IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO.

3, AUGUST 2002 843

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- structure dominated by bilateral transactions, and also an impor-
tant parameter for all companies participating in the power trans- tant issue related to congestion costs. Therefore, its calculation
action activities. The main objective of this work is to propose a new is an issue of concern to both system planers and operators.
methodology to determine the best points in the system to add new
agents (sellers and buyers), in order to maximize the ATC, without With the new generating agents connecting to the existing
violating a pre-established reliability level. In the process, the ATC transmission network, the congestion issue will become even
probability density function is determined considering uncertain- more important. Transmission companies can try to alleviate
ties from equipment un-availabilities. The proposed algorithm uses possible congestion problems by controlling where the new gen-
Monte Carlo simulation to select system state and linear program- eration is connected into the network. Additionally, location of
ming with a dc power flow model, to analyze and optimize each
selected state. The IEEE Reliability Test System (RTS) is used to the new generating facilities while stressing the existing trans-
illustrate the proposed methodology. mission network, will have a tendency of lowering reliability
Index Terms—Available transfer capability, composite relia- of the transmission system. The goal is to select such locations
bility, Monte Carlo simulation, transmission capacity. 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-
I. INTRODUCTION erators to address this important issue.

T RANSMISSION companies are facing several challenges

in the new economic environment including the assess-
ment of optimal transfer capabilities, the establishment of ad-
II. GENERAL REMARKS

equate transmission charges and the choice of the best trans- One interesting aspect of the ATC parameter is the lack of
mission investment options. A new phenomenon in the North standardization of its meaning. Operating studies commonly
American energy market is a sudden increase in interest by po- seek to determine limitations (capacity margins) due to the fol-
tential investors in building new generating facilities. This has lowing four types of problems: thermal overload; voltage in-
been precipitated by the electric power shortages experienced stability; transient instability and oscillatory instability [2]. The
by several regions and aided by a favorable political climate. On most comprehensive attempt to define transfer capability and
the other hand, investment in new transmission facilities is slow, other related margins [3] has been coordinated by the North
hampered by environmental constraints and economic consider- American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). NERC defines
ations. This has led to a more intensive use of the existing trans- a parameter called first contingency incremental transfer capa-
mission corridors. These aspects have motivated the develop- bility (FCITC). It is the amount of electric power, incremental
ment of methodologies to evaluate the existing transfer capabili- above normal base power transfer, that can be transferred over
ties and transmission margins. One measure of the robustness of the interconnected transmission systems in a reliable manner
the transmission system is the value of the ATC. A ruling by the based on all of the following conditions [1].
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires 1) With normal (pre-contingency) operating procedures...all
electric utilities in the United States to provide transmission ser- facility loads are within normal ratings and all voltage are
vices for wholesale customers and under this ruling, utilities are within normal limits.
required to post information on the ATC of their transmission 2) The electric systems are capable of... remaining stable
networks [1]. following [any single contingency].
Not only in the U.S. but also in many other countries, ATC 3) After the dynamic power swings subside following a
is becoming a critical piece of information in an open market [single contingency]...all transmission facility loadings
are within emergency ratings and all voltages are within
Manuscript received October 16, 2001; revised February 16, 2002. This work emergency limits.
was supported in part by the CNPq, Pronex, Brazil, NSERC Grant 238244-01, This is a very loose definition [4] but it can serve as a basis
Canada, and Hydro One, Ontario, Canada for assessing the ATC as described below.
A. M. Leite da Silva and J. G. de Carvalho Costa are with the Institute of
Electrical Engineering, Federal University, EFEI, Itajubá, MG, Brazil. Considering the base case configuration (i.e., no contin-
L. A. F. Manso is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Federal Uni- gency), let ATC be the maximum amount of power transfer,
versity, FUNREI, São João del Rei, MG, Brazil. which accounts for the previous conditions. Similarly, let
G. J. Anders is with the Transmission and Distribution Technologies Depart-
ment, KINECTRICS, Toronto, ON, Canada. ATC be the maximum amount of power transfer, under the
Publisher Item Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2002.800961. first order contingency . This parameter can be generalized
0885-8950/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
844 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, AUGUST 2002

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

Fig. 1. Two-area system.

(1) III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Consider the two-area system interconnected through two tie
If the contingency order goes up to ensure more reliable trans-
lines such as illustrated in the Fig. 1.
fers [by including ATC into (1)], then the transfer capability
Area 1 has more generation than load, and exports power to
becomes, obviously, smaller.
Area 2 through the interconnection lines. The interest is the de-
The transfer capability depends on many factors: availabil- termination of the ATC probability density function (PDF) for
ities of generation and transmission equipment; general oper- this system. The aim of the ATC assessment is to evaluate the
ating conditions (economic dispatching, remedial actions etc.); ability of a network to allow for the reliable movement of elec-
set of nodes (from and to) where the power will be transferred; tric power from areas of supply to areas of demand. In this case,
etc. Since the uncertainties in load and equipment availabilities there are two different situations:
have to be taken into account, the ATC parameter becomes a Determination of the ATC Density Function in Short-
random variable. That means that the amount of power, which Term: Generation and transmission resources are assumed as
can be transferred from one system/area to another, will be de- fixed values within their capabilities, and the obtained PDF
fined by its probability distribution function. Once this function represents the maximum power that can be transferred between
is estimated, questions like “What is the risk of selling a certain areas, so that the reliability level remains the same.
amount of transmission capacity?” can be adequately answered. Determination of the ATC Density Function in Mid-Term: In
In recent literature, the ATC quantification is being carried this case, only transmission system is fixed, and the objective is
out through dc or ac network models, in a deterministic [4]–[6] to evaluate the PDF associated with the maximum power that
or stochastic [3], [7]–[16] simulation environments. When the can be transferred from one area to another, considering new
stochastic model is adopted, the ATC distribution function can agents in the system, i.e., new generators (sellers) and loads
be determined based on the following steps. (buyers). In addition, the best points in the system to add new
1) Select an operating state: generation/transmission/load. generation and loads can be determined such that the transfer ca-
2) Solve the network equations for the selected state (make pability is maximized, while keeping the reliability level within
the necessary adjustments). a pre-specified limit. The idea is to allow new agents into the
3) Maximize the power transfer through the specified inter- systems without disturbing the existing transactions.
connection lines (make the necessary adjustments). The situations described above can be treated by optimizing
4) Store power transfers values; check convergence and if the following objective function for each selected state by the
necessary go back to step 1). Monte Carlo Simulation
The major difference among the proposed algorithms is the
way the state is selected, by enumeration or Monte Carlo simu-
(2)
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 Such that
by far the most effective method of state selection [17], [18]. DC load flow balance with
In case a dc power flow model is adopted, the adjustments vector of active power injections,
in step 2) deal with active generation rescheduling and, as last network matrix and angle
resort, load curtailment. In step 3), the adjustments would be vector;
only restricted to rescheduling of active generating power. In active power for each generator
case an ac power flow model is adopted, the problem becomes [MW];
more complex from the optimization point of view. In this case, active flow for each line [MW];
problems associated with system voltage and reactive support load shedding for each load bus
have to be captured and duly solved [11]. [MW];
In summary, the probabilistic evaluation of ATC has been ad- module of the extra injection at bus
dressed in recent literature, and the degree of complexity will ;
be decided by each specific problem; large systems will require summation of all extra injections.
Monte Carlo simulation and systems with voltage/reactive defi- Where
ciency will require ac analysis. active flow for tie line [MW];
As a first step in selecting the best location for new generating number of system buses;
and load buses, there will be a need to determine the probability number of tie lines;
distribution function of the ATC. This topic is considered next. 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
B. Reliability Results
Consider, firstly, the case when extra injections are not avail-
able, i.e., in (2). The problem consists of evaluating Before evaluating ATC parameters, a standard reliability
the PDF of the ATC considering the actual load and the existing analysis is carried out for this system with the objective func-
generation/transmission resources. 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
A. Test System
evaluate the reliability indices. These reliability indices (EPNS
The IEEE Modified Reliability Test System (MRTS) is a Expected Power Not Supplied in MW, and LOLP Loss of
modification of the IEEE-RTS [19]. The original generating Load Probability) are shown in Table I. These indices will be
capacities and peak loads were multiplied by two, with the compared with those obtained in the ATC evaluation to verify
aim of stressing the transmission network. The system has 24 if the reliability level remains unchanged.
buses, 38 circuits, and 14 plants (32 generating units). The total It can be observed from Table I, the three load shedding poli-
installed capacity is 6810 MW, with a peak load of 5700 MW. cies have similar impact on the system. However, their impacts
Area 1 is the 230 kV sub-network and Area 2 is the 138 kV on the areas/buses are different.
sub-network. There are 5 tie lines connecting these two areas as
can be seen in Fig. 2.The following load shedding policies will
C. ATC Results
be considered to illustrate their impact on the ATC evaluation:
Policy A: In this policy, the parameter has the same value Fig. 3 illustrates calculated probability density and cumula-
for every bus of the system. tive functions, using load shedding policies A, B, and C.
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 sponding standard deviations; all results are in MW. Table III
bus will be shed proportionally to its contribution to the total presents the LOLP and EPNS indices, i.e., the values
system load. In case of transmission overloads, it follows policy of loss of load probability, and expected power not supplied of
B. the system/areas, obtained through ATC calculations. These in-
The following example shows how load shedding policy can dices are very important since they will show if the reliability of
influence reliability and ATC evaluations. the system is being kept the same.
846 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-
Fig. 3. Probability density and cumulative functions. 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-
TABLE II
EXPECTED VALUE AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF ATC 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
TABLE III illustrates the adopted procedure.
RELIABILITY INDICES—ATC CALCULATIONS 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
Analyzing the results presented in Tables I and III, it can one, load shedding is not allowed. Thus, the reliability indices
be observed that the reliability indices for the system, i.e., obtained in the ATC evaluation will be exactly the same as those
EPNS and LOLP , obtained from the ATC obtained with a reliability evaluation analysis.
evaluation, are very close to those obtained from the composite The aim in this part of the presentation is to show that it is
reliability evaluation. Therefore, the load shedding policies are unnecessary to carry out two optimization procedures. In order
not being used to maximize power transfer but to solve, as last to illustrate this point, a simplified “double optimization pro-
resort, system problems. That is the way it should be. However, cedure” using a linear programming and dc power flow model
LEITE DA SILVA et al.: TRANSMISSION CAPACITY 847

TABLE V
HIGHEST EXTRA INJECTIONS

Fig. 5. PDF using double optimization procedure and policy B.

TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF RESULTS

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-
was implemented in this work. The PDF of the ATC obtained pected value associated with each extra injection for all system
through this procedure is shown in Fig. 5. In this case, Policy B buses. The buses that achieve the highest mean values among
was adopted. all specified buses, are the best feasible points to include new
Table IV shows the comparison of results for single and generators and loads.
double optimization procedures. It can be concluded that the
results obtained with both procedures are very close. However, A. Numerical Example
the computing effort using the double optimization is approxi-
mately the double of the time spent with the single one. This is Area 1 (230 kV) is assumed to have more available generation
definitely an advantage of the proposed single optimization pro- sources. Therefore, buses from 13 to 23 will be considered as
cedure. This confirms that the ATC evaluation can be done with positive injections, i.e., , in (2). Area 2 (138 kV) is
only one optimization step, where both objectives “maximize assumed to have more need for new loads and, therefore, buses
the transfer capabilities” and “minimize the load shedding” are from 1 to 10 will be considered as negative injections, i.e.,
duly weighted in an appropriate objective function. , in (2). The 5 existing tie lines will be monitored. The proposed
The only restriction to the single optimization procedure multipoint ATC algorithm is run and the results are shown in
happens if all buses have the same interruption penalties. In Table V.
this case, one must ensure that the LP algorithm will shed load Buses 13, 14, 15 and 7, 9, 10 reach the highest expected
among buses in a similar way with both ATC and Reliability values of positive and negative injections, respectively. These
calculations. If it is not possible to force the LP algorithm to are therefore the best buses in the system to allocate new gener-
ensure this condition, the double optimization algorithm has to ation and load to maximize the transfer between areas. Once the
be used for the ATC calculations, since it separates reliability best points are determined, another interesting question that can
evaluations (i.e., violation solutions) from ATC calculations be answered is: “How to calculate the maximum values of gen-
(i.e., maximum transfer solutions). Another advantage of this eration/load that can be added to the system without violation of
procedure is to keep the information of the dual variables of pre-specified reliability limits?” This problem will be analyzed
the optimization problems, since they might be useful during using successive reliability evaluations as described below.
the planning phase.
B. Proposed Methodology
The methodology uses the following steps.
V. DETERMINATION OF ATC WITH ADDITIONAL
POWER INJECTIONS 1) Determine the mean values of the extra injections.
2) Specify the acceptable reliability limits for the system.
In this case, the determination of ATC can assist system 3) Add generators and loads in those buses. Add the amount
planers to allocate new agents (sellers and buyers), in order of power representing % of its mean extra injection
to maximize the transfer through the interconnections. This values.
task is related with the feasibility assessment of simultaneous 4) Run a composite reliability algorithm and evaluate the
transactions, as described in [14]. associate reliability indices.
The idea is to apply the same algorithm already used, but now, 5) If all obtained indices are within the acceptable limits, in-
considering extra injections in the specified buses. The algo- crease parameter and return to 3), otherwise, continue.
rithm will try to maximize the power transfers, using the redis- 6) Calculate the associate ATC value.
848 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 3, AUGUST 2002

TABLE VI
ACCEPTABLE RELIABILITY LEVEL

TABLE VII
NEW EXTRA INJECTIONS
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
Fig. 6. Bus 6 LOLP.
objective function. Both objectives “minimize load shedding”
and “maximize the transfer” are duly weighted. It was stressed
TABLE VIII that the load shedding policy can modify the ATC. The proposed
NEW GENERATION AND LOAD
(k = 60%)
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
C. Numerical Example
The authors would like to thank Dr. J. W. Marangon Lima,
The acceptable system and per bus reliability indices are
EFEI, for assisting in the first part of this project.
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, REFERENCES
and 7, 9, 10. A new simulation can be carried out, by specifying [1] North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), “Available
transfer capability—Definitions and determinations,” NERC Rep., June
extra injections only in these buses. The obtained results are 1996.
shown in Table VII. [2] J. D. McCalley, J. F. Dorsey, Z. Qu, J. F. Luini, and J. L. Filippi, “A new
Factor is scaled from 10% to 100% to include new gen- nethodology for determining transmission capacity margin in electric
power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 944–951, Aug.
eration and load in the system, and for each new step, a com- 1991.
posite reliability evaluation is run. All system and bus indices [3] H. M. Merryl, “Probabilistic available capacity,” in Proc. Panel Discus-
are compared with the acceptable levels specified in Table VI. 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-
During these tests, no violations were detected until %. mission capacity in power networks,” Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 20,
For %, the LOLP at bus 6 is violated as shown in Fig. 6. no. 2, pp. 99–110, 1998.
Corresponding maximum values of generation/load that can be [5] A. R. Vodjdani, “Computing available transmission capacity using
TRACE,” EPRI Power Syst. Planning Operat. News, Oct. 1995.
added to the system are shown in Table VIII. [6] G. C. Ejebe, J. Tong, J. G. Waight, J. G. Frame, X. Wang, and W. F.
As can be observed, a total of 279 MW of generation and Tinney, “Available transfer capability calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power
load can be installed in Areas 1 and 2, without violating the Syst., vol. 13, pp. 1521–1527, Nov. 1998.
[7] G. T. Heydt and B. M. Katz, “A stochastic model in simultaneous inter-
pre-specified reliability criteria. The total amount of 279 MW, change capacity calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
generation and load, have to be located as shown in Table VIII PAS-94, pp. 350–359, Mar./Apr. 1975.
LEITE DA SILVA et al.: TRANSMISSION CAPACITY 849

[8] Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland (PJM) Transmission Reliability Armando M. Leite da Silva (S’77–M’78–SM’91–F’00) was born in Rio de
Task Force, “Bulk power area reliability evaluation considering prob- Janeiro, Brazil, in 1954. He received the B.Sc. degree from the Catholic Uni-
abilistic transfer capability,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. versity of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Brazil, in 1975, the M.Sc. degree from the
PAS-101, pp. 3551–3562, Sept. 1982. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ), in 1977, and the Ph.D.
[9] P. Sandrin, L. Dubost, and L. Feltin, “Evaluation of transfer capability degree from the University of Manchester (UMIST), U.K., in 1980.
between interconnected utilities,” in Proc. 11th Power Syst. Comput. He worked at the Electrical Engineering Department, PUC-Rio, as a Professor
Conf., Avignon, France, Aug. 30–Sept. 3, 1993. until 1994. From 1990 to 1991, he was Visiting Researcher at the Research Di-
[10] F. Xia and A. P. S. Meliopoulos, “A methodology for probabilistic si- vision of Ontario Hydro, Canada. Since 1994, he is a Professor at the Institute
multaneous transfer capability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. of Electrical Engineering, Federal University, Itajubá (EFEI), Brazil.
11, pp. 1269–1278, Aug. 1996. Dr. Leite da Silva received the Sebastian Z. de Ferranti Premium Award from
[11] J. C. O. Mello, A. C. G. Melo, and S. Granville, “Simultaneous transfer the Power Division, IEE, U.K., in 1992, for his work on generation capacity
capability assessment by combining interior point methods and Monte reliability evaluation.
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, João Guilherme de Carvalho Costa was born in Pouso Alegre, Brazil, in 1975.
May 1998. He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Institute of Electrical En-
[13] A. M. Leite da Silva, J. W. Marangon Lima, and G. J. Anders, “Available gineering, Federal University, Itajubá, Brazil, in 1998 and 2000, respectively,
transmission capacity—Sell firm or interruptible?,” IEEE Trans. Power where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
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, Luiz Antônio da Fonseca Manso was born in Bias Fortes, Brazil, in 1961. He
pp. 22–26, Feb. 2000. received the B.Sc. degree from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil, in
[15] , “Assessment of available transfer capability of transmission sys- 1985, the M.Sc. degree from the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 27–32, Feb. 2000. 1989, and the Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Electrical Engineering, Federal
[16] B. Cornière, L. Martin, S. Vitet, N. Hadjsaid, and A. G. Phadke, “As- University, Itajubá, Brazil, in 1999.
sessment of the congestion cost and the risk of curtailment associated Since 1988, he has been with the Electrical Engineering Department, Federal
with transfer capability (ATC),” in Proc. 2000 Power Eng. Soc. IEEE University, São João del-Rei, Brazil.
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 George J. Anders (M’74–SM’84–F’99) received the M.Sc degree in electrical
1992. engineering from the Technical University of Lodz, Poland, in 1973 and the
[18] A. M. Leite da Silva, L. A. F. Manso, J. C. O. Mello, and E. R. Billinton, M.Sc. degree in mathematics and Ph.D. degree in power system reliability from
“Pseudo-chronological simulation for composite reliability analysis the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 1977 and 1980, respectively.
with time varying loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp. 73–80, Since 1975, he has been with Ontario Hydro, Canada, first as a System De-
Feb. 2000. sign Engineer in the Transmission System Design Department, System Planning
[19] IEEE APM Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability test system,” IEEE Trans. Division, and currently as a Principal Engineer in Kinectrics (former Ontario
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-99, pp. 2047–2054, Nov./Dec. 1979. 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.