Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
planning models, the interpretation of their results, and it provides relevant information that allows us to understand the effect
of the deregulation on the transmission planning function. This
paper also tries to provide a starting point for an open exchange
of information among transmission planning experts.
Due mostly to space constraints, mainly technical papers
about synthesis transmission planning models were considered
for inclusion in this work. Only a few doctoral and master theses
were included, since the task of searching for a representative
list was beyond the available resources. The paper also does not
include all of the topics related to transmission planning. Some
readers may feel that citations within this paper do not include
analysis models, transmission pricing, transmission access,
merchant transmission, transmission regulatory schemes, input
data issues (e.g., databases) and other important issues closely
related to transmission planning models. However, it was the
decision of the authors to exclude all of this material because it
is far too numerous to exhaustively document in a single paper.
Although this paper was designed to be as complete as possible,
the authors welcome discussion about providing missing items.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II deals with publications that propose different synthesis algorithms to solve the
transmission planning problem. Section III reviews the models
according to the handling of the planning horizon (multiyear
planning). Section IV presents the works that consider the electric sector deregulation on the transmission planning problem.
Later on, some of the features of the available tools for development of transmission planning models are discussed. Final
remarks about the bibliography review and the transmission
planning state-of-the-art close the paper.
II. SOLUTION METHODS
According to the procedure that was followed to obtain the
expansion plan, the synthesis planning models can be classified
into two types: heuristic and mathematical optimization. However, there are tools that have characteristics of both types of
models, and they are termed meta-heuristic.
A. Mathematical Optimization Models
The mathematical optimization models find an optimum
expansion plan by using a calculation procedure that solves a
mathematical formulation of the problem. Due to the impossibility of considering all aspects of the transmission planning
problem, the plan obtained is the optimum only under large
simplifications and should be technically, financially, and
environmentally verified, among other examinations, before
the planner makes a decision.
939
Procedures based on the flow through fictitious lines of unlimited capacity have been also proposed. Those lines form the
overload network used by Villasana et al. [7], Garver [8], and
Levi et al. [30]. The flow through this network is penalized using
the guide numbers, to assure that the mathematical model
uses all the real circuit capacity first. These procedures combine heuristic rules with mathematical optimization algorithms
(linear programming) to solve the problem. They go forming
step-by-step the transmission expansion plan, installing a single
new circuit at a time. This new circuit is added in the corridor
with the largest flow through the corresponding corridor of the
overload network.
Latorre et al. [40] proposed a heuristic method that took
advantage of the natural decomposition of the transmission
expansion problem in operation and investment subproblems.
The investment subproblem is solved using a heuristic search
procedure. The search was organized using a tree format and
started from an initial solution provided by the user. The
proposed model is very efficient computationally; this fact was
verified on the planning of the Spanish transmission system.
The use of heuristic algorithms is very attractive because
good feasible solutions can be found, that is, very competitive
economically, with a small computational effort. However, they
cannot guarantee in an absolute way, mathematically speaking,
the optimal transmission expansion.
Computer developments in the area of parallel processing
have originated a lot of interest in the researchers that work with
optimization algorithms to solve large scale problems. Parallel
processing allows to solve complex problems in smaller computational times. There are a great variety of algorithms appropriate for parallel processing (e.g., Rudnick et al. [41]) propose
a transmission planning model using genetic algorithms (GAs),
suitable for parallel implementation. Other applications about
GA applied in transmission expansion planning can be found in
[42][49].
The GA has been used to solve the transmission expansion
planning problem using both the probabilistic choice1 PC
paradigm and the risk analysis (RA) paradigm2 [50]. These
paradigms are currently the two different tendencies for transmission expansion planning.
The transmission expansion planning problem has been
also solved using object-oriented models [51], game theory
[52][55], simulated annealing (SA) [56], [57], expert systems
[58][61], fuzzy set theory [62], and greedy randomized
adaptive search procedure (GRASP) [63].
Gallego et al. [64] compare the main features of three nonconvex optimization methods for transmission planning: SA,
GA, and TS algorithms [65][69] and presents an integrate view
of these methodologies [70]. A hybrid approach was proposed
to solve the transmission expansion planning problem that is extended in Escobar [71].
1. The problem formulated by the probabilistic choice paradigm can be described as follows: admit that one has defined a welfare function that measures
the goodness of a solution (we refer as welfare any criterion that may be transformed into an objective of optimization); given a set of futures, each one with
a probability assigned, the optimal solution should be chosen among those that
maximize the expected welfare over the set of futures considered.
2The RA paradigm indicates a preferred solution as one that minimizes the
regret felt by the planner after verifying that the decisions they had made were
not optimal, given the future that in fact has occurred.
940
941
942
943
944
945
946