Mathematical Programming

, Volume 140, Issue 2, pp 239–266 | Cite as

A model and approach to the challenge posed by optimal power systems planning

  • Richard P. O’NeillEmail author
  • Eric A. Krall
  • Kory W. Hedman
  • Shmuel S. Oren
Full Length Paper Series B


Currently, there is a need to plan and analyze the electric power transmission system in greater detail and over larger geographic areas. Existing models approach the problem from different perspectives. Each model addresses different aspects of and has different approximations to the optimal planning process. In order to scope out the huge challenge of optimal transmission planning, this paper presents a new modeling approach for inter-regional planning and investment in a competitive environment. This modeling approach incorporates the detailed generator, topology and operational aspects found in production cost planning models into a larger framework that can find optimal sets of transmission expansion projects. The framework proposed here can be used in an auction to award investment contracts or as a part of a more general policy analysis. The solution yields the set of transmission projects that have the highest expected benefits, while also representing generic generation expansions under the same objective. The model is a two-stage, mixed-integer, multi-period, N-1-reliable model with investment, unit commitment, and transmission switching. The combination of combinatorial, stochastic and operational elements means this model may be computationally intractable without judicious modelling aggregations or approximations to reduce its size and complexity. Nevertheless we show via a dual problem that analysing the economics and sensitivity of the solution is computationally more straightforward.


Duality Integer programming Stochastic programming  Generation unit commitment Investment Power system economics 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90B15 Network models, stochastic 90C11 Mixed integer programming 90C90 Applications of mathematical programming 91B32 Resource and cost allocation  91B26 Market models (auctions, bargaining, bidding, selling, etc.) 


  1. 1.
    Hedman, K.W., O’Neill, R.P., Fisher, E.B., Oren, S.S.: Optimal transmission switching–sensitivity analysis and extensions. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 23(3), 1469–1479 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hedman, K.W., O’Neill, R.P., Fisher, E.B., Oren, S.S.: Optimal transmission switching with contingency analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24(3), 1577–1586 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hedman, K.W., Ferris, M.C., O’Neill, R.P., Fisher, E.B., Oren, S.S.: Co-optimization of generation unit commitment and transmission switching with N-1 reliability. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25(2), 1052–1063 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedman, K.W., O’Neill, R.P., Fisher, E.B., Oren, S.S.: Smart flexible just-in-time transmission and flowgate bidding. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., publication (2010, accepted)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Neill, R.P., Baldick, R., Helman, U., Rothkopf, M.H., Stewart, W.: Dispatchable transmission in RTO markets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20(1), 171–179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Neill, R.P., Hedman, K.W., Krall, E.A., Papavasiliou, A., Oren, S.S.: Economic analysis of the N-1 reliable unit commitment and transmission switching problem using duality concepts. Energy Syst. 1(2), 165–195 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, E.B., O’Neill, R.P., Ferris, M.C.: Optimal transmission switching. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 23(3), 1346–1355 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garver, L.L.: Transmission network estimation using linear programming. IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. PAS–89(7), 1688–1697 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Villasana, R., Garver, L.L., Salon, S.J.: Transmission network planning using linear programming. IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. PAS–104(2), 349–356 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dusonchet, Y.P., El-Abiad, A.: Transmission planning using discrete dynamic optimizing. IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. PAS–92(4), 1358–1371 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romero, R., Monticelli, A.: A hierarchical decomposition approach for transmission network expansion planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9(1), 373–380 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baughman, M.L., Siddiqi, S.N., Zarnikau, J.W.: Integrating transmission into IRP part I: analytical approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10(3), 1652–1659 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallego, R.A., Monticelli, A., Romero, R.: Transmission system expansion planning by an extended genetic algorithm. IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib. 145(3), 329–335 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binato, S., Pereira, M.V., Granville, S.: A new Benders decomposition approach to solve power transmission network design problems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16(2), 235–240 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alguacil, N., Motto, A.L., Conejo, A.J.: Transmission expansion planning: a mixed-integer LP approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 18(3), 1070–1077 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    deOliveira, E.J., daSilva, I.C.: Transmission system expansion planning using a sigmoid function to handle integer investment variables. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20(3), 1616–1621 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de la Torre, S., Conejo, A.J., Contreras, J.: Transmission expansion planning in electricity markets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 23(1), 238–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moulin, L.S., Poss, M., Sagastizábal, C.: Transmission expansion planning with re-design. Energy Syst. 1(2), 113–139 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kazerooni, A.K., Mutale, J.: Transmission network planning under security and environmental constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25(2), 1169–1178 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Weijde, A.H., Hobbs, B.F.: The economics of planning electricity transmission to accommodate renewables: using two-stage optimisation to evaluate flexibility and the cost of disregarding uncertainty. Energy Econ. 34, 2089–2101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sauma, E.E., Oren, S.S.: Economic criteria for planning transmission investment in restructured electricity markets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22(4), 1394–1405 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sauma, E.E., Oren, S.S.: Proactive planning and valuation of transmission investments in restructured electricity markets. J. Regul. Econ. 30(3), 358–387 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murphy, F., Smeers, Y.: On the impact of forward markets on investments in oligopolistic markets with reference to electricity. Oper. Res. 58(3), 515–528 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murphy, F., Smeers, Y.: Generation capacity expansion in imperfectly competitive restructured electricity markets. Oper. Res. 53(4), 646–661 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    GE Energy, MAPS Software, [Online] available at: (2010)
  27. 27.
    Ventyx Energy Planning and Analytics Software: PROMOD IV, [Online] available at: (2010)
  28. 28.
    ISONE (2010) ISO New England, ISO New England Outlook: Smart Grid is About Consumers, Apr. 2010. [Online]. Available:
  29. 29.
    Littlechild, S.C., Ponzano, E.A.: Transmission expansion in Argentina 5: the Regional Electricity Forum of Buenos Aires Province, Dec. 2007. [Online]. Available:
  30. 30.
    Young, H.P.: Cost allocation: methods, principles, applications, North-Holland, 1985. Also see, Young, H.P. In: Equity: Theory and Practice, Princeton University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hogan, W.: Transmission Cost Allocation. Presentation to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group 30 Sept, 2010. 17 pGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Neill, R.P., Sotkiewicz, P.M., Hobbs, B.F., Rothkopf, M.H.: Efficient market-clearing prices in markets with nonconvexities. Eur. J Oper. Res. 164(1), 269–285 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Mathematical Optimization Society (Outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard P. O’Neill
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eric A. Krall
    • 1
  • Kory W. Hedman
    • 2
  • Shmuel S. Oren
    • 3
  1. 1.Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.University of California-BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations