Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Nomenclature
TC n
Transmission cost to user n
Number of transmission lines
l
Ci Cost in $/MW-mile or $/MW-Km which
is already defined
Li Length of line i
Pi ,n
Power flow in line i, because of the user n
c
Pi Power capacity of line i in MW
x
V
r
INTRODUCTION
B. Chalapathi
Assi. Prof., Department of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering
GPREC, Kurnool, AP, India
chalam212@gmail.com
C i Li Pi ,n
Pic
i=1
(1)
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Pc =
V 2 sin
( 2)
xL
I c=
Ploss =
100 Ploss
P
100 r sin
(7)
x
Ploss =
50
(8)
x
r
()
( rx )
ratio will
Pi 2
K= C (9)
Pi
( )
P
(3)
3V
V sin
( 4)
3L x
Ploss modifies
sin
2
V
Ploss=
I c=
c 2
Ploss=3 ( I ) rL (5)
MW-MILE METHOD
TC n =
P
( i , n+ Pli ,n )
C i Li
(11)
Pci
l
TC n =
i=1
P
( i , n+Pli ,n )
C i Li
Pci
(12)
TC n=C LF
i=1
This modified formula considers both the power factor and the
loss to allocate the transmission pricing. In the calculations it
is assumed that the length of the line is proportional to the
impedance. For a given system initially the full capacities of
the lines are calculated, based on
x
r
()
Lines
Base case
(MW)
1-2
1-5
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-4
4-5
4-7
4-9
5-6
6-11
6-12
6-13
7-8
7-9
9-10
9-14
10-11
12-13
13-14
147.87
71.11
70.04
55.22
40.90
-24.15
-62.33
28.98
16.63
42.08
6.30
7.54
17.03
0
28.98
6.19
9.92
-2.80
1.44
4.97
RESULTS
Base case
with T1
(MW)
160.08
78.90
72.11
59.53
46.73
-22.09
-56.30
29.20
16.75
41.74
6.09
7.51
16.92
0
29.20
6.40
10.05
-2.59
1.44
4.82
Base case
with T2
(MW)
143.98
75.00
73.21
61.85
47.21
-20.98
-64.05
36.30
20.83
50.55
6.88
9.29
23.17
0
36.30
5.61
22.02
-3.38
3.20
12.87
load points in the transactions considered are 0.8 and 0.9 (lag) [3]
where as the reference power factor is kept at 0.85 as in [14].
The effect of power factor variation is considered including
[4]
the cost of loss component.
TABLE II. COST OF TRANSACTIONS WITH DIFFERENT CASES
Cost without
loss
component
($/hr)
Cost with loss
component
($/hr)
Cost at 0.8 pf
($/hr)
Cost at 0.9 pf
($/hr)
T1
T2
88.93
554.84
90.00
597.09
95.62
634.41
85.00
563.89
Shirmohammedi D., Filho X. V., Gorenstin B., and Pereira M. V. P., Some
fundamental technical concepts about cost based transmission pricing,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1996, 11, (2), pp. 1002 1008.
Park Y. M., Park J. B., Lim J. U., and Won J.R., An analytical
approach for transaction costs allocation in transmission
system, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (4), pp. 1407
1412.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
CONCLUSIONS
point-to-point tariff and transaction pair matching for pool market, Elect.
Power Syst. Res., no. 80, pp. 481 488, Apr. 2010.
In this paper the effect of counter flows arising because of[13] A. R. Abhyankar and S. A. Khaparde, Electricity transmission pricing:
Tracing based point-of-connection tariff, Elect. Power Energy Syst., no.
simultaneous multi transactions is not considered. When the
31, pp. 59 66, Jan. 2009.
counter flows are negative they benefit the transmission
[14]
Syarifuddin
Nojeng, Mohammad Yusri HassanDalila Mat Said, Md. Pauzi
system provider by increasing the transmission system
Abdullah, and Faridah Hussin, Improving the MW-Mile Method Using the
capacity and also reducing the power loss hence this factor
Power Factor-Based Approach for Pricing the Transmission Services,
plays main role in deciding the cost component for losses
IEEE Trans. Power syst., Vol. 29, No. 5, September, 2014.
hence further work can be done to include negative counter [15] K. L. Lo, M. Y. Hassan and S. Jovanovic, Assessment of MW mile method
for pricing transmission services: a negative flow sharing approach, IET
flows in cost of loss allocation.
REFERENCES
[1] Shirmohammedi D., Gribik P.R., Law E.T.K., Malinowaski J.H., and
ODonnell R.E., Evaluation of transmission network capacity use for
wheeling transactions, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1989, 4,(4), pp. 1405
1413.
[2] S. Holmes. A Review and Evaluation of Selected Wheeling Arrangements
and a Proposed General Wheeling Tariff, FERC paper, September 1983.
APPENDIX
The IEEE 14 bus system considered in the above analysis is
given below