Review of Optimization Techniques for Renewable
Energy Resources
James A. Momoh, Fellow IEEE, S. Surender Reddy, Student Member, IEEE
Abstract – This paper presents a review of optimization
techniques for Renewable Energy Resources (RERs) optimization
framework. Review of probabilistic power flow, voltage/VAR
control, modeling of voltage VAR problem has been presented.
Various objective functions and formulations for Voltage/VAR
problem has been presented in this paper. Summary of different
OPF methods and their formulations for voltage / VAR problem
has been presented. Various examples of stochastic programming
using Recourse model, Simple Average Approximations, Chance
Constrained Programming and chance constraint are presented in
this paper.
Index Terms - Renewable Energy Resources (RER), Stochastic
Programming, Wind Energy Resources, Voltage/ VAR problem.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The Renewable Energy Resources (RERs) also invite some
imputes along with it such as stochastic behavior. The planning
and operation of certain system is also a major challenge for
the industry. So, Optimal Power Flow (OPF) for such system is
intriguing problem. There are many challenges offered by
addition of RERs into the system. Out of all the challenges,
Voltage VAR control is a prime source of complexity and
reliability. So, it is fundamental requirement of all the utility
companies. There is a need for robust and efficient Voltage
VAR optimization (VVO) technique to meet the peak demand
and reduction of the losses. The Voltages beyond limit may
damage costly sub-station devices and equipment at consumer
end as well. Especially, RERs introduces more disturbance and
some of the RERs are not capable enough to meet the VAR
demand. So, there is a strong need for Voltage VAR control in
RER environment.
Voltage VAR control solution for normal systems can be
solved through the linear or non- linear optimization
techniques, but with uncertainty involved one can only use the
latest techniques like Stochastic Optimization, Heuristic
Optimization, Adaptive Dynamic Programming, etc. Review of
stochastic programming, and the advantages and challenges of
this programming over deterministic model is presented in this
paper. The Stochastic Programming scheme and its variants are
studied in detail to deal with the uncertainty and randomness
involved in the system
This paper includes different OPF methods and their
comparison; it discusses Probabilistic Power Flow/ OPF and
different approaches utilized by various researchers for
renewable energy and other uncertainties involved in the
James A Momoh (email: jmomoh@howard.edu) and S Surender Reddy
(email: salkuti.surenderreddy@gmail.com) are with Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Center for Energy Systems and Controls
(CESaC), Howard University, Washington, DC 20059.
978-1-4799-5138-3/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
system. It gives an idea about stochastic programming and
challenges attached to it. It evaluates the requirements Voltage
Var Optimization, and it discusses the control strategies used in
industry and in research. It discusses formulations given by
different researchers for objective functions like Cost, Loss,
Generation Extension and Voltage/Var with various
conventional and advanced methods. It also discusses
formulations for Voltage/VAR with variability into the system.
It gives a brief idea about stochastic programming and its
applications. Finally, the paper presents various examples of
stochastic programming using Recourse model, Simple
Average Approximations, Chance Constrained Programming
and Chance Constraint Techniques.
II. S TOCHASTIC P ROGR AMM ING
Stochastic nonlinear programming (S-NLP) is proposed by
many researchers as it uses randomness as part of optimization
processes [1-3]. The basic idea for solving each Stochastic
Problem is to first convert the problem into equivalent
deterministic form, so that conventional optimization techniques
can be applied to it [4]. It has several variants such as Recourse
Model, Chance Constrained Programming, and Sample Average
Approximation, etc. Stochastic Programming problems can also
be solved through decomposition methods. Different researchers
have used decomposition methods such as Bender’s
Decomposition method, Dantzing-Wolfe decomposition, bundle
methods, branch and price, branch and fix, etc. Bender’s
decomposition is most favorite among researchers for stochastic
problem evaluation.
Reference [5] discusses stochastic OPF using constraint
relaxation, and it also discusses challenges attached to it such as
each contingency considered in the study poses a new problem
equally large to the original problem, but with a different
distribution matrix. Stochastic OPF was first developed by T.
Yong and R. H. Lasseter [6]. The optimization was developed
as a two stage stochastic programming problem. [7] Presents
both linear and non-linear formulations for the Stochastic OPF.
Reference [8] uses stochastic programming approach for
vulnerability constrained transmission planning problem. The
equivalent deterministic model using mixed integer non-linear
programming has been utilized to find the optimal value.
The output of the stochastic OPF is a set of control variable
settings that required to be applying within system constraints to
develop secure and economical settings in the event of
contingency. These settings should be chosen such that one can
minimize the sum of base case cost, and the expected cost of
recovery from the contingencies. In a more conservative manner,
settings should be selected to set the base case to accommodate
all possible contingencies without resetting any control.
A. Advantages of Stochastic Programming (SP) over
Deterministic Model:
(i) It gives the optimization solution through taking into
account ‘wait- and- see’ measures (Recourse Decisions). So,
solution obtained is robust with respect to possible
contingency scenarios while the solutions obtained through
deterministic model are usually conservative [8].
(ii) Deterministic model does not account expected values
while Stochastic Model includes expected values and so gives
more realistic results.
(iii) Deterministic model does not facilitate accommodation of
probability density function (PDF) values, while Stochastic
Model accepts values from PDFs.
B. Challenges involved with SP:
(i) Large dimensionality of the associated nonlinear
programming problem.
(ii) When system constraints include time coupling effects such
as ramp constraints, the problem size increases dramatically.
(iii) Each contingency considered potentially introduces a new
problem as large as the original, but a different distribution
matrix.
(iv) With increasing size of the system, the computational
burden also increases. Especially, when large number of
scenarios chosen, the solution cannot be computed within
reasonable amount of time.
(v) The challenge to develop an approach for selecting and
appropriately weighing the scenarios.
III. PROBABILISTIC P OWER FLOW
Electric power system consumes lot of uncertainty and
randomness. With RER integration into central generation or as
a Distributed Generation, load characteristics and the
generation cost vary from time to time. Electric power system
load demand is a time dependent variable, and so realistic
solutions of the OPF problem based on the load can only be
evaluated efficiently, if the OPF problem is modeled to be
probabilistic [9]. Some earlier methods solve this problem by
considering load demand as forecasted value at specific time.
This forecasted value may or may not match the true value, so
it may contain error by even large amount. So, Electric Power
System reformulated as a network of random variables [10],
and PDFs are used to model power demands. Also, uncertainty
may be involved due to Measurement error or error in forecast,
Load is presumed between certain limits or unscheduled outage
due to weather conditions or some other reason. The
deterministic model for OPF cannot represent the effects of the
stochastic factors on the dispatch results. So, these uncertainty
and randomness should be evaluated for optimal operation and
control of the system.
The classical methods of load flow is not useful for above
case as they require deterministic values of load and source,
but mostly load and source behavior would be random. For
smooth operation of the system, new transmission and
distribution network design it is necessary to access load flows
with changing load and source. But practically it is not feasible
to carry out load flow study at each change in load and source.
As it will involve plenty of calculations and analysis would
also be difficult. Probabilistic programming involves
randomness and uncertainty into conventional classical (linear
and nonlinear) programs. For wind energy, convolution of
random variables along with Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) can
also be used.
Randomness present in the system needs to have some
specific structure. So, Randomness is generally represented
with PDF [11]. For a typical Probabilistic OPF, there is a need
to determine PDF for all the variables present in the system.
PDF is used to find the Normal distribution curve. Continuous
PDF of the normal distribution is called Gaussian distribution.
Probabilistic power flow conducts probabilistic modeling,
and takes uncertain factors like generation injections, loads and
line parameters into account in the power flow calculations.
Various expansion series are also proposed by different
researchers such as Orthogonal Series (Gram-Charlier expansion
series or Lagurre polynomials [12], Cornish-Fisher expansion
[13]. There are many methods available that deals with the
probabilistic OPF such as Method of random variables,
Stochastic Programming, Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
Fuzzy Logic, Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Partical Swarm
Optimization (PSO), Simulated Annealing, Adaptive Dynamic
Programming, Monte Carlo Simulation, cumulant method, the
discretization method, two point estimate method etc. Various
researchers have tested above methods successfully for
Probabilistic Power Flow.
A. Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
MCS is most simple method as it involves repeated simulations
with values obtained from PDFs. But, for satisfactory results,
plenty of simulations need to be carrying out, and number of
samples can be reduced by sacrificing the accuracy of results.
Hence, this approach is not practical for real systems at the same
time large number of samples confirms accuracy of the solution.
This method can efficiently handle complex random variables.
But, it requires large and cumbersome calculations as well [14].
Mostly this method is used with limited number of scenarios to
test accuracy and calculation speed of other methods.
B. Cumulant Method (CM)
The Cumulant method depends upon behavior of uncertain
variables when they combined in a linear fashion [15]. The
computational burden of this method is independent of uncertain
parameters. The Cumulant method requires calculating the
inverse of the Hessian and the Cumulant of the random variables.
The discretization method uses discrete probability distributions
to replace continuous probability distributions. But the accuracy
of this method is restricted because of its computational ability.
Many researchers have used Cumulant based approach along
with different expansion series for Probabilistic Power Flow and
for probabilistic OPF. [16] uses Logarithmic Barrier Interior
Point Method for linear mapping. Results obtained from the
Cumulant approach are compared with Monte Carlo Simulation
(MCS) based on small test system. It was tested for Matpower 9-
bus and 118-bus systems. The results obtained from both the
methods are almost same. So the new method is having higher
accuracy and low computational burden. It uses Gram- Charlier
series to reconstruct distributions.
C. Two Point Estimate Method (2PEM)
It is a variation of Point Estimate Method (PEM), which
divides a large problem into several sub-problems by
calculating moments of underlying nonlinear function [17]. It
considers two certain values of each random variable placed on
both sides of the corresponding mean and then deterministic
OPF is run for both these values [15]. The benefit of this
method is that the existing deterministic model can be directly
used after the estimate point is selected, and the results of mean
value and standard deviation of the distribution of the function
are evaluated by weighting the estimation results with the
probability concentration [18-19]. Computational burden of
this method is directly proportional to number of random
variables [14]. [15] uses Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) as
an uncertain variable for the first time using 2PEM approach.
IV. V OLTAGE /VAR C ONTR OL
Voltage Stability is one of the main problems when any RER is
used as a generation source. Voltage stability of the system is
the competence of power system to hold sufficient voltage
magnitude in order to transfer constant amount of power in
case of overload. Voltage/VAr control can be obtained through
controlling the production, absorption, and flow of reactive
power at all levels in the system. It maintains voltages within
acceptable limit and reduces the transmission losses.
To optimize the movement of electricity, we want to
control reactive energy. Today, many utilities use tools such as
capacitor banks or special transformers either in the substation
or on the distribution grid. These devices work to keep reactive
power low. But, they are not intelligent enough to cope with
today’s smart grid and communication devices. This is
commonly referred to as volt VAR control. A coordinate VAr
planning is inclusive of both optimal voltage profile and
optimal voltage stability.
The Objective function associated with Voltage Var problem
may be cost based, or it may be a deviation from the targeted
value on the stability curve or from restricted schedule of
control variable. It can be single objective or multi objective
model based on the application [20]. Mathematical solution of
these problems is complex as it involves large number of
variables including uncertain parameters as well. So, the
resulting equation may be partially discrete, partially
continuous, non-differentiable, and non-linear.
The idea of using fuzzy reasoning for voltage control is
presented by many researchers [6-7, 17, 21-22]. Also, other
methods like Simulated Annealing [14] Genetic Algorithm [23]
and Particle Swarm algorithm is also proposed [5] are proposed
by different researchers for Voltage/VAr problem. Among all
available approaches, Fuzzy logic approach is most robust and
speedy method. [24] presents novel idea of reactive power
control through photovoltaic generators. It also discusses
conventional methods of reactive power control, opportunities
and challenges attached to it. The new method was compared
with the other proposed methods and conclusions provide
advantages of new methods.
Presently, due to the new developments reactive power
injection and voltage control may be used as an ancillary
service at the distribution side. Even, Wind Generators can
contribute to it using power electronics devices [25]. With the
development of smart grid, optimization of electric power
system has received an enormous amount of interest in last
several years. By optimizing voltage and VAr levels of the
system, utilities can optimize power flow of distribution system
from substation to the customer meter and even beyond meter.
Conventionally, voltage-Var can be controlled through
Rotating Synchronous Condensers, Mechanically Switched
Capacitors, Load-changing transformer, Static Var Capacitors
(SVCs), thyristor-switched capacitors (TSCs), thristor-
controlled reactors (TCRs) etc. Series and Shunt Var
compensation is used to enhance natural characteristics of AC
power System. Series compensation improves Transmission
and Distribution parameters while shunt compensation
modifies equivalent impedance of the load [26]. Utilities now
can add data obtained through communicating devices for
improved control.
Utility companies are confused with decisions about where
to invest, and the list of smart grid vendors and options is
overwhelming. So, they consider investing capital and operating
funds on distribution system optimization through volt/VAR
control as part of its smart grid plan. For better performance
shaving and shaping demand is going to be a requirement of all
load-serving entities moving forward. Demand management
through the meter has potential system benefits, and customers
and regulators will be able to see a tangible, quick positive
impact on reliability as a result of smart grid technology
implementation.
Presently, volt/VAR control typically applied at the
substation, or perhaps on some of the medium-voltage feeders.
So, to bring an active volt/VAR control to the edge of the grid
has been too complex to manage and too expensive to
implement. Ultimately systems are forced to manage the low-
voltage grid without access to the level of fine-grained
information they require to cost-effectively control volt/VAR
conditions down to the distribution transformer level. With
recent technology advancements and research being performed
with VVO programs and controllers, the utility would need the
flexibility of selecting which mode of operation to use based on
system conditions, and the regulatory environment faced by that
utility today and in the future.
In order to define a Voltage/VAr problem considerations
should be given to:
(i) Evaluate all violations and decide most violated constraint
and its severity. So, that while in action controllers should
eliminate it first.i.e. Between the voltage violation and Line
Flow violation, most severe is the line flow violations
(ii) Efficiency of control action will react according to the nature
of the device and its location. Most effective action should be
given preference.
(iii)Controls should be set according to availability preference.
The conventional approach has generally been successful at
accomplishing the primary objectives for this equipment.
However, this approach has several key limitations:
(i) The system is not continuously monitored, so controller
failures and malfunctions are not automatically detected. Line
capacitors are particularly failure-prone. Without continuous
monitoring, these devices may be switching on and off at the
wrong time, or may be totally inoperative due to a blown fuse.
This condition can go undetected until the problem deteriorates
into a more serious and potentially unsafe problem.
(ii) The system lacks flexibility to respond to changing
conditions on the distribution feeders. Controller settings work
well under normal circumstances. However, if the feeder is
reconfigured for any reason (for example, while a faulted
portion of the feeder is being repaired), the controller settings
may not produce the desired results.
(iii) The system cannot be used to respond to system
emergencies. Occasionally, distribution utilities are called upon
to place all switched capacitors in service as rapidly as possible
to respond to power grid emergencies. Since the stand-alone
controllers lack remote control capabilities, it is not possible to
rapidly switch all capacitor banks on demand.
Smart Distribution voltage control provides potentially
increased operating flexibility over conventional voltage
control. On the other hand, conventional voltage control is
primarily intended to maintain acceptable voltage along the
feeder, Smart distribution voltage control enables the user to
achieve other operating objectives in addition to the primary
function of maintaining acceptable voltage. The most important
smart distribution voltage control function is Conservation
Voltage Reduction (CVR). With the help of CVR, the system
intentionally lowers the voltage on the distribution feeder to the
lowest acceptable voltage value to achieve valuable benefits to
the electric utility and consumers, such as reduced demand and
energy consumption. As long as the feeder voltage remains
above the minimum cutoff for acceptable value, there is no
adverse impact on the customer.
Smart voltage control applies many of the same
components as conventional voltage control, such as tap
changing transformers and voltage regulating controllers.
Smart voltage control also contain a main processor or other
intelligent controller that performs additional control logic
using available current and voltage measurements to achieve
the specified objective function. The main processor uses the
available measurement data to determine possibility to lower
the feeder voltage (within low limit constraints) to achieve
valuable benefits such as improved efficiency, reduced
electrical demand, and lower energy consumption.
Table 1. Voltage VAR Objective Functions and their formulations
Objective Function
Smart VAR control gives the best way to maintain voltage
level along the feeder and minimize electrical losses under all
loading conditions. Similar to conventional approach, Smart
VAR control also uses switched capacitors to control VAR
flow and feeder voltage as feeder conditions vary throughout
the day. However, rather than basing the control actions only
on local measurements, the VAR control function bases
switching decisions on measurements taken at the substation
end of the feeder, where total VAR flow to the feeder is readily
observable.
V. MODELING OF V OLTAGE VAR PR OB LEM
Vital research has been carried out by different researchers for
Reactive Power Planning. As it is a complex problem involving
nonlinear objective function, nonlinear constraints and discrete
variables. With the advent of Smart Grid and advance
communication devices, it is very much important to consider
Voltage – VAR problems as potential weak link in the system.
So, optimization of Voltage Var is necessary for any power
system. Typical objective functions used by the researchers for
Voltage Var problem are Cost based such as variable and fixed
installation cost, fuel cost and real power loss etc., minimize the
deviation from selected control variable such as Voltage, Power
etc., Maximize Voltage Stability Margin or any other
performance indices.
Typical constraints are even complicated them above listed
objective functions. The list of constraints includes Base Case
Power Flow Limits, Voltage Stability limits under normal state
as well as contingency state etc. The mathematical formulation
and solution of this class of problem is very challenging due to
large number of variables and uncertain parameters [24]. So, the
resulting formulation may be discrete, partially continuous, non-
differentiable and/or nonlinear. The common objectives and
their formulations for review and selection are listed in Table 1.
Table 2 gives the common constraint used in various researches.
Formulations

Minimize VAR cost [33] – [39] 1)  . 

2)  +  . 
$
 =         ℎ        .

$
C0 = Fixed Cost in .

Minimize VAR Cost and Real 1)  (  ) +  (  )
Power Losses [40] – [45] 2) ( +  .  ). ! +  (  )
'*
3) "  # =  (  ) + ∑&,  (  )&
 (  ) =  -  /0 
Minimize VAR cost and 1) 1 = ∑62, -2 342 5 0ℎ -2 342 5 = 2 + 2 42 + 2  42
Generator Fuel Cost [46] – [48] 2)  (  ) + 1
3) ( +  .  ). ! + 1
1 =  - ℎ   7     7 
Minimum Deviation From a ∑62 (829:; − 82 )
Specified Point on Stability Curve [49]
Voltage Stability Margin ∑E @A?B?@CDF∑E > GHAICD
? >?
8<" = ∑E
? ?
@A?B?@CD
(VSM) [50] [51] ? >?

Multi Objective 1) "  # = ( +  .  ). ! +  (  )  "! |829:; − 82 |

(MO) [52] [53] 2) "  # = 10 ∑(8  8     /. 7. ) + 5 ∑(M   8NO 8     /. 7. )
0 P  /. 7.
 
S? F?TUV@ S S>D F>DTUV@ S
3) "  # = ( +  .  ). ! +  (  ) + Q ∑62 R X + Q ∑6 R X
?ICW >DICW
4) "  # = ( +  .  ). ! +  (  )
"  # = 1 − 8<"
Z (S? F ? ?[VCDSF\ ]?
"  #Y = ∑62
?
 Table 0. Voltage VAR constraints and their formulations
Constraints Formulations

Power Flow Constraints [54] 1) 42 − 2 − (8, _) = 0 (Active Power Balance Equation)
2) 42 + 2 − 2 − (8, _) = 0 (Reactive Power Balance Equation)
926 9:;
Control Variables Limits [54] 1) 42 ≤ 42 ≤ 42 (Active Power Generation Limits)
2) 842926 ≤ 842 ≤ 842
9:;
(PV bus voltage limits)
3) a926 ≤ a ≤ a9:; (Transformer Tap Change Limits)
926 9:;
4) 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 (VAR source size limits)
926 9:;
State Variable Limits [54] 1) 42 ≤ 42 ≤ 42 (Reactive Power Generation Limits)
2) 82926 ≤ 82 ≤ 829:; (PQ bus voltage limits)
3) |P# | ≤ P#9:;  (Line Flow Limit)
Other Limits : Power Factor
Constraints, Frequency Constraints etc. [54]

So, basically to deal with Voltage Var problem one can choose
any objective function from Table 1, and similarly he can
choose any sets of constraints from Table 2. It requires two sets
of variables and constraints relative to normal state and nose
point state. It invites many challenges specifically for a large
power system with many contingency cases. The other
difficulty attached to it is candidate location for new shunt VAr
devices. The problem can be solved by using Mixed Integer
Nonlinear Programming (MINLP), but as it involves large
computational model, it cannot be used practically [27]. The
other solution adapted by researchers is reduce candidate VAr
sites before preprocessing the optimization by any one the
following method : Sensitivity Index, Weak Bus oriented
criterion, Voltage Collapse Prediction Index (VCPI) index [28],
Singular Value Decomposition Method [29], L index [30], Γ
index [27, 31], U/U0 index [27], Voltage Stability Margin and
QV analysis [32].
The conventional methods used for Voltage Var problem
include Linear Programming (LP), Non Linear Programming
(NLP), Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming (MINLP), and
Intelligent Methods such as Simulated Annealing (SA),
Evolutionary Programming (EP), Tabu Search (TS), Fuzzy
Logic Programming (FLP), and other heuristic Methods. In
general, Heuristic Methods acquire more computing time
compared to other methods. The classical methods Linear,
Nonlinear, Quadratic and Interior point methods are
computationally fast but they easily converge to local minimum.
Also they suffer from difficulties in handling discrete variables
and infeasibility problems. While new methods such as
Evolutionary Algorithm, Genetic Algorithm and Partical Swarm
Optimization overcome above challenges but they have their
own challenges such as higher computational time and
premature convergence. Table 3 provides review of formulations
and specific technique used by different researchers.

Table 3. Computational Methods with Formulations and Specific Contribution and Pros- Cons
Formulas (Objective Function and Constraints) Specific Contribution / Pros- Cons
Method
Non Linear 1) Minimize Total System Reactive Power Generation: - It has global convergence, so convergence is irrelevant to
'f
Programming starting point
(NLP)[55] aM = b M2 (c, 8d , e) - It sometimes suffers from slow convergence due to
2, zigzagging in search direction.
2) Minimize the System Generation Cost: - Different optimal solutions achieved from different starting
'>f
point so it can find only local optimal solution.
M = gb -2 (M2 )h + - (M )
2,
3) Minimize the System Real Power Transmission Loss:
'

d = b 2 (c, 8d , e)
2,
s.t. Operating Constraint on the Control Vector
ci' ≤ c ≤ cj
Operating Constraint on the Dependent Vector
ki' ≤ k ≤ kj
Power Flow Constraint
#( c, k, e) = 0
Mixed Integer #(l) = "  {/ mno p + /  } - It demands a large computational model which is time
Non Linear s.t. 2 = 82 ∑6q, 8q (M2q cos _2q + u2q sin _2q ) consuming and difficult to solve.
Programming 2 = 82 ∑6q, 8q (M2q sin _2q − u2q cos _2q ) ∈y - The method is based on Bender’s decomposition method. It
(MINLP) [54] a2 926 < a2 < a2 mno ∈ y1 generates several sub problems with various stress level. The
842 926 < 842 < 842 mno ∈ yf nonlinear interior point method is used to solve these sub
problems.
2 926 < 2 < 2 mno ∈ y
82 926 < 82 < 82 mno ∈ yd
42 926 < 42 < 42 mno ∈ yf
Niching Obj 1: The Pay beck year - Adaptive genetic operators identify multiple optimal
Genetic €1> profiles by several local optima
Algorithm min - = min  „ - It uses Niching Genetic Algorithm, which gives several
 :4TC?E‚ − 96ƒ
(NGA) [56] equally effective solutions and it provides more flexibility to
Obj 2: The Net Present Value of Investment in the Solution
 the decision making process.
1
min - = min ⎛ ⎞

:4TC?E‚ − 96ƒ
− + ∑'
⎝ €1> 6, (1 + )6 ⎠
∑ (&) & ∑
Fuzzy "  ‰ &,,….'Œ a  +  2,,…,' 2 Ž2 - Fuzzy Clustering used to examine the candidate sites for
Clustering, s.t. ∑'
2, Ž2 = y
new VAr devices. It differentiates weakest bus from the group
Gray Code, (&) (&) (&) (&) (&) (&) of buses.
f2 − d2 − l2 ∑q2 lq × 3M2q _2q + u2q  _2q 5 = 0
and (&) (&) (&) (&)
- Modified Gray code applied to generate new ordering
Simulated f2 − 2 Ž2 − d2 − l2 ∑q2 lq(&) × 3M2q  _2q(&) + approach of the VAr capacity interval combinations do that it
(&)
Annealing [57] u2q _2q 5 = 0 works well with Piecewise Linear TTC (Qc) function.
(&) (&) (&) - Simulated Annealing used for solution of Reactive Planning
l2 926 ≤ l2 ≤ l2 9:;
(&) (&) (&)
Problem.
f2 926 ≤ f2 ≤ f2 9:; ∈ yM
(&) (&) (&)
f2 926 ≤ f2 ≤ f2 9:; ∈ yM
(&) (&) (&)
2 926 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 9:;
(&) (&) (&)
−<2q 9:; ≤ <2q ≤ <2q 9:;
(&) (&)
ƒ2p26p ≤ aa 3 5
Penalty min ∑9 ‘
2, 2 + 2
F
- It is ideal for successively reducing the residual
Successive s.t. ’f&2 − ’“&2 − &2 3”
•– , —
•– , ™˜– 5 = 0, = 1, … … ,  infeasibility vector.
Conic ’&2 − ’“&2 − &2 3”•– , —
• – , ˜™– 5 = 0, = š + 1. . . ,  - The method is faster and gives superior results when
Programming compared to other OPF methods.
926
&2 ≤ ’&2 ≤ &2
9:;
= 1, … , 
(PSCP) [58] - This method is applicable whenever system’s operation is
8’&2926 ≤ 8’&2 ≤ 8’&29:; = 1, … , 
926 9:; described several different scenarios.
&2 ≤ ̂&2 ≤ &2 = 1, … , ƒ

Genetic min 0 ∑S86,pœ − 86 S + 0 P - It is an excellent technique for high speed approximation
Algorithm [59] s.t. 8,926 ≤ 8 ≤ 8,9:; of a solution.
926 ≤  ≤ 9:; - Feasible area is discretely set in a large scale optimization
problem.
- Proposed method efficiently adjust voltage of power
distribution system and distributed generation can be
introduced by performing centralized cooperation control of
the power distribution equipment.
Evolutionary "  #d - It has advantages such as Self- Adaption and rotational
Programming s.t. ℎ (, ž) = 0 invariance. It is also more robust, simple and efficient than
Differential 926 ≤  ≤ 9:; other methods.
Evolution ž926 ≤ ž ≤ ž9:; - It requires relatively large populations to counteract the
(DE) [60] pressure of premature convergence caused by the fast
decrease of population diversity which results in higher
calculation time.

This paper aims to consider not only demand, but the source as
uncertain parameter. As RERs such as wind power,
Photovoltaic, etc., is influenced by meteorological conditions.
So, the uncertainties involved by RER should be considered in
an OPF problem.
VI. O UTCOME FR OM THE R EVIEW
A. Selection of OPF Method under uncertainty
Optimization Methods are reviewed for this paper, and various
methods compared against each other on basis of their pros and
cons, application, complexity, speed, accuracy, robustness and
their applicability to random variables. The widely used
objectives were selected, and their formulations were reviewed
for conventional method to advanced method to conclude the
best approach for this study. Wide literature for probabilistic
power flow and OPF has been reviewed to conclude that
Stochastic Optimization is the best suitable method considering
discussed problem of Voltage/Var control problem under
uncertainty.
B. Voltage/Var control problem
This problem is discussed by many researchers. The need for
controlling voltage/var has been discussed, and importance of
Voltage Var Optimization (VVO) has been discussed in detail
through Utility Company point of View. After studying the
available literature, it was realized that most of the researchers
have discussed the problem under deterministic conditions, and
it might not be suitable for practical power system. The
available literature for uncertain variable load and source also
considered to solve this problem. The formulation given by
different researchers was studied to come up with best
customized formulation to meet this study requirement. The
formulation selected considers the expected value as well. So,
the formulation gives the optimal value under uncertainty.
C. Optimization Formulation
Voltage Var problem is a nonlinear problem. Various
optimization formulations have with various objective functions
and constraints are studied. The best suitable objective function
selected and adjustments are made in formulation to
accommodate randomness present in the system through
expected value.
D. Further Enhancement Studies
Further studies can be directed by considering storage in
optimization formulation. Bounds can be put on reserve margin,
and it can be set as a constraint. Moreover, further reliability
studies can also be carried out by using various reliability
indices. The problem can be extended to include frequency
control as well. The advanced optimization techniques such as
adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) can also be used.
 VII. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper reviewed the OPF techniques and formulations used
in Renewable Energy Resources (RER) optimization given by
various researchers, relative pros and cons, applications,
adaptive for large and complex systems, etc. Thorough and
detailed review of Voltage VAR control problem, the
formulations given by various researchers, the formulations in
presence of variability and uncertainty, and the common
objectives, relative constraints for Voltage VAR problem. The
choice of stochastic optimization was validated with advantage
of this method over other methods. The Voltage VAR
optimization problem was discussed in Stochastic Environment.
A CKNOWLEDGM ENT
The authors wish to acknowledge all CESaC staff for their
efforts and support and the efforts and funding received from
the Department of Energy MURA under grant no. DE -
EE0004006, National Science Foundation (NSF) pricing
grant no. NSF ECCS 1338635, and NSF PSERC grant no.
NSF IIP 1120468.
REFERENCES
[1] R.V.Amarnath, N. V. Ramana, “State of Art in Optimal Power
Flow Solution Methodologies”, Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Information Technology, Vol.30, Aug. 2011.
[2] V. Selvi, R.Umarani, “Comparative Analysis of Ant Colony and
Particle Swarm Optimization Techniques”, International Journal
of Computer Applications, Vol. 5, No.4, Aug. 2010.
[3] M. R. Alrashidi, M. E. El-Hawary, “A survey of particle swarm
optimization applications in electric power systems,” IEEE Trans.
Evolut. Comp., Vol.13, No.4, pp.913-918, Aug. 2009.
[4] J. A. Momoh, M. E. El-Harwary and R. Adapa, “A review of
selected optimal power flow literature to 1993, part- I and II”,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 96-111, Feb. 1999
[5] A.Monticelli, M.V.F. Pereira, S. Granville, “Security Constrained
Optimal Power Flow With Post-Contingency Corrective
Rescheduling”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, Feb. 1987.
[6] B. Stott, O. Alsac, A. Monticelli, “Security Analysis and
Optimization”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 12, pp.
1623–1644, Dec. 1987.
[7] J. R. Birge and F. Louveaux, Introduction to Stochastic
Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997.
[8] Allan R. N., Da Silva A. M. L., Burchett R. C. “Evaluation
methods and accuracy in probabilistic load flow solutions,” IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-100, pp. 2539-2546, May
1981.
[9] P. Zhang and S. T. Lee, “Probabilistic load flow computation
using the method of combined cumulants and Gram–Charlier
expansion,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 676–682,
Feb. 2004.
[10] Y. Xiao, Y.H. Song, “Available Transfer Capability (ATC)
Evaluation by Stochastic Programming”, IEEE Power
Engineering Review, Sept. 2000.
[11] L.M. Kimball, K.A. Clements, S. Pajic, P.W. Davis, “Stochastic
OPF by Constraint Relaxation”, IEEE Bologna Power Tech, Vol.
4, pp 5, Jun. 2003.
[12] T. Yong and R. H. Lasseter, “Stochastic optimal power flow:
Formulation and solution,” IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Jul.
2000.
[13] A. Schellenberg, W. Rosehart, and J. A. Aguado, “Cumulant
based stochastic optimal power flow (S-OPF) for variance
optimization,” IEEE PES General Meeting, Jun. 2005.
[14] M. Carrión, J. M. Arroyo, and N. Alguacil, “Vulnerability-
Constrained Transmission Expansion Planning: A Stochastic
Programming Approach”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 22, No.
4, Nov. 2007.
[15] M.E. El-Hawary and G.A.N. Mbamalu, “A Comparison of
Probabilistic Perturbation and Deterministic Based Optimal
Power Flow Solutions”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 6, No. 3,
Aug. 1991.
[16] B. Borkowska, “Probabilistic Load Flow", IEEE PAS, Vol. 93,
1974, pp. 752-759.
[17] B. Borkowska, “Probabilistic load flow,” IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst, vol. PAS-93, pp. 752–759, Apr. 1974.
[18] Bruno, S ,Lamonaca, S.Rotondo, G.Stecchi, U, La Scala, M.,
“ Unbalanced Three-phase Optimal Power Flow for Smart Grids”,
IEEE Trans. Industrial Electr., Vol. 58, No. 10, pp. 4504-4513,
Oct. 2011.
[19] R. V. Meeteren, “Real -Time Optimal Power Flow in Automatic
Generation Control”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol.3, No.4, Nov.
1988.
[20] X.Liu, J.Zhong, “Point Estimate Method for Probabilistic
Optimal Power Flow with Wind Generation”, Conference on
Electrical Engineering, 2009.
[21] G. Verbiˇc and C. A. Cañizares, “Probabilistic Optimal Power
Flow in Electricity Markets Based on a Two-Point Estimate
Method”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 21, No. 4, Nov. 2006.
[22] A. Schellenberg, W. Rosehart, and J. Aguado, “Cumulant-Based
Probabilistic Optimal Power Flow (P-OPF) With Gaussian and
Gamma Distributions”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst, Vol. 20, No. 2,
May 2005.
[23] G. Verbicˇ, A. Schellenberg, W. Rosehart and C. A. Cañizares,
“Probabilistic OPF Applications to Electricity Markets”, PMAPS,
pp 1-6, Jun. 2006.
[24] E. Rosenblueth, “Point estimation for probability moments,” Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 3812–3814, 1975.
[25] C. L. Su and C. N. Lu, “Two-point estimate method for
quantifying transfer capability uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 20, no.2, pp. 573–579, May 2005.
[26] W. Zhang, F. Li, and L. M.Tolbert, “Review of Reactive Power
Planning: Objectives, Constraints, and Algorithms”, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., Vol. 22, No. 4, Nov. 2007.
[27] A. Papoulis and S. Pillai, Probability, Random Variables, and
Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
[28] A. Schellenberg, W. Rosehart, J. A. Aguado, “Cumulant-Based
Stochastic Nonlinear Programming for Variance Constrained
Voltage Stability Analysis of Power Systems”, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., Vol. 21, No. 2, May 2006.
[29] K. Clements, P. Davis, “Contingency Constrained OPF for
Deregulated Electricity Markets”, NSF proposal, Mar. 24, 1999.
Grant ECS-9810288.
[30] K. Turitsyn, Petr Sˇulc, S. Backhaus, and M. Chertkov, “Options
for Control of Reactive Power by Distributed Photovoltaic
Generators”, IEEE Proceedings, vol. 99, no.6, Jun. 2011.
[31] V. Miranda and P. Calisto, “A fuzzy inference system to
voltage/VAR control in DMS—Distribution management systems,”
PSCC-Power Systems Computation, May 2002.
[32] J. Dixon, L. Morán, J. Rodríguez, and R. Domke, “Reactive Power
Compensation Technologies: State-of-the-Art Review”,
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 93, no. 12, Dec. 2005.
[33] J. R. S. Mantovani and A. V. Garcia, “A heuristic method for
reactive power planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 68–74, Feb. 1996.
[34] M. Delfanti, G. Granelli, P. Marannino, and M. Montagna,
“Optimal capacitor placement using deterministic and genetic
algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1041–
1046, Aug. 2000.
[35] O.O.Obadina and G.J.Berg, “Var planning for power system
security,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 677–686,
May 1989.
[36] B. B. Chakrabarti, D. Chattopadhyay, and C. Krumble, “Voltage
stability constrained Var planning-a case study for New Zealand,”
LESCOPE, Jul. 11–13, 2001, pp. 86–91.
[37] D. Chattopadhyay and B. B. Chakrabarti, “Reactive power
planning incorporating voltage stability,” Int. J. Elect. Power and
Energy Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 185–200, 2002.
[38] D. Chattopadhyay and B. B. Chakrabarti, “Voltage stability
constrained Var planning: Model simplification using statistical
approximation,” Int. J. Elect. Power and Energy Syst., vol. 23, no.
5, pp. 349–358, 2001.
[39] C. T. Hsu, Y. H. Yan, C. S. Chen, and S. L. Her, “Optimal
reactive power planning for distribution systems with nonlinear
loads,” Proc. IEEE Region 10 Int. Conf. Computer,
Communication, Control and Power Engineering, 1993, vol. 5,
pp. 330–333.
[40] W. Zhang, Y. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Optimal VAr planning in area
power system,” Proc. Int. Conf. Power System Technology, Oct.
13–17, 2002, pp. 2072–2075.
[41] R. C. Dageneff, W. Neugebauer, and C. Saylor, “Security
constrained optimization: An added dimension in utility systems
optimal power flow technology,” IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, pp.
26–30, Oct. 1988.
[42] T. Gomez, I. J. Perez-Arriaga, J. Lumbreras, and V. M. Parra, “A
security- constrained decomposition approach to optimal reactive
power planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
1069–1076, Aug. 1991.
[43] B. Cova, “Contingency constrained optimal reactive power flow
procedures for voltage control in planning and operation,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 602–608, May 1995.
[44] B. Venkatesh, G. Sadasivam, and M. A. Khan, “An efficient
multi-objective fuzzy logic based successive LP method for
optimal reactive power planning,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol.
59, no. 2, pp. 89–102, Sept. 28, 2001.
[45] K. Y. Lee, X. Bai, and Y. M. Park, “Optimization method for
reactive power planning by using a modified simple genetic
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1843–
1850, Nov. 1995.
[46] D. Chattopadhyay, K. Bhattacharya, and J. Parikh, “Optimal
reactive power planning and its spot pricing: An integrated
approach,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2014–
2020, Nov. 1995.
[47] K. Y. Lee and F. F. Yang, “Optimal reactive power planning
using evolutionary algorithms: A comparative study for
evolutionary programming, evolutionary strategy, genetic
algorithm, and linear programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 101–108, Feb. 1998.
[48] J. Z. Zhu, C. S. Chang, W. Yan, and G. Y. Xu, “Reactive power
optimization using an analytic hierarchical process and a
nonlinear optimization neural network approach,” IEE Proc.
Gener. Trans. and Distrib., vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 89–97, Jan. 1998.
[49] Y. L. Chen, “Weak bus oriented reactive power planning for
system security,” IEE Proc. Gener, Trans and Distrib., vol. 143,
no. 6, pp. 541–545, Nov. 1996.
[50] B. Kermanshahi, K. Takahashi, and Y. Zhou, “Optimal operation
and allocation of reactive power resource considering static
voltage stability,” POWERCON, 1998, pp. 1473–1477.
[51] Y. L. Chen and Y. L. Ke, “Multi-objective Var planning for
largescale power systems using projection-based two-layer
simulated annealing algorithms,” IEE Proc. Gener, Trans. and
Distrib, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 555–560, Jul. 11, 2004.
[52] W. S. Jwo, C. W. Liu, C. C. Liu, and Y. T. Hsiao, “Hybrid expert
system and simulated annealing approach to optimal reactive
power planning,” IEE Gener. Trans. and Distri., vol. 142, no. 4,
pp. 381–385, Jul. 1995.
[53] H. Wei H. Sasaki J. Kubokawa, R. Yokoyama, “An Interior Point
Nonlinear Programming for Optimal Power Flow Problems with
A Novel Data Structure”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 13, No.
3, Aug. 1998.
[54] PSERC white paper, “Challenges in integrating renewable
technologies into an Electric Power System”, Apr. 2010.
[55] T. Yau, L. Walker, H. Graham, and A. Gupta, “Effects of battery
storage devices on power system dispatch,” IEEE Trans. PAS,
Vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 375–383, 1981.
[56] N. Alguacil and A. J. Conejo, “Multiperiod optimal power flow
using benders decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 196 –201, 2000.
[57] J.A.Momoh, “Electric Power System Applications of
Optimization”, second edition, ISBN -13: 978-1-4200-6586-2.
[58] E. Sortomme and M. A. El-Sharkawi, “Optimal power flow for a
system of microgrids with controllable loads and battery storage,”
Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2009.
[59] R.A.Jabr, B.C.Pal, “Intermittent wind generation in optimal
power flow dispatching”, IET Gener. Trans. and Distrib., Jun.
2008.
[60] M. Geidl and G. Andersson, “A modeling and optimization
approach for multiple energy carrier power flow,” IEEE PES
PowerTech, 2005.
[61] G. Verbiˇc and C. A. Cañizares, “Probabilistic Optimal Power
Flow in Electricity Markets Based on a Two-Point Estimate
Method”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 21, No. 4, Nov. 2006.
[62] H. Zhang, and P. Li, “Chance Constrained Programming for
Optimal Power Flow under Uncertainty”, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., Vol. 26, No. 4, Nov. 2011.
[63] F.B.Alhasawi and J.V.Milanovic, “Techno-Economic
Contribution of FACTS Devices to the Operation of Power
Systems with High Level of Wind Power Integration”, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 27, No. 3, Aug. 2012.