast mean.
0.01 5 160 30 50
0.005 5 160 30 50
0.001 5 160 30 50 PROBABILITY GIVEN BY INDICATED AREA
0.0005 6 180 50 50
0.0001 6 180 50 50

Table IV shows the units that must be committed in

the RBTS for a specified unit commitment risk of 0.01.
The load in the RBTS is varied from 100 I.Iw to 160 MW
in steps of 5 MW.
Table IV Unit Commitment in the RBTS
(Specified unit conunitment risk = 0.01)
5 0 . OF S T A S D A R D DEVIATIONS
Load No. Total Spinning Spinning FROM T H E MEAN
Ready
(MW) of Spinning Reserve Reserve Reserve MEAN = FORECAST LOAD(MW)
units Capacity as a % of
(m) (m) Load (MW)
Fig 1 Seven-Step Approximation of the Normal
Distribution.
100 4 120 20 20.0 50
105 4 120 15 14.3 50 Table V Unit Commitment in the RBTS with Load
110 4 120 10 9.1 50 Forecast Uncertainty.
115 4 120 5 4.3 50
120 5 160 40 33.3 50
125 5 160 35 28.0 50 Load No. Total Spinning Spinning Ready
130 5 160 30 23.1 50 ( M W ) of Spinning Reserve Reserve Reserve
135 5 160 25 18.5 50 units Capacity as a % of
140 5 160 20 14.3 50 (MW) Load (MW)
145 5 160 15 10.3 50
150 5 160 10 6.7 50
155 5 160 5 3.2 50
160 6 180 20 12.5 50 100 4 120 20 20.0 50
105 4 120 15 14.3 50
110 4 120 10 9.1 50
Ready reserve in the RBTS is constant at 50 MW for 115 5 160 45 39.1 50
all loads between 100 MW and 160 MW. Spinning reserve 120 5 160 40 33.3 50
varies between 5 MW to 40 MW for the load levels shown 125 5 160 35 28.0 50
in Table IV. Spinning reserve as a percentage of load 130 5 160 30 23.1 50
varies between 3.2 to 33.3. When the load is 100 MW, 135 5 160 25 18.5 50
required spinning reserve is 20% of the load and this 140 5 160 20 14.3 50
proportion becomes 12.5% when the load is 160 MW. 145 5 160 15 10.3 50
Although spinning reserve requirements in Table IV 150 6 180 30 20.0 50
exhibit a non uniform relationship to the system load, 155 6 180 25 16.1 50
the specified unit commitment risk criteria is 160 6 180 20 12.5 50
satisfied for all cases. Spinning reserve requirement
is a complex function of unit sizes, unit failure
rates, load, system lead time etc. The spinning Unit commitment and spinning reserve requirements
reserve requirement usually varies with charges in the with a 4% load forecast uncertainty remain unchanged
unit loading order for a given generation set and at load levels of 100, 105 and 110 MW compared to the
load. results shown in Table IV. At a load level of 115 Mw
the RBTS is required to commit 5 units if the load
Unit commitment and spinning reserve assessment in forecast is associated with an uncertainty of 4%.
a pwer system is normally based on an advance Spinning reserve requirement is 39.1% of this load
estimate of hourly load variation within a short with 4 % load forecast uncertainty and 4.3% with a load
period of time, typically 24 hours. The prediction of forecast uncertainty of zero (Table IV). With a 4 %
future load is normally done on the basis of past data load forecast uncertainty, the spinning reserve
and weather forecasts. A certain degree of error requirement increases to 20% and 16.1% from 6.7% and
exists between the forecast and the actual load due to 3.2% with no load forecast uncertainty for respective
the random nature of system load, the non-linear loads of 150 MW and 155 MW.
relationship between load and weather changes and
inaccuracies in weather forecasting. Load forecast The ~ T may
S or may not he rpquired to commit
uncertainty can be approximated by a suitable additional units to meet a given load with load
distribution. The mean of the distribution is the forecast uncertainty compared to those without a load
 1581
forecast uncertainty. This fact among other things Table VI1 Unit Commitment in the RBTS (24 hour
depends upon the window between the specified unit Scheduling period)
commitment risk and the actual unit comnitment risk
that a system faces without any load forecast
uncertainty.
Hour Load No. of Spinning Ready
The load in a power system changes continuously (MW?w) Units Reserve (MW) Reserve (MW)
and it is not economical to run all the units required
to satisfy the peak load during the low load periods.
Depending upon the load levels, some units are put
into service at one time and may be removed at another
time of the day. The units in the various segments of 1 87 4 33 50
a scheduling period should be committed in such a way 2 85 4 35 50
that the operating cost is minimized with a 3 83 4 37 50
satisfactory level of reliability. There are many 4 80 4 40 50
generating unit factors which affect the unit 5 81 4 39 50
comnitment. They are in general, fuel price, heat 6 89 4 31 50
rate curve, start up cost, unit failure rate and the 7 99 4 21 50
time delay associated with starting, synchronizing and 8 117 4 3 50
loading. For a continuously changing load during a 9 131 5 29 50
scheduling period, the reliability constraint is first 10 136 5 24 50
satisfied. The unit commitment should be such that it 11 138 5 22 50
satisfies the unit commitment risk criteria. After 12 136 5 24 50
the reliability constraint is satisfied, a tentative 13 128 5 32 50
unit loading schedule in each commitment period is 14 127 5 33 50
prepared using dynamic programming to assess the 15 124 5 36 50
hourly running cost. The last step of this commitment 16 121 5 39 50
method is to check whether delaying or advancing the 17 124 5 36 50
starting and stopping of a certain unit results in a 18 127 5 33 50
saving in the running cost. If a saving is possible, 19 132 5 28 50
the commitment schedule is altered and another 20 135 5 25 50
tentative loading schedule is prepared. The checking 21 132 5 28 50
for readjustments of starting and stopping times of 22 124 5 36 50
units continues until no further savings are achieved. 23 110 4 10 50
A normalized cooling rate I51 of 0.25 per hour is 24 96 4 24 50
considered for all thermal units in the RBTS.
-
The rrcentiles of the hourly peak load on Monday reserves. In a multi-area interconnected system, each
during t e week #16 of the IEEE-RTS load model [6] individual system has to carry its own load and should
have been used as the load profile over a 24 hour be capable of assisting its neighbor such that the
period in the RBTS. The hourly peak load variations operating risk of the individual systems meet a
in a 24 hour period in the RBTS are given in Table IV. specified risk index. Two identical RBTS are utilized
The unit commitment and spinning reserve in the RBTS to illustrate the 'Two Risks Concept' in which two
during this 24 hour scheduling period are shown in risk indices are chosen; namely a Single System Risk
Table VII. The specified unit commitment risk is (SSR) and an Interconnected System Risk (ISR). Two
again 0.01. RBTS are interconnected through a 30 MW tie line. The
average failure rate of the tie line is 1 failure per
year. In this technique, the generating units are
Table VI Peak Load Variations in the RBTS in a 24 Hour selected in each RBTS such that it meets the SSR
Period criterion and then the assistance to each other is
considered to determine the ISR. The system more
Hour Load (MW) Hour Load (MW) removed from meeting its ISR is required to commit an
additional unit and the analysis continues until all
the systems meet the ISR criterion. If both RBTS are
1 87 13 128 equally removed from meeting the ISR, they are both
2 85 14 127 asked to commit an additional generating unit. Each
3 83 15 124 individual RBTS can make its own priority list for
4 80 16 121 unit commitment based on some economic and/or
5 81 17 124 operational considerations. The use of a SSR
6 89 18 127 criterion prior to considering the ISR provides a
7 99 19 132 consistent starting point for interconnected system
8 117 20 135 evaluation [ 3 ] .
9 131 21 132
10 136 22 124 For each ISR there could be three significantly
11 138 23 110 different situations in terms of SSR. The SSR are
12 136 24 96 such that the systems after interconnection, with the
generating units committed by each individual system
to satisfy their respective SSR, (a) just satisfy the
The load in the 24 hour period varies from 80 MW ISR; o r , ( b ) show the ISR lower than the specified
to 138 MW. The RBTS must commit 4 units during the ISR; or, (c) show the ISR higher than the specified
low load period and 5 units during the high load ISR. In situations (a) and (b) the number of
period. The spinning reserve requirement at 80 rm generating units to be committed is dictated by the
load is 40 bW and at 138 MW load is 22 Mii. Ready SSR. The system with a lower SSR than that of its
reserve is 50 MW over the 24 hour period. neighbor, therefore, will provide more assistance to
Spinning Reserve in the Interconnected RBTS its neighbor. This means that f o r two identical
systems with identical sets of generating units, the
System interconnections permit the participating system with a smaller SSR has to spin more generating
companies to export OK import energy f o r mutual capacity than the system with higher SSR for identical
benefit. In additi.on, the Zarticipating systems can load in the two systems. &spite being identical in
benefit in terms of reduced overall required spinning regard to generating units and load, one system has to
15x2
keep more spinning reserve than its neighbor because The spinning reserve requirement in RBTS-2 remains
of its decision to select a lower SSR than its constant at 20 MW even with a 4% load forecast
neighbor. It is, therefore, appropriate to have a uncertainty. The spinning reserve requirements in
single SSR for the pool numbers. RBTS-1 in general, have increased due to the 4% load
forecast uncertainty. The unit Commitment in RBTS-1
Table VI11 shows units that the two RBTS must increases to 6 units from 5 units for a load of 150 MW
comnit to satisfy a SSR of 0.01 and a ISR of 0.001. when a 4% uncertainty is included to the load
The two RBTS have been designated as RBTS-1 and forecast. This general conclusion may, however,
RBTS-2. A system lead time of 240 minutes is change with a change in the specified risk criteria
considered in both RBTS. The load in RBTS-1 is varied and/or the distribution associated with the load
from 100 MW to 160 MW in steps of 5 MW while the load forecast uncertainty.
in RBTS-2 is kept constant at 100 MW. A ready reserve
of 50 MW is available in both RBTS. The unit Unit commitment schedules in interconnected
comnitment in RBTS-2 remains constant at 4 units while systems with continually changing loads can be
the unit commitment in RBTS-1 varies from 4 to 6 obtained with the help of the ‘Two Risks Concept’.
units. Columns 7 and 8 show the respective spinning The reliability constraints are first satisfied in
reserves in FSTS-1 and RBTS-2. this approach. The number of units required to be
committed in an interconnected system are determined
Table VI11 Unit Commitment in Interconnected RBTS first from a table of loading order priorities for the
respective system. A priority unit loading order can
be prepared based on economic and system operating
factors. Different utilities use different approaches
Load ( M W ) No. of Units Capacity (MW) Spinning to prepare their priority order of unit commitment.
Reserve (MW) The unit commitment should be such that it satisfies
the SSR and ISR criteria. Hot reserve and rapid start
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 units are included in the unit commitment process
using the area risk technique. The number of units
required in each interconnected system is determined
in this manner for each commitment period.
100 100 4 4 120 120 20 20
105 100 4 4 120 120 15 20 After the reliability constraints are satisfied, a
110 100 4 4 120 120 10 20 tentative unit loading schedule in each comnitment
115 100 4 4 120 120 5 20 period is prepared using a similar approach to that
120 100 5 4 160 120 40 20 used in an isolated system. For the sake of
125 100 5 4 160 120 35 20 simplicity, all the hydro units in this paper are
130 100 5 4 160 120 30 20 considered to be run-of-the-river generating units
135 100 5 4 160 120 25 20 without any energy constraints. The checking for
140 100 5 4 160 120 20 20 readjustments of starting and stopping times of units
145 100 5 4 160 120 15 20 in both systems are done utilizing tentative loading
150 100 5 4 160 120 10 20 schedules. The tentative loading schedules are
155 100 5 4 160 120 5 20 obtained using the same approach as used in the case
160 100 6 4 180 120 20 20 of an isolated system. A normalized cooling rate [SI
of 0.25 per hour is considered for all thermal units
in both RBTS.
Table IX shows the units that must be committed in The hourly peak load variations in a 24 hour
RBTS-1 and RBTS-2 when the load has an uncertainty of period in RBTS-1 is considered to be identical to the
4% of the forecast mean. The load in each system has load profile given in Table VI. The hourly peak load
been assumed to be normally distributed and the variations in RBTS-2 during the same period are
distribution approximated by seven discrete steps as considered to be 20% more than the respective load
shown in Figure 1. levels in RBTS-1. Table x shows units that must be
committed in RBTS-1 and RBTS-2 during the 24 hour
period. The specified SSR is 0.01 and ISR is 0.001.
A ready reserve of 50 MW is available in both RBTS
Table IX Unit Commitment in Interconnected RBTS with during the 24 hour period.
Load Forecast Uncertainty
Load in RBTS-1 varies from 80 MW to 138 MW.
RBTS-1 must commit 4 units during its low load period
Load (MW) No. of Units Capacity ( M W ) Spinning and 5 units during its high load period. Load in
Reserve (MW) RBTS-2 varies from 96 MW to 165 MW. RBTS-2 must
commit 4 units during its low load period and 6 units
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 during its high load period. These commitments are
dependent upon available generating sets, loading
order of the units, ready reserves, tie line capacity
etc.
100 100 4 4 120 120 20 20
105 100 4 4 120 120 15 20 Conclusions
110 100 4 4 120 120 10 20
115 100 5 4 160 120 45 20 This paper has presented a probabilistic technique
120 100 5 4 160 120 40 20 to assess spinning reserve in isolated and
125 100 5 4 160 120 35 20 interconnected generation systems with special
130 100 5 4 160 120 30 20 reference to the RBTS. The results presented in this
135 100 5 4 160 120 25 20 paper can be used to provide a datum against which
140 100 5 4 160 120 20 20 trial solutions and alternate methods can be compared.
145 100 5 4 180 120 35 20 The concepts and results presented in this paper are
150 100 6 4 180 120 30 20 equally useful in graduate teaching and research. The
155 100 6 4 180 120 25 20 experience gained at the University of Saskatchewan
160 100 6 4 180 120 20 20 has demonstrated that the materials of this paper fit
nicely into a graduate course on power system
reliability. Moreover, the paper deals with an
 15.33

Table X 24 Hour Unit Commitment in Two Interconnected 2. R. Billinton, R.N. Allan, "Reliability Evaluation
RBTS of Power Systems". Longmans, Londonplenum Press,
New York, 1984
RBTS-1 RBTS-2
3. R. Billinton, N. Chowdhury, "Operating Reserve
Assessment in Interconnected Generating Systems",
Load No. Spinning Load No. Spinning IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 3, No. 4,
3our November 1988, pp. 1479-1487.
(MW) of Reserve (MW) of Reserve
Units (MW) Units (m) 4. N. Chardhury, "Spinning Reserve Assessment in
Interconnected Systems", Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Saskatchewan, 1989.
1 87 4 33 104 4 16
2 85 4 35 102 4 18 5. J.D. Guy, "Security Constrained Unit Commitment"
3 83 4 31 99 4 21 IEEE Trans., PAS-90, May/June, pp. 1385-1390.
4 80 4 40 96 4 24
5 81 4 39 97 4 23 6. IEEE Committee Report, "IEEE Reliability Test
6 89 4 31 106 4 14 System", IEEE Trans., PAS-98, 1979, pp. 2047-2054.
7 99 4 21 118 4 2
8 117 4 3 140 5 20
9 131 5 29 157 5 3 Nurul Chowdhury is an Assistant Professor at the
10 136 5 24 163 6 17 University of Saskatchewan. Obtained B.Sc.Engineering
11 138 5 22 165 6 15 degree from Bangladesh University of Engineering &
12 136 5 24 163 6 17 Techndogy, Dhaka in 1978. Obtained M.Eng. degree
13 128 5 32 153 5 7 from Concordia University and Ph.D. degree from
14 127 5 33 152 5 8 University of Saskatchewan in 1985 and 1989
15 124 5 36 148 5 12 respectively. Worked as an Engineer in the Eastern
16 121 5 39 145 5 15 Refinery Ltd., Chittagong, Bangladesh for about two
17 124 5 36 148 5 12 years from 1978 to 1979. Worked as an Assistant
18 127 5 33 152 5 8 Professor at the Bangladesh University of Engineering
132 5 28 158 5 2 & Technology, Dhaka f o r about three years from 1980 to
19 1982. His areas of interest are Power System
20 135 5 25 162 6 18
21 132 5 28 158 5 2 Reliability and Economic Operation of Power Systems.
22 124 5 36 148 5 12
23 110 4 10 132 5 28
24 96 4 24 115 4 5 Ro Billinton (F,1978) came to Canada from England
in 0 tamed B.Sc. and M.Sc. Degrees from the
University of Manitoba and Ph.D. and D.Sc. Degrees
from the University of Saskatchewan. Worked for
important aspect of power system operation. The Manitoba Hydro in the System Planning and Production
materials of this paper, therefore, could also become Divisions. Joined the University of Saskatchewan in
a part of a power system operation course. 1964. Formerly Head of the Department of Electrical
Engineering. Presently C.J. MacKenzie, Professor of
Engineering and Associate Dean, Graduate Studies,
References
1. R. Billinton, S. Kumar, N. Chowdhury, K. Chu, K . Author of papers on Power System Analysis,
Debnath, L. Goel, E. Khan, P. KOS, G. Nourbakhsh, Stability, Economic System Operation and Reliability.
J. Oteng-Adjei, "A Reliabilitv Test Svstem For Author or co-author of six books on reliability.
Educational Purposes - Basic Dat;a", IEEE k a n s . on Fellow of the IEEE, the EIC and the Royal Society of
Power Systems, vol. 4, No. 3, August 1989, pp. Canada and a Professional hgineer in the Province of
1102-1109. Saskatchewan.