Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211 – 220

Optimal power dispatch in multinode electricity market using

genetic algorithm
T. Numnonda a,*, U.D. Annakkage b
a
Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen Uni6ersity, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
b
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Uni6ersity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Received 3 April 1998; received in revised form 1 October 1998; accepted 1 October 1998

Abstract

The application of the genetic algorithm to solve the optimal power dispatch problem for a multi-node auction market is
proposed in this paper. The optimal power dispatch problem is a non-linear optimisation problem with several constraints. The
objective of the proposed genetic algorithm is to maximise the total participants’ benefit at all nodes in the system. The proposed
algorithm is simple to implement and can easily incorporate additional constraints. The algorithm was tested on a 17-node, 26-line
system. The results have shown that the proposed algorithm yields good results that are consistent with typical market behaviour.
© 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Optimal power dispatch; Multinode electricity; Genetic algorithm

1. Introduction ing to consume in a particular period. Several demand

The electricity industries in number of countries have
recently been deregulated to introduce competition. In
a centralised power industry, the planning is done to
minimise the production cost. In a competitive electric-
ity market, generation resources are, scheduled based
on offers and bids of the suppliers and consumers.
Many approaches have been proposed in literature to
solve the optimal power dispatch problem for electricity
markets [1–4].
One of the competitive electricity market models is
the auction market model, in which participants place
their bids to sell or buy electricity. In an electricity
auction market, the two main participants are distribu-
tion companies and generation companies. These par-
ticipants will submit their bids to an independent
system operation (ISO) company. A supply bid is given
as a cost per MW and a quantity in MW which a
generation company is willing to generate in a particu-
lar period. Each generation company may place several
bids. A demand bid is given as a cost per MW and a
quantity in MW which a distribution company is will-
* Corresponding author. Fax: +66-43-362160; e-mail: thana –
nu@kku1.kku.ac.th.
bids may be placed by each distribution company.
The optimal power dispatch models proposed by
several researchers [1,2,4,5] have the objective to max-
imise the total benefit to the participants in the multi-
node auction market. This paper demonstrates the
application of a genetic algorithm to solve the optimal
power dispatch problem for a multi-node auction mar-
ket. The model used in this paper, like most of the
models available in literature, does not directly consider
the reactive power market and the transmission cost.
The advantage of the proposed genetic algorithm is the
simplicity of handling non-linear constraints, without
having to simplify the power flow constraints. In addi-
tion, the algorithm is easy to implement and additional
features such as security constraints can be easily incor-
porated in the algorithm.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the
objective function model for a multi-node auction mar-
ket is described. Section 3 gives an introduction of the
genetic algorithm, followed by an implementation of
the algorithm for a multi-node auction market. The
algorithm is applied to a test system and the results and
discussion are given in Section 4. Finally, some conclu-
sions are given in Section 5.

0378-7796/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 7 9 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 3 9 - 4
212 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220
2. Problem description
For a single node auction market, the supply and
demand curves at each single node can be illustrated as
shown in Fig. 1. The supply curve is obtained by
ordering selling bids in increasing order of price, where
as the demand curve is obtained by ordering buying
bids in decreasing order of price. In this figure, the
x-axis gives the cumulative value of the bidding quan-
tity and the y-axis gives the bidding price. The spot
price at a single node is the price which matches the
supply and demand bids, i.e. the point at which the
supply and demand curves intersect each other. At the
spot price, the benefit of participants is maximised and
this is illustrated by the shaded area in Fig. 1. This
single node auction model can be mathematically de-
scribed as follows:
Assuming that there are Mk supply bids and Nk
demand bids at the k th node. Let Sik be the i th supply
bid at node k and is given by Sik ={x sik, p sik }, where x sik
is the selling price and p sik is the selling quantity. In
addition, let Bik be the i th demand bid at node k and is
given by Bik ={x dik, p dik }, where x dik is the buying price
and p dik is the buying quantity. If x̂k denotes the spot
price and p̂k denotes the spot quantity, then the maxi-
mum participants’ benefit, which is the sum of suppli-
ers’ benefit and consumers’ benefit, can be given as
Bk = % (x̂k − x sik)p̃ sik + % (x djk −x̂k )p̃ djk,
i  Mks j  Nkd
where p̃ dik and p̃ sik are consumer’s and supplier’s dis-
patched quantity, respectively, M sk and N dk are the sets
of all dispatched suppliers and dispatched consumers,
respectively.
Fig. 1. An example of the supply and demand curves.
For a multi-node electricity auction market, there are
transmission lines connected between bidding nodes.
The connections result in real power pk and reactive
power qk injection to the network at each node. The
real power injection to a node can be modelled as an
additional demand bid (or a supply bid if the real
power injection is negative) by the network for the
quantity pk at the selling (or buying) price x̂k, which is
equal to the spot price. This network effect is described
in detail in [2]. As an example, Fig. 2 illustrates the
dispatch of the bids when the real power injection is
considered. In Fig. 2(a), the injection of Pk to the node
is supplied by the partly dispatched generator bid. The
spot quantity has increased and the price has not
changed. If the injected power is greater than the
undispatched amount of the partly dispatched supply
bid then the additional amount cannot be supplied at
the same price. Therefore, the spot price will increase as
shown in Fig. 2(b). This will result in displacing some
consumers as shown by dc in Fig. 2(b).
It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the spot price and spot
quantity may be changed due to the effect of the real
power injection. This may result in changing the sets Bik
and Sik of all dispatched suppliers and dispatched con-
sumers. Consequently, the participants’ benefit at node
k is now given by [2]
B%k = % (x; k − x sik)p̃ sik + % (x djk − x; k )p̃ djk − x; kpk, (2)
iM: ks j  N: kd
(1)
where M: sk and N: sk are the new sets of all dispatched
suppliers and dispatched consumers respectively, x; k is
the new spot price and the last term is the amount paid
by the transmission line.
In addition, the total participants’ benefit at all nodes
can be expressed as
 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220 213

Fig. 2. Examples of the network effects.

B% = %
K
! "
% (x; k −x sik)p̃ sik + % (x djk −x; k )p̃ djk −x; kpk , Maximise %
K
! % (x; k − x sik)p̃ sik

"
k=1 iM: ks j  N: kd k=1 iM: ks
(3)
+ % (x djk − x; k )p̃ djk − x; kpk , (4)
j  N: kd
where K is the number of nodes.
It can be easily seen that the participants’ benefit at subject to the following constraints:
each node (B%k) is a function of the real power injection. ’ the capacity constraints which provide the limits on
Therefore, the optimisation problem of the total partic- real power (pk ) and reactive power (qk ) injection to the
ipants’ benefit at all nodes is similar to the conventional network by any node, i.e.
optimal load flow problem, with the exception that the
objective is to maximise the participants’ benefit, rather p k 5 p k 5 p̄k for k= 1, …, K, (5)
than minimise the generation cost. This optimisation
problem can be described as q k 5 qk 5 q̄k for k= 1, …, K, (6)
214 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220

Fig. 3. Encoding Scheme.

where pk, p̄k are the minimum and maximum real power 3. Genetic algorithm
injection limit associate with node k and qk, q̄k are the
minimum and maximum reactive power output limits The genetic algorithm is based on the Darwinian
of generators associate with node k. theory of evolution in biological systems which is in-
’ constraints on the limit of power flow along lines trinsically a robust search and optimisation mechanism.
which are given by The first genetic algorithm was developed by John
Holland in 1970 [7]. Since then the theoretical proper-
pkl 5 p̄kl (7) ties of genetic algorithms have been studied by many
researchers and various results have been proved that
where p̄kl is the maximum limit of a power flow in a line are of fundamental significance to their operation. Ge-
connecting node k and node l. netic algorithms have been successfully applied to sev-
In addition, the real and reactive power injection at
each node can be determined as a summation of the
real and reactive power flows along lines which are
connected to that node. These are given by
K
pk = % pkl (8)
ll"
=k1

K
qk = % qkl, (9)
ll"
=k1

where pkl and qkl are the real power and reactive power
flow along the transmission line connecting node k and
node l, respectively. Furthermore, the real power and
reactive power flow are given by the following
equations

pkl =Gkl (6 2k −6k6l cos(uk −ul )) − Bkl (6k6l sin(uk −ul ))

(10)

qkl = −Bkl (6 2k − 6k6l cos(uk −ul ))

+Gkl (6k6l sin(uk −ul )), (11)

where Gkl and Bkl are real and imaginary component of

the admittance of the line connecting node k and node
l, 6k and 6l are voltages at node k and l and uk and ul
are angles at node k and node l.
This optimisation problem has non-linear constraints
which is difficult to solve using the linear programming
technique. A genetic algorithm is proposed in the fol-
lowing section to solve the above problem. The genetic
algorithms are simple to implement and it is easy to
incorporate additional constraints into the problem.
Although it has lengthy computational time, it has
parallelism nature which can be implemented on a
parallel computer [6]. Fig. 4. Crossover methods.
 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220
Fig. 5. One line diagram of the 17 bus test system.
eral science and engineering applications. For example
in the power system areas, genetic algorithms have been
applied to the following problems: unit commitment [8],
economic dispatch [9], load flow problems [10].
The genetic algorithm starts with a population of
randomly generated candidates. Each candidate is
called a chromosome which is usually represented by a
binary bit string. Each chromosome has its correspond-
ing fitness which indicates its suitability as a solution.
The genetic algorithm iteratively produces a new popu-
lation from the old population by means of idealised
genetic recombination process which consists of repro-
duction, crosso6er and mutation processes. When this
cycle of genetic recombination process is iterated for
many generations, the overall fitness of the population
generally improves.
In order to reproduce chromosomes (offspring) for
the new population, the genetic algorithm randomly
selects chromosomes (parents) from the current popula-
tion with a probability proportional to its fitness. Thus
a chromosome with a fitness that is high compared to
the average fitness of the population may be selected
more than once, while low-fitness chromosomes are
unlikely to be selected. The reproduction process, how-
ever, does not introduce a new chromosome in a
search. A new chromosome is introduced to the popula-
tion via either a crossover or a mutation process. A
crossover process combines the feature of two parent
structures to form two similar offsprings which inherit
features from both parents. Mutation process injects
new information in the offspring by altering a small
fraction of a chromosome. The solution is given by the
215
best chromosome in the latest generation. The entire
processes of a standard genetic algorithm can be sum-
marised as follows.
begin
initialise chromosomes in the population
evaluate fitness of all chromosomes
do until number of generation is large enough
do until the new population is formed
select parents from the old population
produce offsprings via reproduction,
crossover, or mutation process
evaluate fitness of offsprings
enddo
enddo
end
There are several variations of the standard genetic
algorithm in order to improve its convergence perfor-
mance. Among these variations are Elitism and Hill-
climbing. Elitism is a technique to ensure that the best
chromosome is survived till the last population. This is
usually done by retaining a certain number of the best
chromosomes at each generation. A genetic hill-climb-
ing algorithm is a technique which performs local hill-
climbing optimisation to some of the best chromosomes
at each generation. This can be done by randomly
altering a chromosome and checking the new fitness. A
modified chromosome is accepted if the fitness is in-
creased, otherwise an old chromosome is retained.
Many researchers have found that Elitism and Hill-
climbing significantly improve the genetic algorithm’s
performance.
216 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220

4. Implementation of genetic algorithm
Several essential schemes need to be designed in
order to apply a genetic algorithm to a multi-node
electricity market. These are the encoding scheme,
fitness function, crossover method and control
parameters.
4.1. Encoding scheme
The optimisation problem considered in this case is
to find the spot price and spot quantity at all nodes
which maximise the participants’ benefit (given in Eq.
(4)). As mentioned earlier, the spot price and quantity
at each node depend on the real power (pk ) injection
which are in turn depend on the voltage (6k ) and the
angle (uk ). Therefore, a candidate solution at each node
can be either an array of the real power and reactive
power injection or an array of the voltage and angle.
Although an array of random voltages and angles at all
nodes may lead to easy evaluation of power flows
(using Eqs. (10) and (11)) and real power injections
(using Eq. (8)) at all nodes, the evaluated results are
unlikely to satisfy the power capacity limit constraints
at all nodes and the line capacity constraints at all
transmission lines. On the other hand, with an array of
real power and reactive power injections (as shown in
Fig. 3), power flows in the network can only be deter-
mined via an iterative load flow solution [11], but the
power capacity limit constraints can be incorporated
into the encoding scheme. Both representations were
tried during the early part of our work and it was
found that the choice of real power and reactive power
is better than voltage and phase angle.
The encoding chromosome consists of 2× 10×(K −
1) bits, in which each 10-bit binary string is used to
represent a range between the maximum and minimum
real power (or reactive power) limit at each node. In
addition, the real power and reactive power injection at
the reference node can be obtained from the load flow
solution.
4.2. Fitness 6alue
The objective function in this optimisation problem is
given by Eq. (4) and this can be used as a fitness
function in the genetic algorithm. Therefore, the fitness
value of each chromosome can be determined by
! "
K
F= % % (x; k − x sik)p̃ sik + % (x djk − x; )p̃ djk − x; kpk .
k=1 iM: ks j  N: kd
(12)
In addition, the load flow problem need to be evalu-
ated for each chromosome to ensure that none of the
power flows along transmission lines violates the line
capacity constraint. In this paper, the fast-decoupled

Table 1
Transmission line data

Line label From node To node X (pu) B (pu) Capacity (MW)

L1 1 16 0.0105 0.06045 960

L2 2 4 0.00115 0.0073 2470
L3 3 1 0.000733 0.002967 858
L4 3 4 0.00065 0.00535 1494
L5 4 5 0.0164 0.0966 286
L6 4 9 0.0678 0.1912 69
L7 5 7 0.0107 0.0631 286
L8 6 4 0.01525 0.07235 488
L9 7 12 0.0014 0.0082 286
L10 8 7 0.00125 0.00925 1144
L11 8 10 0.0099 0.0239 207
L12 9 1 0.1595 0.4272 69
L13 9 11 0.02535 0.06695 138
L14 11 12 0.0008 0.0045 1492
L15 11 14 0.1951 0.3683 61
L16 11 15 0.1467 0.3999 69
L17 12 6 0.0063 0.02995 488
L18 13 11 0.043 0.0823 122
L19 13 12 0.0084 0.0543 488
L20 13 14 0.053167 0.0108 183
L21 14 15 0.0111 0.02405 152
L22 15 12 0.000967 0.008633 975
L23 16 13 0.0046 0.0323 488
L24 16 15 0.00395 0.0271 976
L25 16 17 0.0068 0.0645 747
L26 17 15 0.0023 0.0191 716
 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220 217

Table 2
Reactive power constraints at nodes

Node No. q̄k (MW) qk (MW) Node no. q̄k (MW) qk (MW)

1 187.6 −119 10 64 −72.8

2 400 −400 11 47 −62.6
3 0 0 12 403 −531
4 32.2 −21.68 13 43.5 −63
5 58.1 −92.4 14 0 0
6 96 −140 15 140 −124
7 66 −71.6 16 468 −432
8 50 −50 17 0 0
9 0 0

Newton Rhapson method is used to solve the load flow
problem [11]. If a chromosome has violated the power
flow limit, a penalty value will be assigned to its fitness.
This will result in a small fitness value and the violated
chromosome is unlikely to be selected as a parent in the
next reproduction process.
In addition, the fitness value is scaled using the
following equation to avoid the possibility of extraordi-
nary fitness values
f = aF%+ b (13)
where F%= (Fmax −F)/(Fmax −Fmin),
a=Favg/(Fmax −Fmin),
b=F *avg(Fmax − Favg)/(Fmax −Fmin)
and Favg, Fmax and Fmin are the average, maximum and
minimum fitness among all chromosomes in the current
population, respectively.
4.3. Crosso6er and mutation schemes
Several crossover methods have been proposed in the
literature, these include one point crosso6er, two point
crosso6er and uniform crosso6er. The one point
crossover method selects a random crossover point
along the parents and swaps binary bits of the parent
chromosomes beyond the selected point. The two point
crossover method is similar to one point crossover
except two random crossover positions are selected and
binary bits between two selected points are swapped. In
the uniform crossover method, crossover positions are
randomly selected and a binary bit at each selected
point is swapped. Fig. 4 illustrates examples of these
three crossover methods. There is no simple way of
choosing the best crossover method; the success or
failure of a particular crossover method also depends
on the selection of the fitness function and control
parameters. A simple mutation method is to randomly
toggle the content of each binary bit position in a
chromosome. As an example, if mutation occurring at
the third bit position of the string 1001011 would give
1011011.
4.4. Control parameters
The performance of the genetic algorithm also de-
pends on control parameters, such as population size,
crossover probability and mutation probability. The
population size is the number of chromosomes in each
generation, typically the size increasing according to the
problem difficulty. The crossover probability is a prob-
ability that crossover occurs after the reproduction
process. Typical value for the crossover probability
ranges from 0.5 to 0.95. The mutation probability is the
probability of the mutation operator in each bit posi-
tion. The mutation probability is typically very small
(0.001–0.01).
4.5. Genetic algorithm for multi-node electricity market
The genetic algorithm to solve the optimal power
dispatch for the multi-node electricity market can be
summarised as follows:
Step 1. Initialise the population by randomly generat-
ing I number of chromosomes, then solve the load
flow problem for each chromosome and evaluate its
fitness value using Eq. (12).
Step 2. For M number of generations, generate a new
population from the present population using the
following steps:
Step 2.1. Scale the fitness of each chromosome
using Eq. (13).
Step 2.2. Copy chromosomes with the best fit 10%
to the new population.
Step 2.3. The remaining offsprings can be gener-
ated by repeating the following steps until the new
population is filled.
Step 2.3a. Randomly select two parents with the
probability proportional to its corresponding
scaled fitness.
Step 2.3b. Generate a random number and if it
is less than the crossover probability then gener-
ate two offsprings via the crossover process,
otherwise apply the reproduction process.
218 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220

Table 3
Supplier bidding data

Node x s1k p s1k x s2k p s2k x s3k p s3k x s4k p s4k x s5k p s5k x s6k p s6k x s7k p s7k

1 1.14 400 1.7 200

2 0.5 200 0.6 200 0.7 200 1.0 200 1.2 200 1.4 200
3
4 1.0 5 1.4 5
5 1.1 60 1.3 60
6 1.0 50 1.2 50 1.4 50 1.5 50
7 0.01 235
8 8.0 65 8.1 65 8.2 65 8.3 65
9
10 1.0 70 1.3 70
11 1.1 75 1.2 75 1.3 40 1.4 40
12 1.0 100 1.1 100 1.2 100 1.3 100 1.4 100 1.5 100 1.6 75
13 1.0 50 1.1 50 1.2 50 1.3 50
14
15 0.8 40 0.9 40 1.0 40
16 1.0 680 1.6 320
17

Step 2.3c. With the mutation probability, apply the parameters which were varied from the following list:
mutation process to the offspring. “ population size: 100, 200, 400
Step 2.4. Solve the load flow problem for all chromo- “ crossover probability: 0.5, 0.7, 0.9
somes and re-evaluate their fitness values using Eq. “ mutation probability: 0.01, 0.001
(12). “ crossover methods: two-point, uniform
Step 2.5. Perform a hill-climbing process on the best fit Each genetic algorithm was run 20 times and each
50% of the population. This can be done by perturbing run was carried out over 200 generations. The average
the real power or reactive power injection at a ran- final objective function value of all runs in each genetic
domly selected node of each chromosome. A modified algorithm is used as a measure of the algorithm’s
chromosome is accepted if there is an increase in fitness, performance. The genetic algorithms with the popula-
otherwise an old chromosome remains unchanged. tion size of 400 requires a computational time of ap-
proximately 20 times that of 200 population for the test
system. The results have shown that the uniform
crossover method performs better than the two point
5. Experimental results
crossover method. In addition, the genetic algorithms
Table 4
The genetic algorithm was implemented on a Pen- Consumer bidding data
tium-133 microcomputer using a C + + programming
language and it was applied to a test system with 17 Node Price
nodes and 26 lines shown in Fig. 5. The transmission
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
line data of the network are given in Table 1 and the
reactive power capacity limits are given in Table 2. The 1 0 4 19 31 23 7 0 0
supply and demands bids at each node are given in 2 4 33 133 195 124 33 6 0
Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The real power 3 0 6 27 28 14 8 1 0
injection at a given node is maximum when all selling 4 0 9 35 35 34 7 0 0
5 0 5 12 11 12 2 1 0
bids are dispatched. Therefore the maximum possible 6 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0
injection is equal to the total amount of power offered 7 0 1 6 11 6 0 0 0
by suppliers at that node. Similarly, the minimum 8 1 10 54 55 32 15 0 1
power injection (i.e. maximum negative injection) is 9 0 1 4 13 4 2 0 0
10 0 5 18 15 7 3 0 0
when no selling bids are dispatched and all buying bids 11 5 25 88 166 93 29 2 0
are dispatched. In this case, it is equal to the total 12 0 0 5 4 4 2 0 0
amount of power bid by the consumers. 13 0 17 57 97 54 12 1 2
One difficulty in using a genetic algorithm is the 14 0 3 14 18 11 1 1 0
15 10 40 176 257 187 45 5 0
selection of the control parameters and the crossover
16 2 9 63 79 49 14 0 0
methods. In this study, genetic algorithms were exe- 17 2 21 86 167 88 20 0 0
cuted with different combinations of the control
 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220 219

Table 5 the spot price at each node is equal or close to 1.20.

Power injection, voltage and angle results
Results show that the transaction across the network
Node P (MW) Q (MW) Voltage (V) Angle (°) has resulted in decreasing the price differences between
nodes. Further, the total benefit to the participants has
1 169.86 167.07 1.05 8.29 increased as expected. According to basic concepts, there
2 309.03 2.06 1.05 9.53 cannot be a price difference between two ends of an a
3 −78.52 −58.88 1.05 8.26
line if the line has not reached the capacity limit. Further,
4 −103.76 −59.56 1.05 8.35
5 17.96 −10.29 1.03 5.90 if there is a price difference due to line capacity limits,
6 44.40 20.59 1.04 4.99 the power flow must be in the direction of the low price
7 211.73 77.26 1.03 3.59 node to the high price node. The results obtained are
8 −155.46 −85.64 1.02 2.99 consistent with the above concepts excepts for some lines.
9 −21.56 −16.17 1.02 4.10
These exceptions are lines L3, L4 and L5. Inspection of
10 27.09 12.05 1.02 3.28
11 −248.57 −139.48 1.02 2.46 dispatched bids at node 3 reveals that, although the price
12 243.69 376.53 1.02 2.92 at node 3 is 1.1, it is at the corner of 1.1 and 1.2; and
13 −122.60 −70.45 1.01 2.72 theoretically the price can be anywhere between 1.1 and
14 −34.95 −27.01 1.00 1.94 1.2. If the spot price at node 3 is 1.2 instead of 1.1, the
15 −416.73 −175.81 1.01 1.60
direction of power flow in lines L3 and L4 are not
16 475.20 119.23 1.03 5.38
17 −300.13 −33.85 1.00 0.00 unusual. Further the network topology is such that the
route to channel power from node 2 to 8 is through node
5 (the generation at node 7 is fully utilised). This explains
performed well with the population size of 400, the why the power in line L5 is from node 4 to 5. The network
crossover probability of 0.7 and the mutation probability earns a surplus due to price differences at the ends of
of 0.01. Nevertheless, most of the genetic algorithms lines, while it lose revenue due to power losses in the lines.
converged to good solutions for this test system. In this test system the price differences are very small. As
The result obtained from the genetic algorithm associ- a result the benefit to the network is very small.
ated with the chosen control parameters are given in
Tables 5–7. Table 5 gives the results of the real power
and reactive power injection to the system and the 6. Conclusion
associated voltages and angles at the nodes. Table 6 gives
the results of the power flows along transmission lines. The genetic algorithm approach to a multi-node auc-
Table 7 gives the participants’ benefits and spot prices at tion electricity market has been presented in this paper.
all nodes. It can be seen that the total participants’ benefit The objective of the algorithm is to maximise the total
is 658.96 when trading within the node. (i.e. without participants’ benefit at all nodes in the system, which in
transmission network) When the trading among the turn depends on the real power injection to the system.
nodes take place through the network, the genetic The algorithm has been implemented by using the real
algorithm gives a total participants’ benefit of 1265.14. power and reactive power injection at all nodes as a
In addition, the spot price differences among nodes have candidate (chromosome). The total participants’ benefit
been decreased due to trading on the network, in which is given as a chromosome’s fitness and it has

Table 6
Power flow results

Label pkl (MW) plk (MW) Label pkl (MW) plk (MW)

L1 96.19 −95.25 L14 −215.24 215.80

L2 309.03 −308.03 L15 4.18 −4.13
L3 −54.05 54.19 L16 4.22 −4.19
L4 −24.47 24.51 L17 −130.10 131.12
L5 49.48 −49.10 L18 3.46 −3.44
L6 42.49 −41.37 L19 −9.57 9.60
L7 67.06 −66.61 L20 37.27 −36.38
L8 −86.72 87.79 L21 5.55 −5.35
L9 149.62 −149.32 L22 −296.54 297.71
L10 −128.46 128.72 L23 154.85 −153.76
L11 −27.01 27.09 L24 261.68 −258.97
L12 −18.91 19.47 L25 153.92 −152.30
L13 38.72 −38.30 L26 −147.82 148.33
220 T. Numnonda, U.D. Annakkage / Electric Power Systems Research 49 (1999) 211–220

Table 7
Participants benefits and spot prices

Node With Network Effect No Network Effect

Spot price Total benefit Participants’ benefit Lines’ benefit (x; kpk ) Spot price Participants’ benefit

1 1.14 −179.03 14.61 −193.64 1.14 14.60

2 1.20 85.76 456.60 −370.84 0.70 376.50
3 1.10 102.57 16.20 86.37
4 1.20 137.91 13.40 124.51 1.40 2.70
5 1.10 −11.46 8.30 −19.76 1.10 8.30
6 1.20 −42.68 10.60 −53.76 1.00 2.00
7 1.10 27.84 260.74 −232.90 0.01 30.76
8 1.20 203.46 16.91 186.55
9 1.20 28.58 2.71 25.87
10 1.20 −14.71 17.80 −32.51 1.00 12.90
11 1.20 350.49 52.21 298.28 1.30 38.20
12 1.20 −260.63 31.80 −292.43 1.00 4.80
13 1.20 187.62 40.50 147.12 1.30 38.90
14 1.20 46.64 4.70 41.94
15 1.20 614.68 114.60 500.08 1.00 65.50
16 1.20 −412.34 157.90 −570.24 1.00 63.80
17 1.20 400.45 40.29 360.16
Total 1265.14 1320.34 5.29 658.96

been determined by solving the load flow problem. The
genetic algorithm has been implemented with various
control parameters and tested on a 17-node, 26-line
system. The results have shown that the proposed
algorithm provides a good solution.
References
[1] D.L. Post, S.S. Coppinger, G.B. Sheble, Application of auctions
as a pricing mechanism for the interchange of electric power, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 10 (1995) 1580–1584.
[2] U.D. Annakkage, R.A.S.K. Ranatunga, Optimal power dispatch
of multi-node electricity markets, in: VI SEPOPE, Salvador,
Brazil, 1998.
[3] R.W. Ferrero, S.M. Shahidehpour, Optimality conditions in
power transactions in deregulated power pools, Elect. Power Syst.
Res. 42 (1997) 209 –214.
[4] N. Pamudji, R.J. Kaye, H.R. Outhred, Network effects in a
competitive electricity industry: No linear and linear nodal auction
models, in: Stockholm Power Tech Conference, 1995.
[5] H.R. Outhred, R.J. Kaye, Incorporating network effects in a
competitive electricity industry: an Australian perspective, Elec-
tricity Transmission Pricing and Technology, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
1996.
[6] M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1996.
[7] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimisation and
Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
[8] T.T. Maifeld, G.B. Sheble, Genetic-based unit commitment al-
gorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 11 (1996) 1359 – 1370.
[9] S.O. Orero, M.R. Irving, Economic dispatch of generators with
prohibited operating zones:: A genetic algorithm approach, IEE
Proc. Gener. Trans. Distrib. 143 (1996) 529 – 534.
[10] X. Yin, N. Germay, Investigation on solving load flow problem
by genetic algorithms, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 22 (1991) 151–163.
[11] J. Arrilaga, C.P. Arnold, Computer Analysis of Power Systems,
Wiley, New York, 1990.