An online method for MILP co‐planning model of large‐scale transmission expansion planning and energy storage systems considering N‐1 criterion

Abstract

In recent years, increased integration of renewable energy sources (RES) calls for extensive and costly investments in transmission networks. In response, power system decisionmakers try to apply alternative solutions aimed to decrease the imposed investment costs. In this context, the presence of large-scale energy storage systems (ESSs) in transmission network can be a practical option for deferring investment in expansion plans of transmission lines, alleviating system congestions, and attaining higher flexibility. In this paper, an efficient model is proposed for co-planning expansion studies of compressed air energy storage (CAES) units and transmission networks. The associated optimisation formulation of co-planning problem is expressed as a MILP model, which can be efficiently solved. The proposed model is applied on the Garver as well as RTS test systems and N-1 criterion is considered to address the system reliability performance in expansion studies. The results demonstrate that the proposed co-planning framework has a superior performance in expansion plans of transmission systems. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A linearized transmission expansion planning model under N − 1 criterion for enhancing grid‐scale system flexibility via compressed air energy storage integration

“…The investment cost of the transmission lines is assumed to be 1,000 $/MVA*mile, while the maximum capacities for the power and energy level of the CAES units are set to 200 MW and 1,200 MWh, respectively. Note that the original test system is very reliable and hence, the maximum power capacity of generating units and load demand are increased to 2.2 times of the original values [21] in order to investigate the performance of the proposed framework on the system flexibility.…”

“…A multi-stage MILP model is proposed in [20] including transmission and ESS planning under long-term uncertainties to improve a new metric of power system flexibility. Finally, reference [21] presents an MILP model for co-planning of trans-mission networks and CAES units to defer transmission lines investment through an online method capturing the N − 1 reliability criterion. However, improvement in power grid flexibility was not the primary concern in [21].…”

“…Finally, reference [21] presents an MILP model for co-planning of trans-mission networks and CAES units to defer transmission lines investment through an online method capturing the N − 1 reliability criterion. However, improvement in power grid flexibility was not the primary concern in [21].…”

A Mathematical Approach to Simultaneously Plan Generation and Transmission Expansion Based on Fault Current Limiters and Reliability Constraints

“…In the existing literature, while incorporating N-1 constraints into transmission expansion models is common practice, embedding conditions of SCCs into G&TEP models in the planning phase has been little discussed [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Ignoring SCC constraints may threaten the security of power grids because G&TEP reduces the equivalent network impedance, which, in turn, increases the short-circuit level of substations.…”

“…The market-clearing problem based on the AC-optimal power flow was planned, but the impact of reliability measurements on the suggested model was not discussed. Mazaheri et al [12] integrated the TEP problem with energy storage system placement to deal with uncertainties. N-1 security was embedded in the proposed model, but the SCC constraint was not presented.…”