Transaction Based Power Flow Solution and Transmission Loss Allocation Using Neural Network

Mala De, Member, IEEE, Nalin B. Dev Choudhury, and Swapan K. Goswami
[1]. The simplest loss allocation method is pro rata method; here a part of the loss (normally 50%) is assigned to generators and the rest to loads. Loss is allocated to individual generators or loads proportional to their active power generated or consumed. As loss allocation depends only on power level, the relative location in the network doesnt have any impact; so remotely located generators or loads get benefited at the expense of others. Some methods apply proportional sharing on power flow results to allocate transmission loss between loads and generators [2]-[4]. The power flow of generators and loads is traced to determine the transmission system usage and subsequently transmission loss caused by each generator or load. Proportional sharing methods provide efficient procedures for loss allocation, but they allocate losses only to loads or generators [3]. The existing power markets operating in different parts of world use different methods to allocate the transmission loss [5]. But, none of these proposed and practically used methods yield unambiguous loss allocation. Therefore, it is clear that there is no widely accepted technique available for allocating transmission loss and different results are achieved applying different methods, and existence of an ideal method is doubtful. But methods based on proportional sharing and power flow tracing applicable to pool based power system structure seem to be logically correct as proportionality assumption used here can neither be proved, nor disproved [1]. Therefore, this type of loss allocation method is a good choice to work on. Bialeks method traces power from generator to load, following power flow path through network and applies proportionality at each node [3]. So, power flow result is the basic requirement of applying this method. Modern competitive power system works differently than pool structure, here generators and loads deliver and receive power through bilateral contracts or transactions decided by auctions. Loss at any particular line is due to all the transaction pairs, which exchange power through this line between the transacting parties. Thus, the loss must be allocated to all transactions according to their share in the power flowing through that line. A few methods exist in literature for loss allocation to transactions. Galiana et al. have proposed a scheme to determine the loss allocation for infinitesimal transaction and then integrating it to evaluate the allocation for any amount of transaction, considering zero initial condition [6]. But loss allocation result depends on integration path. If each transaction is varied from zero to its actual value, keeping all other transactions at zero, it will

Abstract-- Recovering transmission loss cost accurately and transparently is an important challenge in deregulated power market. Though a generally acceptable method for transmission loss allocation is yet to be found out, proportional allocation technique has some popularity due to its uniqueness in the sense that it can neither be proved nor disproved. This method however is not applicable to transaction based power system structure, due to lack of a power flow tool for transaction based operation of power system. This paper proposes an application of proportional sharing principle to transmission loss allocation for transaction based power system. The unavailability of a power flow method for transaction based power system operation is addressed by framing a neural network. The neural network allocates losses to transactions and also generates the bus voltage magnitudes. Thus, it serves the purpose of both loss allocation and transaction based power flow tool. Index Terms - Power Transaction, Loss allocation, transaction based power flow, proportional sharing, power tracing, neural network.

lectric power industry has changed from its monopolistic vertical structure to new competitive structure where every transaction must be priced transparently. Hence producer and consumer of power are to be accurately identified so that the revenue can be collected from the consumers and dispensed to the power producers without any ambiguity. As transmission loss involves a considerable amount of money, the causes and the providers of it should also be properly identified and priced. Hence, with the privatization of power system, proper allocation and pricing of transmission loss has become increasingly important in the interest of fair competition. Allocation of transmission loss between loads and generators is a complicated task, as power flow from one generator cannot be separated from the power flow from any other generator; so it is not easy to determine which generator or load is responsible for the loss in any given line. Many methods have been proposed for transmission loss allocation
M De (e-mail: mala.de.gm@gmail.com) and S K. Goswami (e-mail: skgoswami_ju@yahoo.coin) are with Electrical Engineering Department of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India-7000032. N B Dev Choudhury is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, NIT Silchar, Assam, India (e-mail: nalinbdc@yahoo.com).

I. INTRODUCTION

result in different loss allocation from the case when all transactions are raised from zero value to their actual value at same rate. Usaola introduced a slack-invariant, differential method built on same principle, uses AC load flow for loss and flow allocation to transactions [7]. Transactions, based on proportionality, are defined first and then loss is allocated. However, it is computationally-expensive method and requires specific knowledge of an initial point, integration path and initial conditions. Baran et al. [8] and Gil et al. [9] have proposed power flow based methods for determining the effect of transaction on transmission services which includes amount of transmission loss support for the transaction from any area. Some circuit theory based approaches for allocating transmission loss to transactions are also present in literature [10]-[12]. In these works transmission loss is allocated to transactions by expressing loss in terms of transactions, some of these methods use OPF. But the methods suffer from problems like dependency on choice of slack bus, approximation leading to inaccurate allocation etc. So, loss allocation methods applicable to transaction based power market have drawbacks as discussed above. As loss allocation methods based on proportional sharing and power tracing produce results that cannot be disproved, we attempt to develop a loss allocation method for transactions based on these methods. To determine the share of a transaction on the power flow through a line, power flow results is the basic requirement. But conventional power flow analysis tools are not applicable to analyze transaction based power system due to the presence of the characteristics explained below. In conventional power flow, slack bus supply transmission loss. But in deregulated environment slack bus is not known and ISO is prohibited to choose any bus as slack bus. Amount of power transferred between a particular generator-load pair is decided by bilateral contract or auction beforehand, and this does not follow the results of economic dispatch problem. No proper transaction based power flow method exists in literature. A few methods have been proposed based on some simplifying assumptions and so result is not exact [10], [12]. To establish a proper loss allocation technique for transaction based power market an accurate transaction based power flow (TBPF) tool must be proposed first. There are some existing techniques in literature for selection of transaction pairs from the amount of power flowing through the network. Huang and Zhang present a framework of TBPF, which is capable of identifying effect of each transaction on reactive power and transmission loss [13]. Galiana et al. introduces the principle of equivalent bilateral exchange (EBE) that determines the power exchange between two generator load pairs [14]. Transmission loss cost is allocated to multi-market framework by Lima et al. using same principle in [15]. But, power to be supplied to load from generator is previously decided and so resulting transactions do not follow network topology. Neural network (NN) is known to be a very good substitute for any existing expert system and as loss allocation is a very complex problem due to the presence of non-linearity in the loss expression, NN can be proved to be good tool for allocating transmission loss. Some loss allocation methods using NN have already been proposed in literature [16]-[18].

In [16] an allocation scheme is proposed based on incremental load flow and in [17] quadratic distribution and stamp like fixed tariff methods are used. A game theory based loss allocation is proposed using NN in [18]. In this context, the present paper proposes to build a NN based system which will work as a TBPF as well as loss allocation tool applicable to transaction based system. The problem of lack of a TBPF is overcome by formulating a NN based method to provide TBPF results and also to allocate loss to the transactions using the method in [3]. From an existing power flow result, equivalent transactions are formed using power tracing, which will produce the same power flow result with which it started, if we initiate a TBPF with these transactions. Repeating this process the training data set for NN is prepared. NN takes transactions as input and produces either voltages at different nodes or loss allocated to transactions. Therefore, the NN works as a TBPF tool and also capable of allocating loss to transactions. The next section describes how power tracing is used to decide transaction pairs and to allocate loss to transactions. Section III discusses formation and training of NN, section IV summarizes results of the application of this tool to standard IEEE test systems and section V concludes the paper. II. THE PROPOSED TBPF AND LOSS ALLOCATION METHOD Power flow analysis is the basic tool for loss allocation using proportional sharing. But, in deregulated environment, the amount of power to be exchanged between generators and loads is decided beforehand. This means, the amount of power delivered from a generator to a load, is predetermined. But, if we run a conventional power flow for a given generation and demand set, the result of power flow will not conform to the previously established bilateral transactions. The total power supplied to loads will match the demand, but this power will be delivered by any or a combination of the generator(s) available in the power system. This doesnt guarantee that the bilateral contracts established between load and a particular generator will be satisfied by the power flow results. So, the primary requirement is to propose a process that will satisfy power flow results as well as the bilateral transactions existing between generator-load pairs. To achieve this, we approach in the reverse direction, that is, instead of starting with a set of generator-load pair and establishing power flow from these, well start with a solved power flow result with any arbitrary generator and load setting and will establish transaction pairs from this power flow result. In this case, we can argue that if it is possible to perform TBPF for the resulting transaction pairs, this would produce the same power flow result from which we have started. The transaction pairs are identified by applying power tracing and proportional sharing at each and every node of the network under study. The same power flow result will be used to allocate loss as in [3]. So, we can conclude that the resulting loss allocation is applicable for the transaction pairs established from the same power flow results. This procedure is repeated for a large number times with arbitrarily selected generator and load settings, leading to different sets of power flows, which are used to determine the transaction pairs and corresponding loss allocated. It will create a large data pool to be used to train a NN designed to take transactions as input

and allocated loss to the transactions as output. Once trained, the NN will be capable of allocating loss to the transactions for any given set and amount of transaction. Therefore, we can broadly sub-divide the proposed method into the following phases - establishing transaction pairs from power flow results, finding loss allocations for generators and loads, allocating this loss to transactions, generating data pool and finally training the NN using these data. The procedure described above is shown by the flowchart in Fig 1. The method is explained using a small system (IEEE 6bus) for ease of understanding. The system data is available at [19].

TABLE I POWER FLOW RESULT SHOWING BRANCH FLOW IN IEEE 6-BUS TEST SYSTEM.

Branch From To P from P to bus Q from No Bus Bus bus (MW) (MW) bus (MW) 1 1 2 200.0396 -189.8573 13.7658 2 2 3 91.5304 -89.3035 -31.4486 3 3 4 -31.8394 32.1965 7.0221 4 4 5 -63.7964 68.8557 17.7223 5 5 6 66.1442 -56.2948 3.7530 6 6 2 -39.1822 42.0268 4.6404 7 6 3 -2.9230 4.1429 -30.3218

Q to bus (MW) 29.7753 22.0914 -8.8298 2.6014 15.6813 -1.2267 30.0942

2. Loss Allocation to Generators and Loads: Loss allocation to loads and generators is determined by applying proportional sharing and power tracing based method described in [20].
TABLE II LIST OF TRANSACTION PAIRS AND AMOUNT OF POWER TRANSACTION

Gen No.

Load Power Transaction Loss Allocated Transaction Bus Between loadBy Proportional No. No. generator pair (MW) Sharing (MW) 1 2 56.3 1 3.0195 1 6 38.7002 2 12.8663 3 6 1.0885 3 0.3658 4 6 0.3079 4 0.2697 5 6 58.3034 5 15.2183 Total Loss Allocated to all the Transactions 31.7396

Fig. 1. Main steps followed in the proposed method

1. Establishing the transaction pair: For the 6 bus system the active and reactive branch flows calculated from power flow are shown in Table I and Fig 2.
Bus 3 Gen 2 Bus 2 Bus 1 Gen 1
Reactive power flow Active power flow

The result is - contribution of generators to branch losses which is shown in Table III. The table indicates branch losses allocated to generators. Total allocated loss is exactly equal to loss calculated from power flow. Similarly, loss is allocated to loads and table IV shows amount of loss in any branch allocated to loads. In this case also total allocated loss to loads conforms to power flow results. So, contribution of all generators and loads to branch loss is established.
TABLE III. AMOUNT OF LOSS ALLOCATED TO THE DIFFERENT GENERATORS
Gen No. Total Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Allocation to Gen (MW) 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 2-6 3-6 0.6318 0.3658 0.1035 0.1188 1.2199 15.8858 0.3658 0.2697 15.2183 31.7396 Generators Contribution to Branch Loss (MW)

Bus 5 Gen 3 Bus 4 Gen 4

Fig 2. Power flow direction in IEEE 6-bus system

Gen 1 10.1824 2.2270 0 0 0 2.8446 Gen 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gen 3 0 0 0.1662 0 0 0 Gen 4 0 0 0.1908 5.0592 9.8495 0 Total 10.1824 2.2270 0.3570 5.0592 9.8495 2.8446

Bus 6

TABLE IV AMOUNT OF LOSS ALLOCATED TO THE DIFFERENT LOADS

Loads Contribution to Branch Loss (MW) Total Load Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Allocation to No. Load (MW) 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 2-6 3-6 Bus 2 5.8302 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8302 Bus 6 4.3522 2.2270 0.3570 5.5091 9.8495 2.8446 1.2199 25.9093

Contribution of individual generators to loads, found using proportional sharing principle is shown in Table II. Power flow between a generator and a load may be viewed as prenegotiated power transaction between generator-load pair. All such transactions as listed in Table II and these will result in identical power flow results as shown in fig 2. Thus any power flow condition may be represented as combinations of power transactions.

3. Loss Allocation to the Transactions: To allocate loss to the established transaction pairs the following procedure is followed. First generator and load present in any particular transaction pair is identified. Then the branches, for which this generator supplies the loss and the fraction of loss of the branch

supplied by this generator is determined. Similarly, the branches for which the load supplies loss and the fraction of loss are calculated. Then branches, for which both the generator and the load supply the loss, are selected. The fraction of loss allocated to the transaction for any one of these branches is the product of the fraction of losses allocated to those generator and load. The total loss allocated to this transaction pair for all the branches will be the sum of all such products. For example, if generator 1 has contributed to loss of lines 1, 6 and 7, and percentage of contributions are 20%, 55% and 25% respectively and load 2 has 100% contribution for branch 1, then for transaction pair gen1 and load 2 loss allocated is (0.20*1) = 20% = 0.20. Loss allocated to transaction pairs is shown in table II. One of the main features of the proposed method is that it is slack-bus independent. Though during the power flow one bus is considered to be slack bus which supplies system loss, while forming transaction pairs, this bus also participates; once transaction pairs are formed, loss is allocated to all transaction pairs, including the one involving slack bus. So, final result does not depend on choice of slack bus. III. FORMATION OF THE NEURAL NETWORK Our aim in the present work is to apply Bialeks method of proportional allocation of transmission loss to power system operating under bilateral transaction. In actual power system seller and purchaser of power establish bilateral transactions and the ISO, the system operator, has to allocate losses to these transactions. Hence, the main task is to design a tool that will allocate the transmission loss to the transactions available at any time in the power system, directly. As the proportional sharing technique can not be applied directly to transaction based operation of power system, we propose to allocate losses to the effective power transactions identified using the power flow tracing method. To achieve this, we design a NN based system that accepts transaction pairs as input and allocates loss to these transactions. The large set of data required to properly train this NN is generated by the method proposed in the previous section. To generate this large pool of data, the same method is repeated a large number of times with different initial operating conditions by randomly choosing generation and load pattern. Power flow is performed using this data and result is used to allocate loss. The data-pool generated is used to train the NN. After training, the NN is tested for a different set of data. Once training and testing of NN is completed satisfactorily, it is used to allocate loss to any transaction pairs. Results obtained by applying proportional sharing principle and that of the NN are shown in table V. A back propagation learning network having a structure as proposed in [16] is used. As the training data pool is generated from randomly selected load and generation pattern, the transactions found to be responsible for the power flows may also vary randomly in magnitude and may not always suit for the purpose of loss allocation for the given operating scenario. For successful training of the NN, a data pool close to the given one for which loss allocation is to be determined is needed. Thus the raw data are to be filtered such that the NN

can identify the non linear relation between the transactions and the losses allocated in the region surrounding the given set of test transactions. The detailed structure of the NN in [16] facilitates this identification and is, therefore, used for the present work. The detailed structure and description of the NN is given in Appendix A.
TABLE V LOSS ALLOCATED TO TRANSACTIONS BY PROPORTIONAL SHARING AND ANN

Power Loss Allocated Loss Allocated Trans. Gen Load Transaction By Proportional By ANN based No. No. No. (MW) Sharing (MW) Method (MW) 1 1 2 8.862140 0.032009 0.032190 2 3 2 20.810115 0.295221 0.295262 3 4 2 17.728872 0.642727 0.642731 4 5 2 9.001033 0.529434 0.529337 5 1 6 1.702129 0.063244 0.063172 6 3 6 25.362473 1.644285 1.644297 7 4 6 25.012326 1.910406 1.9104059 8 5 6 53.264177 5.717148 5.7171719 Total Loss Allocated 10.83448 10.83457

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It is seen from table V that the loss allocated to different transaction pairs for IEEE 6-bus test system by proportional sharing and the proposed neural network based system are almost same. The total system loss allocated by this method is exactly same as the total system loss calculated from power flow. The method is also tested on IEEE 30-bus test system and the results are shown in table VI.
TABLE VI LOSS ALLOCATED TO TRANSACTIONS BY PROPORTIONAL SHARING AND ANN Trans. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Gen No. 1 2 13 1 2 13 27 1 2 13 22 27 1 2 13 22 27 1 2 13 22 27 1 2 13 22 27 Load No. 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 17 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 20 Amount of transaction 53.4672 18.3173 8.9197 9.9604 61.7756 1.0626 7.9668 3.1906 19.7883 2.8854 8.5068 27.7619 2.8970 17.9674 2.6199 8.4262 19.6433 0.2309 1.4318 51.8739 7.3855 6.8855 0.6316 3.9170 49.5317 20.2046 25.5580 Loss Allocated by Proportional Sharing 1.5128 0.5956 0.0325 0.4286 2.3554 0.0293 0.3329 0.1226 0.6457 0.0158 1.2593 2.6324 0.6516 3.9399 0.4843 2.8246 7.5163 0.0125 0.0700 5.7918 1.3882 2.2037 0.0966 0.5780 12.7134 9.1112 12.5034 Loss Allocated By ANN based method 1.5128 0.5956 0.0324 0.4285 2.3554 0.0293 0.3329 0.12262 0.6457 0.0158 1.2592 2.6324 0.6516 3.9399 0.4843 2.8246 7.51602 0.01248 0.07009 5.7918 1.38832 2.2036 0.0966 0.5781 12.7133 9.1112 12.50372

In this case, it is assumed that all the generators and loads are not participating in the transaction to limit the number of

transaction pairs. Five generators out of six existing generators are assumed to be available for supplying power and only six load buses are participating in bilateral transactions. So, power flow is performed keeping non-zero generation and load to only these buses and all other buses are made to have zero generation or load. Power flow is performed considering bus 1 to be the slack bus and the total system loss is taken by this generator. Then transaction pairs and power exchange between them is established first and then loss is allocated to these transactions and the result is presented in table VI. The table shows that Gen 1 has also participated in the transaction, i.e. though it takes the system loss during power flow, once transactions are established, loss is shared by all transactions. Therefore, it shows that the proposed loss allocation method is slack-bus independent. Also, total loss allocated to all these transactions equals to the total system loss achieved from power flow results. So, the loss allocated to the transaction pairs by proportional sharing is proved to be fair. The results from the trained neural network are also shown in table VI. V. TRANSACTION BASED POWER FLOW SOLUTION With power transactions as inputs and bus voltages as output, the proposed NN has been found to be able to successfully estimate bus voltages for a given set of power transactions. For the purpose of comparison the estimated and true voltages for 6-bus and 30-bus system are shown in tables VII and VIII respectively. It may be mentioned here that the success in estimating phase angles had been rather poor.
TABLE VII COMPARISON OF BUS VOLTAGES FOR IEEE 6-BUS TEST SYSTEM Bus No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Voltage (pu) 1.0000 1.0079 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9571 Voltage (pu) from ANN 1.0000 1.0081 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9572

transactions. The outputs may also be the load voltages if a power flow solution is desired. Starting from a solved power flow, the power flow tracing method is used to identify the equivalent power transactions responsible for the power flow condition. These power transactions generated for a large number of power flow conditions form the training data for the NN. Test results show that proposed method can allocate losses with acceptable accuracy and also can generate the node voltage magnitudes quite satisfactorily. The training of the NN takes very less time and also once trained it will produce loss allocation to the transactions in real time. As the ISO need to run this loss allocation only once in 15mins (every bidding interval), this method can easily be used to allocate loss to the transactions within that period. VII. APPENDIX B PROPOSED NEURAL NETWORK STRUCTURE The NN used in this work is a radial basis function neural network (RBFNN). The RBFNN have three layers: an input layer, a hidden layer with a non-linear RBF activation function and a linear output layer. In training RBFNN if the number of data points is much larger, the problem is over determined and the network may end up fitting misleading variations due to noise in the input data, resulting in degraded performance [21]. So, from the large number of data we filter out a limited number of data nearer to the data for which NN is to be tested. The proposed NN structure is shown in Fig 3.

{ x1 , x2 , xn } is a set of training data and

the set of test data, where n is the number of transactions. Each of x1 , x2 , xn are a matrix having large number of values, equal to number of training data sets. Input training data set is filtered near the test set and the filtered data set is RBFNN. The filtering process is based on measuring least square distance of the training data from the test data and the set of data having least distance are used for training the NN.
Filtered Data Set

{ x , x , x } is
t 1 t 2 t n

{x

f 1

, x2f , xnf } . This filtered data is now used to train the

TABLE VIII LOSS ALLOCATED TO TRANSACTIONS BY PROPORTIONAL SHARING AND ANN

Transaction Values

Bus No. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

Voltage (pu) 1.0000 1.0000 0.9913 0.9925 0.9866 0.9900 0.9893 0.9911 0.9765 0.9777

Voltage (pu) by ANN 1.0000 1.0000 0.9913 0.9926 0.9866 0.9901 0.9895 0.9911 0.9766 0.9779

Bus No. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Voltage (pu) 0.9209 0.9986 1.0000 0.9971 0.9921 0.9824 0.9700 0.9731 0.9638 0.9595

Voltage (pu) by ANN 0.9208 0.9986 1.0000 0.9970 0.9920 0.9824 0.9699 0.9736 0.9646 0.9598

Bus No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Voltage (pu) 0.9944 1.0000 1.0000 0.9993 0.9988 0.9988 1.0000 0.9958 1.0000 1.0000

Voltage (pu) by ANN 0.9945 1.0000 1.0000 0.9993 0.9989 0.9988 1.0000 0.9959 1.0000 1.0000

x1 x2

x1f x2f RBFNN

y1 y2 yn

xn

Filter Least Square Distance

t t xn x1t x2

Fig. 3 : The Proposed Neural Network Structure

VI. CONCLUSION A new slack-bus independent transmission loss allocation method, applicable to transaction based operation of power system is proposed. The tool compensates total transmission loss exactly using proportional sharing principle. As the proportional sharing method of loss allocation is not directly applicable to transaction based power system operation due to lack of a power flow, the proposed method suggests a NN based solution of the problem. Inputs to the NN are power transactions and outputs are the allocated losses to these

This filtering process is very fast and as the training data is taken around the test data, so number of data required to train the NN will be comparatively less and time taken for training the network will be very less. This makes not only the RBFNN more accurate, but also very fast.

{ y1 , y2 , yn } is

the set of loss allocated to the transactions. The input to the NN is the bilateral transactions and outputs are the allocated losses to those transactions. For a system having n number of bilateral transactions, there are thus n number of input neurons, one for each transaction,

and same number of output neurons, one corresponding to loss allocated to each transaction. In a competitive environment the transaction pairs and the amount of power transaction may vary with time. If the NN has to perform for all possible power transactions, the training data pool has to be exhaustive, taking care of all possible transaction pairs and allocated loss to these transactions. This data pool will have extreme level of non-linearity and is not suitable for NN training. To get rid of the problem, the training data are collected from the data pool by identifying the relevant data set from the pool. The relevant data set consists of the data sets located near the transaction data set for which loss is to be allocated. The data close to the test set are separated by filtering that identifies the transactions close to given test transaction where the closeness is measured by distance between given transaction set and the transaction set of the data pool. This filtered data is used for training NN which will be able to allocate loss to the transactions. VIII. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] A.J. Canejo, J.M. Arroyo, N. Alguacil, A.L. Guijarro, Transmission loss allocation: a comparison of different practical algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol 17, No. 3, Aug 2002, pp-571576. D. Kirschen, R. Allan and G. Strbac, Contributions of individual generators to loads and flows, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 12, No. 1, February 1997, pp 52-57. J.W. Bialek, Topological generation and load distribution factors for supplement charge allocation in transmission open access, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol 12, No 3, Aug 1997, pp 1387-1392. Z.Q. Wu, Loss and branch power flow allocation based on topological method, Electric power components and systems, Volume 30, No. 11, November, 2002, pp 1179-1193. R. B. Baker, X. Wu, A. R. Bhuiya, Prospective reconciliation of transmission loss cost in Alberta, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 24, No. 4, November, 2009, pp 1703-1709. F. D. Galiana, M. Phelan Allocation of transmission losses to bilateral contracts in a competitive environment, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2000, pp 143-150. J. Usaola A transaction-based method for allocation of transmission grid cost and losses, Electric Power System Research, Vol. 76, 2006, pp 395-403. M. E. Baran, V. Banunarayanan, K. E. Garren A transaction assessment method for allocation of transmission services, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug 1999, pp920-928. H. A. Gil, F. D. Galiana, A. J. Conejo, Multiarea transmission network cost allocation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 20, No. 3, August 2005, pp. 1293-1301. G. Gross, S. Tao A physical flow based approach to allocating transmission losses in a transaction framework, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Volume 15, No. 2, May 2000, pp 631-637. Q. Ding, Ali Abur Optimal compensation of transmission losses in a multiple-transaction framework, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 29, 2007, pp 14-20. G. Huang, H. Zhang Transaction based power flow analysis for transmission utilization allocation, IEEE/PES Summer Meeting 2001; 2, pp 1139-45. F. D. Galiana, A. J. Conejo, H. A. Gil Transmission network cost allocation based on equivalent bilateral exchanges, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Volume 18, No. 4, Nov 2003, pp 1425-1431. D. A. Lima, A. J. Conejo, J. Contreras Allocation of the cost of transmission losses in a multimarket framework, IEE Proceedings of Generation Transmission Distribution, Vol 153, No 6 2006 pp-670-676. R. Haque, N. Chowdhury, An artificial neural network based transmission loss allocation for bilateral transactions, in Proc. Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, May 2005, pp. 2203 2207. J. N. Fidalgo, J. A. F. M. Torres, M. Matos, Fair allocation of distribution losses based on neural networks, International Conference

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

on Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems (ISAP), 5-8 Nov. 2007, pp. 1 6. N. B. Dev Choudhury, S. K. Goswami, Transmission loss allocation using game theory based artificial neural networks, 6th International conference on ECTI-CON 2009, 6-9 May 2009, Vol 01, pp. 186189. R. Natarajan, Computer-Aided Power System Analysis, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, 2002. M. De, S. K. Goswami A Direct and Simplified Approach to Power Flow Tracing and Loss-Allocation using Graph Theory, Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 38, No. 3, January 2010, pp. 241-259. Simon Haykin, Neural Networks A comprehensive foundation, 2nd Edition, New Delhi, Pearson Education, 2005. M. De and S.K. Goswami, Reactive support allocation using improved Y-bus matrix method, Accepted for publication in IET Generation, Transmission, Distribution. M. De and S.K. Goswami, Voltage Support Cost Allocation, Accepted for publication in Power conversion and management (Elsevier), 2010, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.09.013.

IX. BIOGRAPHIES

Mala De is a member of IEEE since February 2010. She was born in 1978. She graduated from Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College, West Bengal in 2000, completed M. E. in Power and Energy Systems from National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam, in 2007. Presently she is pursuing Phd at Jadavpur University. Her research interest includes power system deregulation, management and pricing.

Nalin B. Dev Choudhury received the B.E. degree from Gauhati University, in 1994 and M.Tech from IIT, Kanpur, India in 2003. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engg. from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India on deputation from National Institute of Technology, Silchar, India, where he is an Assistant Professor. His main research interest includes power system planning and deregulation.

Swapan K. Goswami received the B.E., M.E.E and Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1980, 1982 and 1991 respectively. Currently, he is Professor in Electrical Engineering in Jadavpur University, Kolkata. His research interest includes power system planning, analysis, optimization and deregulation.

[16]