IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO.
3, AUGUST 2002
Transmission Capacity: Availability,
Maximum Transfer and Reliability
Armando M. Leite da Silva, Fellow, IEEE, João Guilherme de Carvalho Costa, Luiz Antônio da Fonseca Manso, and
George J. Anders, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—The available transfer capability (ATC) is an impor-
tant parameter for all companies participating in the power trans-
action activities. The main objective of this work is to propose a new
methodology to determine the best points in the system to add new
agents (sellers and buyers), in order to maximize the ATC, without
violating a pre-established reliability level. In the process, the ATC
probability density function is determined considering uncertain-
ties from equipment un-availabilities. The proposed algorithm uses
Monte Carlo simulation to select system state and linear program-
ming with a dc power flow model, to analyze and optimize each
selected state. The IEEE Reliability Test System (RTS) is used to
illustrate the proposed methodology.
Index Terms—Available transfer capability, composite relia-
bility, Monte Carlo simulation, transmission capacity.
I. INTRODUCTION
T RANSMISSION companies are facing several challenges
in the new economic environment including the assess-
ment of optimal transfer capabilities, the establishment of ad-
equate transmission charges and the choice of the best trans-
mission investment options. A new phenomenon in the North
American energy market is a sudden increase in interest by po-
tential investors in building new generating facilities. This has
been precipitated by the electric power shortages experienced
by several regions and aided by a favorable political climate. On
the other hand, investment in new transmission facilities is slow,
hampered by environmental constraints and economic consider-
ations. This has led to a more intensive use of the existing trans-
mission corridors. These aspects have motivated the develop-
ment of methodologies to evaluate the existing transfer capabili-
ties and transmission margins. One measure of the robustness of
the transmission system is the value of the ATC. A ruling by the
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires
electric utilities in the United States to provide transmission ser-
vices for wholesale customers and under this ruling, utilities are
required to post information on the ATC of their transmission
networks [1].
Not only in the U.S. but also in many other countries, ATC
is becoming a critical piece of information in an open market
Manuscript received October 16, 2001; revised February 16, 2002. This work
was supported in part by the CNPq, Pronex, Brazil, NSERC Grant 238244-01,
Canada, and Hydro One, Ontario, Canada
A. M. Leite da Silva and J. G. de Carvalho Costa are with the Institute of
Electrical Engineering, Federal University, EFEI, Itajubá, MG, Brazil.
L. A. F. Manso is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Federal Uni-
versity, FUNREI, São João del Rei, MG, Brazil.
G. J. Anders is with the Transmission and Distribution Technologies Depart-
ment, KINECTRICS, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Publisher Item Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2002.800961.
0885-8950/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
843
structure dominated by bilateral transactions, and also an impor-
tant issue related to congestion costs. Therefore, its calculation
is an issue of concern to both system planers and operators.
With the new generating agents connecting to the existing
transmission network, the congestion issue will become even
more important. Transmission companies can try to alleviate
possible congestion problems by controlling where the new gen-
eration is connected into the network. Additionally, location of
the new generating facilities while stressing the existing trans-
mission network, will have a tendency of lowering reliability
of the transmission system. The goal is to select such locations
for the new agents that the highest economic gains are achieved
without compromising system reliability levels. The tools pro-
posed in this paper will hopefully help system planners and op-
erators to address this important issue.
II. GENERAL REMARKS
One interesting aspect of the ATC parameter is the lack of
standardization of its meaning. Operating studies commonly
seek to determine limitations (capacity margins) due to the fol-
lowing four types of problems: thermal overload; voltage in-
stability; transient instability and oscillatory instability [2]. The
most comprehensive attempt to define transfer capability and
other related margins [3] has been coordinated by the North
American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). NERC defines
a parameter called first contingency incremental transfer capa-
bility (FCITC). It is the amount of electric power, incremental
above normal base power transfer, that can be transferred over
the interconnected transmission systems in a reliable manner
based on all of the following conditions [1].
1) With normal (pre-contingency) operating procedures...all
facility loads are within normal ratings and all voltage are
within normal limits.
2) The electric systems are capable of... remaining stable
following [any single contingency].
3) After the dynamic power swings subside following a
[single contingency]...all transmission facility loadings
are within emergency ratings and all voltages are within
emergency limits.
This is a very loose definition [4] but it can serve as a basis
for assessing the ATC as described below.
Considering the base case configuration (i.e., no contin-
gency), let ATC be the maximum amount of power transfer,
which accounts for the previous conditions. Similarly, let
ATC be the maximum amount of power transfer, under the
first order contingency . This parameter can be generalized
844
to ATC , where is the contingency order. The number of
contingencies to be analyzed will depend on the contingency
order. Therefore, a possible definition of the parameter FCITC
is given by
(1)
If the contingency order goes up to ensure more reliable trans-
fers [by including ATC into (1)], then the transfer capability
becomes, obviously, smaller.
The transfer capability depends on many factors: availabil-
ities of generation and transmission equipment; general oper-
ating conditions (economic dispatching, remedial actions etc.);
set of nodes (from and to) where the power will be transferred;
etc. Since the uncertainties in load and equipment availabilities
have to be taken into account, the ATC parameter becomes a
random variable. That means that the amount of power, which
can be transferred from one system/area to another, will be de-
fined by its probability distribution function. Once this function
is estimated, questions like “What is the risk of selling a certain
amount of transmission capacity?” can be adequately answered.
In recent literature, the ATC quantification is being carried
out through dc or ac network models, in a deterministic [4]–[6]
or stochastic [3], [7]–[16] simulation environments. When the
stochastic model is adopted, the ATC distribution function can
be determined based on the following steps.
1) Select an operating state: generation/transmission/load.
2) Solve the network equations for the selected state (make
the necessary adjustments).
3) Maximize the power transfer through the specified inter-
connection lines (make the necessary adjustments).
4) Store power transfers values; check convergence and if
necessary go back to step 1).
The major difference among the proposed algorithms is the
way the state is selected, by enumeration or Monte Carlo simu-
lation, and also the tool used to assess the steady state network
solution (including the necessary adjustments), linear dc or non-
linear ac. For large-scale networks, Monte Carlo simulation is
by far the most effective method of state selection [17], [18].
In case a dc power flow model is adopted, the adjustments
in step 2) deal with active generation rescheduling and, as last
resort, load curtailment. In step 3), the adjustments would be
only restricted to rescheduling of active generating power. In
case an ac power flow model is adopted, the problem becomes
more complex from the optimization point of view. In this case,
problems associated with system voltage and reactive support
have to be captured and duly solved [11].
In summary, the probabilistic evaluation of ATC has been ad-
dressed in recent literature, and the degree of complexity will
be decided by each specific problem; large systems will require
Monte Carlo simulation and systems with voltage/reactive defi-
ciency will require ac analysis.
As a first step in selecting the best location for new generating
and load buses, there will be a need to determine the probability
distribution function of the ATC. This topic is considered next.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, AUGUST 2002
Fig. 1. Two-area system.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Consider the two-area system interconnected through two tie
lines such as illustrated in the Fig. 1.
Area 1 has more generation than load, and exports power to
Area 2 through the interconnection lines. The interest is the de-
termination of the ATC probability density function (PDF) for
this system. The aim of the ATC assessment is to evaluate the
ability of a network to allow for the reliable movement of elec-
tric power from areas of supply to areas of demand. In this case,
there are two different situations:
Determination of the ATC Density Function in Short-
Term: Generation and transmission resources are assumed as
fixed values within their capabilities, and the obtained PDF
represents the maximum power that can be transferred between
areas, so that the reliability level remains the same.
Determination of the ATC Density Function in Mid-Term: In
this case, only transmission system is fixed, and the objective is
to evaluate the PDF associated with the maximum power that
can be transferred from one area to another, considering new
agents in the system, i.e., new generators (sellers) and loads
(buyers). In addition, the best points in the system to add new
generation and loads can be determined such that the transfer ca-
pability is maximized, while keeping the reliability level within
a pre-specified limit. The idea is to allow new agents into the
systems without disturbing the existing transactions.
The situations described above can be treated by optimizing
the following objective function for each selected state by the
Monte Carlo Simulation
(2)
Such that
DC load flow balance with
vector of active power injections,
network matrix and angle
vector;
active power for each generator
[MW];
active flow for each line [MW];
load shedding for each load bus
[MW];
module of the extra injection at bus
;
summation of all extra injections.
Where
active flow for tie line [MW];
number of system buses;
number of tie lines;
total number of buses with extra injections;
LEITE DA SILVA et al.: TRANSMISSION CAPACITY 845

flow penalty [US$/MWh];

interruption penalty for bus [US$/MWh];
injection penalty [US$/MWh].
The idea is to maximize the objective function (2), by max-
imizing the flows through tie lines (positive sign and medium
weight , e.g., 10), minimizing the load shedding (negative
sign and very high , e.g., 1500), and in some cases, using
the extra injections (sellers/buyers) as the preferable options
(negative sign and very low weight , e.g., 1). The proposed
algorithm will try firstly, to redispatch available generation, sec-
ondly, to increase injections , and finally, if both previous
trials fail, to shed load. Observe that penalties used in cost
function (2) of the dc-OPF (optimal power flow) algorithm must
be chosen on a relative basis. Although this function changes ac-
cording to the weights, the achieved optimal variables
and will remain the same.
The proposed algorithm follows these steps.
1) Read all electric and reliability parameters of the system.
2) Select an operating state “ ” by Monte Carlo sampling. Fig. 2. IEEE MRTS.
3) Evaluate through Linear Programming (LP) and DC Load
Flow, the maximum transfer capacity, through the spec-
ified interconnection lines, associated with the sampled TABLE I
state “ ,” i.e., ATC(s). RELIABILITY INDICES—STANDARD ANALYSIS
4) Recalculate the E{ATC} including the new entry ATC(s),
and check the convergence; If (number of samples)
(maximum no. of samples), or
(coefficient of variation for the expected value of ATC,
[17] and [18]) stop, otherwise, go back to step 2).

IV. DETERMINATION OF ATC PROBABILITY

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
Consider, firstly, the case when extra injections are not avail-
able, i.e., in (2). The problem consists of evaluating
the PDF of the ATC considering the actual load and the existing
generation/transmission resources.
A. Test System
The IEEE Modified Reliability Test System (MRTS) is a
modification of the IEEE-RTS [19]. The original generating
capacities and peak loads were multiplied by two, with the
aim of stressing the transmission network. The system has 24
buses, 38 circuits, and 14 plants (32 generating units). The total
installed capacity is 6810 MW, with a peak load of 5700 MW.
Area 1 is the 230 kV sub-network and Area 2 is the 138 kV
sub-network. There are 5 tie lines connecting these two areas as
can be seen in Fig. 2.The following load shedding policies will
be considered to illustrate their impact on the ATC evaluation:
Policy A: In this policy, the parameter has the same value
for every bus of the system.
Policy B: Each bus has its own interruption penalty . Table II shows the expected values for ATC and the corre-
Policy C: In case of deficiency of generation, the load at each
bus will be shed proportionally to its contribution to the total
system load. In case of transmission overloads, it follows policy
B.
The following example shows how load shedding policy can
influence reliability and ATC evaluations.
B. Reliability Results
Before evaluating ATC parameters, a standard reliability
analysis is carried out for this system with the objective func-
tion of minimizing load curtailed. Considering a coefficient
of variation equal to 4% [17], [18], about 4000 samples
using a nonsequential Monte Carlo simulation were required to
evaluate the reliability indices. These reliability indices (EPNS
Expected Power Not Supplied in MW, and LOLP Loss of
Load Probability) are shown in Table I. These indices will be
compared with those obtained in the ATC evaluation to verify
if the reliability level remains unchanged.
It can be observed from Table I, the three load shedding poli-
cies have similar impact on the system. However, their impacts
on the areas/buses are different.
C. ATC Results
Fig. 3 illustrates calculated probability density and cumula-
tive functions, using load shedding policies A, B, and C.
sponding standard deviations; all results are in MW. Table III
presents the LOLP and EPNS indices, i.e., the values
of loss of load probability, and expected power not supplied of
the system/areas, obtained through ATC calculations. These in-
dices are very important since they will show if the reliability of
the system is being kept the same.
846
Fig. 3. Probability density and cumulative functions.
TABLE II
EXPECTED VALUE AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF ATC
TABLE III
RELIABILITY INDICES—ATC CALCULATIONS
Analyzing the results presented in Tables I and III, it can
be observed that the reliability indices for the system, i.e.,
EPNS and LOLP , obtained from the ATC
evaluation, are very close to those obtained from the composite
reliability evaluation. Therefore, the load shedding policies are
not being used to maximize power transfer but to solve, as last
resort, system problems. That is the way it should be. However,
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, AUGUST 2002
Fig. 4. Procedure of “double optimization.”
the EPNS indices per area are quite different in all cases, as a
consequence of the different load shedding policies.
Observed that the main objective is to maximize the amount
of power being transferred from Area 1 to Area 2, in a most re-
liable manner. Considering the case when all buses have equal
penalties for load curtailment (i.e., Policy A), for selected states
with insufficient generation, loads in Area 2 will be preserved
over the loads in Area 1, in order to maximize power trans-
fers from Area 1 to Area 2. As a consequence, EPNS
decreases and EPNS increases, as can be seen in Tables I
and III. For this reason, Policy A provides the highest value of
E{ATC} among the three analyzed policies.
Conversely, based on Policies B and C, system and area relia-
bility indices obtained through ATC calculations are very close
to those obtained from the composite reliability evaluation. Con-
sidering these policies, when the system has insufficient gener-
ation, the buses in the system where loads have to be shed are
explicitly defined by the user unlike in the Policy A.
D. Comparative Study
In [11], the ATC calculations are carried out by combining
Monte Carlo simulation to select the system state and Interior
Point (IP) optimization algorithm. The ac model is used. Fig. 4
illustrates the adopted procedure.
There are two optimizations in that algorithm: The first opti-
mization is used to alleviate the potential operational violations
in order to achieve a feasible operating point. In this optimiza-
tion, it is possible to use generation rescheduling, bus voltage
corrections, LTC tap changing, and load shedding as a last re-
sort. In the second optimization, the objective is to maximize
the transfer, using the same set of system control actions, ex-
cept the load shedding. The first optimization is identical to the
optimization used in the reliability evaluation, and in the second
one, load shedding is not allowed. Thus, the reliability indices
obtained in the ATC evaluation will be exactly the same as those
obtained with a reliability evaluation analysis.
The aim in this part of the presentation is to show that it is
unnecessary to carry out two optimization procedures. In order
to illustrate this point, a simplified “double optimization pro-
cedure” using a linear programming and dc power flow model
LEITE DA SILVA et al.: TRANSMISSION CAPACITY
Fig. 5. PDF using double optimization procedure and policy B.
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
was implemented in this work. The PDF of the ATC obtained
through this procedure is shown in Fig. 5. In this case, Policy B
was adopted.
Table IV shows the comparison of results for single and
double optimization procedures. It can be concluded that the
results obtained with both procedures are very close. However,
the computing effort using the double optimization is approxi-
mately the double of the time spent with the single one. This is
definitely an advantage of the proposed single optimization pro-
cedure. This confirms that the ATC evaluation can be done with
only one optimization step, where both objectives “maximize
the transfer capabilities” and “minimize the load shedding” are
duly weighted in an appropriate objective function.
The only restriction to the single optimization procedure
happens if all buses have the same interruption penalties. In
this case, one must ensure that the LP algorithm will shed load
among buses in a similar way with both ATC and Reliability
calculations. If it is not possible to force the LP algorithm to
ensure this condition, the double optimization algorithm has to
be used for the ATC calculations, since it separates reliability
evaluations (i.e., violation solutions) from ATC calculations
(i.e., maximum transfer solutions). Another advantage of this
procedure is to keep the information of the dual variables of
the optimization problems, since they might be useful during
the planning phase.
V. DETERMINATION OF ATC WITH ADDITIONAL
POWER INJECTIONS
In this case, the determination of ATC can assist system
planers to allocate new agents (sellers and buyers), in order
to maximize the transfer through the interconnections. This
task is related with the feasibility assessment of simultaneous
transactions, as described in [14].
The idea is to apply the same algorithm already used, but now,
considering extra injections in the specified buses. The algo-
rithm will try to maximize the power transfers, using the redis-
847
TABLE V
HIGHEST EXTRA INJECTIONS
patch of the units and the extra injections (i.e., , repre-
senting the new generators and loads).
The values of extra injections are determined at each selected
state according to the system conditions. Therefore, at the end
of the Monte Carlo process, it is possible to calculate the ex-
pected value associated with each extra injection for all system
buses. The buses that achieve the highest mean values among
all specified buses, are the best feasible points to include new
generators and loads.
A. Numerical Example
Area 1 (230 kV) is assumed to have more available generation
sources. Therefore, buses from 13 to 23 will be considered as
positive injections, i.e., , in (2). Area 2 (138 kV) is
assumed to have more need for new loads and, therefore, buses
from 1 to 10 will be considered as negative injections, i.e.,
, in (2). The 5 existing tie lines will be monitored. The proposed
multipoint ATC algorithm is run and the results are shown in
Table V.
Buses 13, 14, 15 and 7, 9, 10 reach the highest expected
values of positive and negative injections, respectively. These
are therefore the best buses in the system to allocate new gener-
ation and load to maximize the transfer between areas. Once the
best points are determined, another interesting question that can
be answered is: “How to calculate the maximum values of gen-
eration/load that can be added to the system without violation of
pre-specified reliability limits?” This problem will be analyzed
using successive reliability evaluations as described below.
B. Proposed Methodology
The methodology uses the following steps.
1) Determine the mean values of the extra injections.
2) Specify the acceptable reliability limits for the system.
3) Add generators and loads in those buses. Add the amount
of power representing % of its mean extra injection
values.
4) Run a composite reliability algorithm and evaluate the
associate reliability indices.
5) If all obtained indices are within the acceptable limits, in-
crease parameter and return to 3), otherwise, continue.
6) Calculate the associate ATC value.
848
TABLE VI
ACCEPTABLE RELIABILITY LEVEL
TABLE VII
NEW EXTRA INJECTIONS
Fig. 6. Bus 6 LOLP.
TABLE VIII
NEW GENERATION AND LOAD
(k = 60%)
C. Numerical Example
The acceptable system and per bus reliability indices are
shown in Table VI.
From the previous simulation, one has concluded that the best
buses to add new generation and load are respectively 13, 14, 15,
and 7, 9, 10. A new simulation can be carried out, by specifying
extra injections only in these buses. The obtained results are
shown in Table VII.
Factor is scaled from 10% to 100% to include new gen-
eration and load in the system, and for each new step, a com-
posite reliability evaluation is run. All system and bus indices
are compared with the acceptable levels specified in Table VI.
During these tests, no violations were detected until %.
For %, the LOLP at bus 6 is violated as shown in Fig. 6.
Corresponding maximum values of generation/load that can be
added to the system are shown in Table VIII.
As can be observed, a total of 279 MW of generation and
load can be installed in Areas 1 and 2, without violating the
pre-specified reliability criteria. The total amount of 279 MW,
generation and load, have to be located as shown in Table VIII
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, AUGUST 2002
Fig. 7. Probability density and cumulative functions—resultant ATC.
to ensure the criteria. In other words, the new agents, sellers and
buyers, will not disturb the reliability of the previously set trans-
actions considering the same transmission system. Fig. 7 shows
the density and cumulative functions of the resultant ATC, con-
sidering %. The expected value of this PDF is E{ATC}
1796.42 MW, which represents a significant increase compared
to the previous cases when extra injections were not allowed.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper describes a new probabilistic method for deter-
mining the ATC between areas of an interconnected system.
The method is based on Monte Carlo simulation to select the
system state and Linear Programming with a dc Power Flow
Model to optimize and analyze each selected state. For each se-
lected state, the ATC assessment was carried out using a single
objective function. Both objectives “minimize load shedding”
and “maximize the transfer” are duly weighted. It was stressed
that the load shedding policy can modify the ATC. The proposed
algorithm could be used by system planners and operators to
evaluate the available ATC, and also to access the best points in
the system to add new generation/load in order to increase ATC
without violating pre-specified reliability levels. This informa-
tion should be very useful for transmission capacity planning in
the new deregulated environment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. J. W. Marangon Lima,
EFEI, for assisting in the first part of this project.
REFERENCES
[1] North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), “Available
transfer capability—Definitions and determinations,” NERC Rep., June
1996.
[2] J. D. McCalley, J. F. Dorsey, Z. Qu, J. F. Luini, and J. L. Filippi, “A new
nethodology for determining transmission capacity margin in electric
power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 944–951, Aug.
1991.
[3] H. M. Merryl, “Probabilistic available capacity,” in Proc. Panel Discus-
sion Risk Anal. ATC, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, Feb. 1998.
[4] M. Ilic, F. Galiana, L. Fink, A. Bose, P. Mallet, and H. Othman, “Trans-
mission capacity in power networks,” Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 99–110, 1998.
[5] A. R. Vodjdani, “Computing available transmission capacity using
TRACE,” EPRI Power Syst. Planning Operat. News, Oct. 1995.
[6] G. C. Ejebe, J. Tong, J. G. Waight, J. G. Frame, X. Wang, and W. F.
Tinney, “Available transfer capability calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1521–1527, Nov. 1998.
[7] G. T. Heydt and B. M. Katz, “A stochastic model in simultaneous inter-
change capacity calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-94, pp. 350–359, Mar./Apr. 1975.
LEITE DA SILVA et al.: TRANSMISSION CAPACITY
[8] Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland (PJM) Transmission Reliability
Task Force, “Bulk power area reliability evaluation considering prob-
abilistic transfer capability,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-101, pp. 3551–3562, Sept. 1982.
[9] P. Sandrin, L. Dubost, and L. Feltin, “Evaluation of transfer capability
between interconnected utilities,” in Proc. 11th Power Syst. Comput.
Conf., Avignon, France, Aug. 30–Sept. 3, 1993.
[10] F. Xia and A. P. S. Meliopoulos, “A methodology for probabilistic si-
multaneous transfer capability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
11, pp. 1269–1278, Aug. 1996.
[11] J. C. O. Mello, A. C. G. Melo, and S. Granville, “Simultaneous transfer
capability assessment by combining interior point methods and Monte
Carlo simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, pp. 736–742, May
1997.
[12] G. Hamoud, “Probabilistic assessment of interconnection assistance be-
tween power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 535–542,
May 1998.
[13] A. M. Leite da Silva, J. W. Marangon Lima, and G. J. Anders, “Available
transmission capacity—Sell firm or interruptible?,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 14, pp. 1299–1305, Nov. 1999.
[14] G. Hamoud, “Feasibility assessment of simultaneous bilateral transac-
tions in a deregulated environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15,
pp. 22–26, Feb. 2000.
[15] , “Assessment of available transfer capability of transmission sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 27–32, Feb. 2000.
[16] B. Cornière, L. Martin, S. Vitet, N. Hadjsaid, and A. G. Phadke, “As-
sessment of the congestion cost and the risk of curtailment associated
with transfer capability (ATC),” in Proc. 2000 Power Eng. Soc. IEEE
Winter Meeting, Singapore, Jan. 2000.
[17] A. C. G. Melo, M. V. F. Pereira, and A. M. Leite da Silva, “Frequency
and duration calculations in composite generation and transmission re-
liability evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 469–476, May
1992.
[18] A. M. Leite da Silva, L. A. F. Manso, J. C. O. Mello, and E. R. Billinton,
“Pseudo-chronological simulation for composite reliability analysis
with time varying loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 73–80,
Feb. 2000.
[19] IEEE APM Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability test system,” IEEE Trans.
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-99, pp. 2047–2054, Nov./Dec. 1979.
849
Armando M. Leite da Silva (S’77–M’78–SM’91–F’00) was born in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, in 1954. He received the B.Sc. degree from the Catholic Uni-
versity of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Brazil, in 1975, the M.Sc. degree from the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ), in 1977, and the Ph.D.
degree from the University of Manchester (UMIST), U.K., in 1980.
He worked at the Electrical Engineering Department, PUC-Rio, as a Professor
until 1994. From 1990 to 1991, he was Visiting Researcher at the Research Di-
vision of Ontario Hydro, Canada. Since 1994, he is a Professor at the Institute
of Electrical Engineering, Federal University, Itajubá (EFEI), Brazil.
Dr. Leite da Silva received the Sebastian Z. de Ferranti Premium Award from
the Power Division, IEE, U.K., in 1992, for his work on generation capacity
reliability evaluation.
João Guilherme de Carvalho Costa was born in Pouso Alegre, Brazil, in 1975.
He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Institute of Electrical En-
gineering, Federal University, Itajubá, Brazil, in 1998 and 2000, respectively,
where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
Luiz Antônio da Fonseca Manso was born in Bias Fortes, Brazil, in 1961. He
received the B.Sc. degree from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil, in
1985, the M.Sc. degree from the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in
1989, and the Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Electrical Engineering, Federal
University, Itajubá, Brazil, in 1999.
Since 1988, he has been with the Electrical Engineering Department, Federal
University, São João del-Rei, Brazil.
George J. Anders (M’74–SM’84–F’99) received the M.Sc degree in electrical
engineering from the Technical University of Lodz, Poland, in 1973 and the
M.Sc. degree in mathematics and Ph.D. degree in power system reliability from
the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 1977 and 1980, respectively.
Since 1975, he has been with Ontario Hydro, Canada, first as a System De-
sign Engineer in the Transmission System Design Department, System Planning
Division, and currently as a Principal Engineer in Kinectrics (former Ontario
Hydro Technologies). He is the author of two books Probability Concepts in
Electric Power Systems (New York: Wiley, 1990) and Rating of Electric Power
Cables (New York: IEEE Press, 1997).
Dr. Anders is a registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario.