Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118

Flexible AC transmission system devices: allocation and transmission pricing

E.J. de Oliveira a,*, J.W. Marangon Lima b, J.L.R. Pereira c
a

Department of Electrical Engineering, Federal University at Juiz de Fora-UFJF, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil b Institute of Electrical Engineering, Federal Engineering School at Itajuba-EFEI, Itajuba, MG, Brazil c Department of Electrical Engineering, Federal University at Juiz de Fora-UFJF, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil

Abstract The transmission of electricity differs from transportation of any typical commodity by some inherent aspects such as: the production needs to match the consumption at the same time; system control is not an easy task; the electricity ows do not usually follow the economic law. The last aspect is normally observed when transmission systems are included in, for instance, an economic dispatch problem. One way to minimize the operational costs caused by an overloaded transmission system is through the installation of Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) devices in the system. They are able to change power ows by modifying the network parameters. This paper focuses on the ability of FACTS devices to change the overall costs of the system and their impact on transmission pricing. The allocation and the determination of the FACTS required are also discussed. Some examples using the IEEE-14 system and the Brazilian electrical system of the Southern region are given to illustrate the concepts introduced in this paper. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Transmission pricing; FACTS devices; System operations; Optimal power ow

1. Introduction Transmission open access has been an important issue in the ongoing debate about deregulation and privatization of the power sector in many countries. Since the transmission business presents monopolistic characteristics, transmission open access means a vehicle for promoting competition in generation. But electricity ows do not usually follow the economic law when a transmission system is included in, for example, an economic dispatch problem. Transmission is, therefore, the main concern in the establishment of real competition in the electricity market. Advances in power electronics open a new way to deal with the inconveniences of xed reactance and undesired ow directions. When devices based on power electronics known as Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) are introduced into power systems, a more exible operation and control of transmission networks are obtained. Series compensations, phase shifters are examples of such devices. They can change the active ows of the transmission systems and are discussed in this paper. An increasing concern about environmental aspects and a search for optimal use of transmission capacities are moti* Corresponding author. Fax: cee.ufjf.br. 0142-0615/99/$ - see front matter PII: S0142-061 5(98)00035-0 55-32-229-3401; e-mail: edimar@la-

vating many planners away from building new transmission lines. Therefore, the insertion of FACTS devices seems to be a promising strategy for decreasing transmission congestion and for increasing available transfer capability [1]. Moreover, if a line cannot be eliminated from the transmission plan, it is very likely to be postponed using such devices. These benets can be obtained by properly allocating FACTS devices in the system. The ideal allocation of these devices is a subject tackled in this paper. Moreover, the impact of such allocation on the wheeling charges is also addressed. This is becoming an important issue when transmission open access schemes are introduced. These charges can really change the investments on both transmission and generation sides. Some examples with the IEEE-14 system and the Brazilian electrical system of the Southern region are used to emphasize the concepts introduced in this paper.

2. The allocation problem Neglecting the resistance, the active power ow, Fij, of a transmission line or a transformer is given by: Fij gij Vi Vj sinuij where: 1

1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

112

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118

Vi, Vj are bus voltages u ij is the angular difference between busses i and j g ij is the susceptance of branch i j All equipment able to quickly change any of the above parameters by means of thyristor technology is considered as a FACTS device [2, 3]. Based on its fast response, it has been used to dampen system oscillation through the control of line compensation [4] and angle of phase shifters [5], etc. As the attention of this paper is on the ability of such devices to change the ow direction, a linear load ow model is used. Therefore, no voltage proles are obtained. The economic dispatch problem which includes the transmission system can be simplied by using a DC load ow. In this case, the problem can be solved by using the following linear programming (LP) problem: Min CT G st G G F G F BuL  G  F 2

As the susceptances vary, Eq. (3) becomes non-linear because of the term B1 u . Other non-linearities also appear when a series compensation is included in the problem due to [8]:  the line capacity limits, F vary when series capacitors are installed, because transmission line limits are usually based on stability problems and voltage proles and not on thermal limits the FACTS cost is a non-linear function of the susceptance variation. In the case of phase shifters, the cost is constant for any angle shift but the allowed limit may be changed. To overcome such difculties, a technique based on successive LP is proposed in Appendix A. Once the FACTS device is located and dimensioned by solving problem Eq. (A3), it is important to identify the consequences for the transmission users. Since the trend towards unbundling services is becoming a reality in many countries, the introduction of FACTS devices into the transmission system changes the wheeling charges. These charges are dependent on the transmission pricing method adopted and they can affect the transmission-system users. In the next section some of these methods are described.

where C is the vector of generation costs G is the vector of active generation B is the susceptance matrix u is the vector of voltage angles L is the vector of active load  G, G are the lower and upper generation limits  F, F are the lower and upper ow limits Since active power is under consideration, only two types of FACTS devices are considered: the series compensation (SC) and the phase shifter (PS). The phase shifter model can be included in Eq. (2) by a power injection technique. For each desired phase angle there is an injection pair at the end buses where the device is connected [6, 7]. The series compensation is represented by a change in the susceptance matrix. In this case, the LP given by Eq. (2) can be rewritten as: Min C G
T

3. Main pricing methods To assess the impact of FACTS devices on transmission charges, pricing methods are based on the incremental cost and embedded cost methods [9]. The incremental cost methods are based on the variation of system total costs when a wheeling transaction is accommodated. The marginal cost is an example of this technique. The embedded cost methods allocate the system total costs among the transmission users based on some extent of use rule. These methods follow the cost based approach, i.e., the transmission costs are completely recovered by the wheeling charges. The MWmile based methods [10] are examples of this approach. 3.1. Marginal cost 3.1.1. Short-term marginal cost (STMC) Pricing transmission service by marginal cost has been the most accepted approach according to economic theory. Since the dual coefcients derived from Eq. (3) are the sensitivities of the objective function related to the constraints, they can be used as the marginal costs. In particular, the coefcients of constraints Eq. (3.1) are the bus short-term marginal cost (STMC). The wheeling charge of a transaction u which injects W(u) at bus i and retrieves the same amount at bus j can be obtained by [11]: Ru WuSTMCi where: STMCj 4

Cfacts I

3 3:1 3:2 3:3

st G G F G F

B1 u L  G  F

where B1 is the susceptance matrix which includes the susceptance variation due to the series compensation I are power injections representing the phase shifters Cfacts is the cost of the FACTS device (US$/year)

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118

113

revenues are not generally enough to match the transmission xed costs [12, 13]. On the other hand, the calculation of the LTMC which includes transmission investments, is very complex due to the inherent uncertainties associated with the planning horizon. Surrogate LTMC methods have been proposed to overcome such problems [14, 15]. One of them [16] will be used in this paper because it can easily be adapted to Eq. (3): Min c k fk 5
all k

st G where:
Fig. 1. IEEE-14 test system.

B0 u L

5:1

ck is the unit cost of circuit k fk is the absolute net ow of circuit k The objective function represents the transmission revenues collected which are based on the capacity use of the transmission system. This term is similar to the one used in the original MW-mile [10]. The advantage is that in this case the dual variables of constraints in Eq. (5.1) may be interpreted as the LTMC at each bus. Therefore the wheeling charges can be determined using Eq. (4) by replacing the STMC by the LTMC. 3.2. Module method [17] This method derives from the original MW-mile method and is also based on load-ow calculations. The charge R(u) for a transaction u is determined by: Ru
Limit (MW) 500.0 50.0 210.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 250.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 55.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 150.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 50.0

R(u) is the charge of transaction u W(u) is the amount of transaction u STMCi is the short-term marginal cost at bus i The inclusion of FACTS devices changes the dual coefcients which, in turn, changes the transmission charges. 3.1.2. Long-term marginal cost (LTMC) As transmission costs are basically derived from the investments made in the transmission assets, it is important to take these investments into consideration when the transmission tariff is under design. The STMC, mentioned previously, depends only on generation costs and the
Table 8 Additional data for IEEE-14 Equipment GEN-1 GEN-2 L 12 L 15 L 23 L 24 L 25 L 34 L 45 L 47 L 49 L 56 L 611 L 612 L 613 L 78 L 79 L 910 L 914 L 1011 L 1213 L 1314
a

fk u Ck fk s all k
all s

Cost (10 3 US$/year) 10 a 20 a 350.20 180.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 215.00 328.00 142.00 136.00 185.00 179.00 168.00 108.00 136.00 110.00 136.00 111.00 100.00 123.00 121.00

where: R(u) is the allocated cost to agent u Ck is the cost of circuit k fk(u) is the k-circuit ow caused by agent u Total cost all k Ck If a FACTS device is installed at circuit k, the corresponding Ck will include the original circuit cost plus the FACTS cost. Therefore, the users of circuit k will pay for this new equipment according to the respective ows, fk(u). 3.3. Zero counter-ow method [18] This method is similar to the previous one but, in this case, the users that go in the opposite direction of the branch net ow do not pay any charge: fk u for fk u Rk u Ck fk s
all sk

0 7

US$/MWh

Rk u 0 for fk u

114

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118 EC variable total cost

Table 1 VTC for the case without transaction. PC production cost; EC equipment cost; VTC PC Alternative Base Case SC at 15 PS at 15 NL at 15 PC 10 6 US$/year a 24.23 22.73 22.73 22.73 EC 10 3 US$/year b 0 28.74 1652.50 180.00

VTC 10 6 US$/year c 24.23 22.76 24.38 22.91

and Ru where
k

all k

Rk u

is the set of participants with positive flows on circuit k

This method tries to compensate the counter ow agent for alleviating the transmission system and improving system performance. This agent may also postpone future investments in some cases.

4. Examples 4.1. IEEE-14 4.1.1. Allocation problem The concepts presented are preliminary tested on the IEEE-14 system 1 which is shown in Fig. 1. Table 8 in Appendix B presents the limits and the costs for transmission lines and thermal generations adopted in this paper. A wheeling transaction of 15 MW from bus 1 to bus 4 is added to evaluate this transaction impact on the FACTS allocation cost. Table 1 shows the results of the optimization problem (A3), without considering any transactions, to allocate both SC and PS devices. The cost of an additional line 1 5 is also included in Table 1, in order to compare the results obtained from the optimization. The SC at line 15 (addition of 1.3 MVAr, which represents a compensation of 8.67%) produces the most signicant reduction in the Variable Total Cost (VTC). This cost represents the sum of the relevant cost components which vary according to the objective function. The PS alternative is not attractive because its cost is higher than the gain obtained through the variation of production costs (PC). The VTC for the

phase shifter is higher than the base case because the equipment cost (EC) is too high. Although not shown in Table 1, another simulation was carried out, by considering line 15 on its thermal limit. The allocation of SC has changed to line 12. In this case, the production cost also reduced to 22.73 million US$/year, but the FACTS cost increased to 53.34 thousand US$/year. This shows the importance of considering the line capacity variation when a SC is installed. However, in both cases (SC at line 15 or line 12) the decrease in fuel costs pays the SC cost. Table 2 shows the results of the optimization process Eq. (A3) when the wheeling transaction of 15 MW is considered. In this case, the SC cost increased to 92.8 thousand US$/year, but it is still the most attractive option. The PS alternative, in this case, is better than the one with no FACTS device (BC-15 MW). 4.1.2. Transmission charges Table 3 shows the annual transmission charges, using STMC, LTMC, MM and ZCF methods, for the 15 MW wheeling transaction, when the base case (BC) (without FACTS device), SC, PS and a new line (NL) from 1 to 5 are considered. For the STMC there is no transmission constraint when a new device is added. As Eq. (4) is used to calculate the transmission charges under the marginal cost approach, these charges vanish (see rst row of Table 3). The same does not occur under LTMC where the investments in transmission facilities are considered, as shown in the second row of Table 3. For SC and PS there is an increase in the charges but for NL a decrease. This lower charge for the NL is caused by a signicant variation in the circuit ows. For MM and ZCF charging methods the SC device produced the lowest tariff. The simultaneous analysis of Tables 2 and 3 shows that the SC device is the best option for the independent energy producer because it imposes a cost reduction of the order of
EC variable total cost

Table 2 VTC for the case with transaction. PC production cost; EC equipment cost; VTC PC Alternative BC15MW SC at 15 PS at 15 NL at 15 PC 10 6 US$/year a 26.93 22.73 22.73 22.73 EC 10 3 US$/year b 0 92.80 1652.50 180.00

VTC 10 6 US$/year c 26.93 22.82 24.38 22.91

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118 Table 3 Total wheeling charges (10 3 US$/year). STMC short-term marginal cost; LTMC long-term marginal cost; MM module method; ZCF zero counter ow method Method STMC LTMC b MM c ZCF d
a

115

The following three wheeling transactions are considered independently: transaction T1: 150 MW from bus 14 to bus 23, which uses the system in the direction of the main ow transaction T2: 150 MW from bus 23 to bus 14, which uses the system in the counter-direction to the main ow Transaction T3: 150 MW from bus 14 to bus 19, which is in the same direction as the main ow. In this analysis, three load levels for a typical working day are considered: light load for 12 h, medium load for 8 h and heavy load for 4 h. Only the inclusion of SC is analyzed.

Base case 2697.36 56.16 160.09 130.93

With SC 0.0 58.62 162.59 134.93

With PS 0.0 155.9 259.37 228.38

With NL 0.0 55.4 165.57 139.65

4 million US$/year. However, the transmission-system user has to pay an additional amount of around 4 thousand US$/ year. These gures show that the tariff impact is rendered by the cost reduction in the transmission system investments. It is important to notice that the proposed method, for optimal FACTS allocation, places the FACTS on the system in such a way that there is a compromise in both system investment and energy production costs. This is a main contribution of this paper. 4.2. Brazilian system The same method is applied to the Brazilian power system of the Southern region. The system depicted in Fig. 2 is an equivalent which has 15 generators, 52 busses and 82 circuits. In this system, about 70% of the power source is from hydro generation (HG) and the rest from coal thermal generation (TG). In this paper it is assumed that the hydro generation cost has an average value which is determined for a medium hydrological condition. The cost of not providing energy to loads will also be considered in the objective function of the optimization problem (A3) by assuming that each bus has a thermal plant with a generation cost equal to the decit cost.

4.2.1. Allocation problem Table 4 shows the FACTS location, production cost (PC), series compensation costs (SCC) and variable total cost (VTC) for the following cases: 1. BCNTNSC which means base case with no transactions and with no series compensation 2. BCNTSC which means base case with no transactions and with series compensation 3. T1NSC which means wheeling transaction T1 with no series compensation 4. T1SC which means wheeling transaction T1 with series compensation The remaining rows in Table 4, in pairs, refer to transactions T2 and T3. The results were obtained from the optimization problem Eq. (A3). The main objective of this table is to show the wheeling transaction impact on FACTS allocation and the associated costs. The cases T1SC and BCNTSC allocate a SC at line 410, but the wheeling transaction T1 increases both PC and SCC. This happened because the wheeling transaction T1 is on the main ow direction. This does not occur for transaction T2 where the SC is not required. Remember that transaction T2 is in the counter direction of main ow and therefore alleviates the load of the 500 kV lines. Transaction T3 changes the location of the SC from line 410 to line 1 9 because the energy added is now owing through different circuits from transactions T1 and T2. In addition, the transaction T3NSC produces a very high PC due to load curtailment. In contrast, with transaction T3SC the VTC is drastically reduced but the SCC increases. It is important to note that the kind of transaction may affect the FACTS cost and its allocation. It was observed from the simulations performed that the SC is only effective for the heavy load period when the transmission system imposes some constraints, but nevertheless the gains are enough to justify the inclusion of this device.
1 The data of this system can be obtained by FTP anonymous from: wahoo.ee.washington.edu

Fig. 2. System of the Southern Region of Brazil.

116 Table 4 Wheeling transaction effect Case BCNTNSC BCNTSC T1NSC T1SC T2NSC T2SC T3NSC T3SC Location 410 410 19

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118

PC 10 6 US$/year 52.896 51.735 54.907 52.245 51.277 51.277 98.011 51.848

SCC 10 3 US$/year 538.88 1 047.30 2 066.80

VTC 10 6 US$/year 52.896 52.274 54.907 53.292 51.227 51.277 98.011 53.916

4.2.2. Transmission charges The wheeling charges for transactions T1, T2 and T3 are shown in Table 5Table 6Table 7 respectively. The four pricing methods presented in item 3 are included. From the tables, it can be stated that the effect of FACTS devices on the transmission charges is dependent upon the pricing method. For transaction T1 (Table 5), the inclusion of the SC decreases the charges under STMC and LTMC and increases them under MM and ZCM. For STMC, it can be explained by the fact that the SC minimizes the transmission constraints and therefore tries to equalize the STMC of system busses. For the case of MM and ZCM, the addition of a new equipment cost at a certain circuit branch is shared by all wheeling agents who are using this circuit, which produces the increase in the transmission charges. For the LTMC the variation in the line ows decreases the charges. For transaction T2 (Table 6), the charges are negative under STMC and LTMC because this transaction alleviates the transmission circuits. Since no SC is necessary in this case, no values were provided in the third column. For transaction T3 (Table 7), the inclusion of the SC at circuit 19 decreases drastically the difference between the marginal costs of busses 1 and 9. This reects in the variation of charges with and without the SC under STMC. Considering now the charges under LTMC, MM and ZCM, it can be seen that the results obtained for transaction T1 do not persist. In this case, the SC installed at the 230 kV line causes an increase in its ow changing the direction of the net ow at lines 95 and 519. This explains why the results from this transaction, under LTMC, MM and ZCF methods, do not follow the same logic of transaction T1. Tables 5 and 7 show that the inclusion of the SC device does not lead to a signicant increase in the tariff, even for different transactions when LTMC, MM and ZCF methods are considered.
Table 5 Wheeling charges for T1 (US$/MWh) Method STMC LTMC MM ZCM Without SC 1.57 2.19 8.13 7.36 With SC 0.53 2.17 8.38 7.93

5. Conclusion This paper focused on the allocation of FACTS devices and their impacts on transmission charges. From the results obtained from the allocation method proposed, some points can be emphasized: the allocation method proposed is robust and easy to implement based on the costs considered for the FACTS devices, series compensation proved to be the best alternative for controlling active ows The location of FACTS devices is highly dependent on wheeling transactions. Therefore, transmission owners must have agreements with transmission users The effect of FACTS devices on wheeling charges varies according to the pricing method. Moreover, the impact on one wheeling agent may be adverse whereas on others it may be benecial the optimal allocation of a SC device produces a reduction in the VTC which is sufcient to compensate for the tariff increase. In fact, the inclusion of a SC device in an optimal position does not cause a substantial impact on the tariff. All of these points need to be tackled by transmission owners, wheeling agents and regulators. The advance of FACTS technology tends to decrease its costs and, therefore, increases the number of such devices in the transmission system.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank CNPq (#522905/96-0)

Table 6 Wheeling charges for T2 (US$/MWh) Method STMC LTMC MM ZCM Without SC 1.57 2.19 8.15 2.62 With SC

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118 Table 7 Wheeling charges for T3 (US$/MWh) Method STMC LTMC MM ZCM Without SC 2.65 1.56 6.99 6.46 With SC 0.10 1.59 6.96 6.59

117

fk go k

fo Dgk fo go k k k

A2

Inserting Eq. (A1) and Eq. (A2) into Eq. (3) and taking into account the series compensation costs, Cfacts, the new optimization problem becomes: Min CT G g st G B0 u Cfacts DB u L A3 A3:1 A3:2 A3:3 A3:4 A3:5

and FAPEMIG (TEC945/95), Brazil, for the nancial support granted for the execution of this work. Appendix A An algorithm using LP is developed here to solve Eq. (3). The new susceptance matrix B1 is decomposed into two components in order to include the series compensation: B1 B where: B 0 is the initial susceptance matrix DB is the susceptance matrix deviation due to series compensation For a series compensation in just one circuit ij, the susceptance matrix deviation becomes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 j row j row i
0

fk go k G  F 0 G

fo Dgk fo go for all branch k k k k  G  F  G

DG

DB

A1

where: Cg is the vector of generation costs  F is the vector of line capacity limits  G is the vector of susceptance variation limits. The problem Eq. (A3) is a non-linear optimization problem which is solved here by using a successive LP. This can be done by supposing that the angles of the term DB u are constant and equal to the last iteration.The series compensation cost in line k is given by: 2 ft A4 Cfacts k cXck k BP where: c is the FACTS cost (US$/MVAr-year) ft k is the thermal limits of line k BP is the base power The series capacitor reactance Xc(k) is given by: Xck 1

Dg
0

Dg
0

DB
0 0

Dg
0 col

Dg
0 col

Notice that in the case where the installation of series compensation in every circuit of the system is allowed, DB represents the sum of all the above combinations.When the susceptance of a line varies, the stability and the voltage limit associated with this line changes. In general, the transmission capacity limits are associated with stability or voltage limits and not with the thermal limit. One simple method of including such a limit change in a line k is by using the assumption that the differences between the voltage angles of adjacent busses i and j, uij , should not change. Therefore the new limit, fk can be expressed in terms of the initial limit, fo , and the susceptance variation k Dg k, as follows: fo go sin uij k k fk go k

g0 g0 k k

Dgk

Dgk

A5

From Eq. (A4) and Eq. (A5) follow: Cfacts k ak Dgk where: bk A6

2 ft 1 ak c k 0 0 BP gk gk Dgk b k is the installation cost.

Dgk sin uij

Eliminating sin uij in the above equations:

As Eq. (A6) is a non-linear function of Dgk, the coefcient ak needs to be re-evaluated at each iteration of Eq. (A3). At the initial iteration the values of Dgk may be set equal to zero. The installation cost is only introduced into the algorithm after the rst iteration where the location is roughly determined.The same structure as in Eq. (A3) can be used, with slight modication, to include the phase shifter. The ow of

118

E.J. de Oliveira et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 111118 [6] Taranto GN, Pinto LMV, Pereira MVF. Representation of FACTS devices in power system economic dispatch. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1992;7(2):572576. [7] Lie TT, Deng W. Optimal exible AC transmission systems (FACTS) devices allocation. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 1997;19(2):125134. [8] Grifn J, Atanackovic D, Galiana FD. A study of the impact of FACTS on the secure-economic operation of power systems. 12th Power Systems Computation Conference. Dresden, August 1923 1996:10771082. [9] Shirmohammadi D, Filho XV, Goresntin B, Pereira MVP. Some fundamental technical concepts about cost based transmission pricing. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1996;11(2):10021008. [10] Shirmohammadi D, Gribik PR, Law ETK, Malinowski JH, ODonnel RE. Evaluation of transmission network capacity use for wheeling transactions. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1989;4:14051413. [11] Schweppe FC, Caraminis MC, Tabors RD, Bohn RE. Spot pricing of electricity. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988. [12] Marangon Lima JW, Pereira MVF, Pereira JLR. An integrated framework for cost allocation in a multi-owned transmission system. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1995;10(2):971977. [13] Perez-Arriaga IJ, Rubio FJ, Puerta JF, Arceluz J, Marn J. Marginal pricing of transmission services: an analysis of cost recovery. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1995;10(1):546553. [14] Jonard F, Smeers Y, Bruel P, Heilbronn, B. Wheeling costs: an economic analysis illustrated by short term and long term simulation. Stockholm Power Tech Conference, paper SPT PS 23-02-0287. Sweden, June 1995. [15] Marangon Lima JW, de Oliveira EJ. The long-term impact of transmission pricing. Paper PE-248-PWRS-0-12-1997, presented at 1998 IEEE Winter Meeting. Tampa, FL, USA. [16] Calviou MC, Dunnett RM, Plumptre PH. Charging for use of a transmission system by marginal cost methods. 11th PSCC. Avignon France, September 1993. [17] Kovacs R, Leverett A. A load ow based method for calculating embedded, incremental and marginal cost of transmission capacity. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1994;9(1):272278. [18] Marangon Lima JW. Transmission xed charge allocation: an overview. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1996;11(3):14091418. [19] de Oliveira EJ, Marangon Lima JW, de Almeida KC. Optimal allocation of FACTS devices. VI SEPOPE. Salvador, Brazil, May 1998.

a line k between nodes i and j is given by: fk gk uij

ck Dgk

gk uij

A7

where c k is the phase angle of the phase shifter.In this paper, the phase shifter is represented by a modication at the admittance matrix B, i.e., the ow variation caused by a shift in c k is represented by the ow variation caused by Dg k. Eq. (A7) shows this equivalence. The results are similar to the ones obtained by power injections [19]. Appendix B Table 8 provides the additional data used to evaluate the series capacitor allocation and the wheeling charges for the IEEE-14 system.The FACTS cost (c) adopted in the examples presented in the paper was 135 US$/kVA [8]. Note that it will mean an annual installment of 22 thousand US$/ MVA-year if it is considered an income tax of 10% and a mortgage period of 10 years. References
[1] Galiana K, Almeida M, Toussaint J, Grifn D, Atanackovic BT, Ooi D, McGrillis T. Assessment and control of the impact of FACTS devices on power system performance. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1996;11(4):19311936. [2] Hingorani NG. FACTS: exible AC transmission systems. EPRI workshop. Cincinnati, OH, November 1990. [3] Gronquist JL, Sethares WA, Alvarado FL, Lasseter RH. Power oscillation damping control strategies for FACTS devices using locally measurable quantities. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1995;10(3):15981605. [4] Taranto GN, Chow JH. A robust frequency domain optimization technique for tuning series compensation damping controllers. IEEE Trans on PWRS 1995;10(3):121911225. [5] de Oliveira EJ, Oliveira JC, Moraes AJ, Guimaraes GC. AC systems stabilization via phase shift transformer with thyristor commutation. Japan Industry Applications Society Conference JIASC-IEEE, EIME UNIV. Matsuyana (Japan), 2426 August 1994.