WP EN2015-12

An Improved Method to Calculate Generation

Shift Keys

Kenneth Van den Bergh, and Erik Delarue

TME WORKING PAPER - Energy and Environment

Last update: July 2015

An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded from the TME website:
http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/tme/research/

KULeuven Energy Institute

TME Branch
1 An Improved Method to Calculate Generation Shift Keys

2 Kenneth Van den Bergha , Erik Delaruea,∗

3
a University of Leuven (KU Leuven) - Energy Institute & EnergyVille, Celestijnenlaan 300 box 2421, B-3001 Leuven,
4 Belgium

5 Abstract

Transmission network constraints become increasingly relevant in generation scheduling models, given

the ongoing integration of market zones and the deployment of renewables in remote areas. However,

a full nodal network representation in generation models is often not possible due to computational

limitations. Therefore, reduced zonal network models are needed. A crucial step in the nodal-zonal

network reduction is the calculation of generation shift keys (GSKs). Generation shift keys denote

the nodal contribution to the zonal generation balance and are needed to compile different nodes into

one equivalent node. This paper discusses generation shift keys in detail and proposes an improved

method to calculate them. According to the improved method, the generation and load portfolio is

split up in different categories, and generation shift keys are determined separately for each category.

A case study of the central European electricity system indicates that the improved method is able to

approximate the nodal network without a considerable increase in computational cost.

6 Keywords: Network reduction, Generation Shift Key (GSK), Power Transfer Distribution Factor

7 (PTDF).

8 Nomenclature

9 Sets
I (index i) set of generation units

L (index l) set of lines in nodal network

K (index k) set of lines in zonal network

10 N (index n) set of nodes

T (index t) set of time steps

Y (index y) set of all categories

YG (index yG ) subset of generation-related categories

∗ Corresponding author: [email protected] (email address); +32 16 322 521 (phone number)

Preprint submitted to Electrical Power Systems Research June 1, 2015

 YL (index yL ) subset of load-related categories
11

Z (index z) set of zones

12 Parameters
AN,gen N-by-I matrix linking generation units to nodes

AZ,gen Z-by-I matrix linking generation units to zones

Bbus N-by-N bus impedance matrix

Bbus∗ (N-1)-by-(N-1) reduced bus impedance matrix

Bbranch L-by-N branch impedance matrix

Bbranch∗ L-by-(N-1) reduced branch impedance matrix

DN N-by-1 vector with nodal load

DZ Z-by-1 vector with zonal load

N
F L-by-1 vector with line capacities in nodal network
Z
F K-by-1 vector with line capacities in zonal network
13 FZ,0 K-by-1 vector with base case flows in zonal network

G I-by-1 vector with maximum power output of the generation units

GSK N-by-Z matrix with generation shift keys

GSKY N-by-Z matrix with generation shift keys of category Y

ISF L-by-N matrix with injection shift factors

ISF∗ L-by-(N-1) matrix with reduced injection shift factors

MC I-by-1 vector with the marginal generation costs

PTDFN L-by-N matrix with nodal power transfer distribution factors

PTDFN∗ K-by-N matrix with node-to-link power transfer distribution factors

PTDFZ K-by-Z matrix with zonal power transfer distribution factors

PTDFZ,Y K-by-Z matrix zonal power transfer distribution factors of category Y

14 Variables
θ N-by-1 vector with nodal voltage angles

FN L-by-1 vector with line flows in nodal network

15 FZ K-by-1 vector with line flows in zonal network

G I-by-1 vector with power output of the generation units

PN N-by-1 vector with nodal power injections

2
 PN,Y N-by-1 vector with nodal power injections of category Y
16 PZ Z-by-1 vector with zonal power injections

PZ,Y Z-by-1 vector with zonal power injections of category Y

17 1. Introduction

18 A proper representation of transmission networks in electricity system models is becoming increasingly

19 important. Given the integration of different market zones and the deployment of renewables in

20 sometimes remote areas in the network, transmission constraints become more relevant and should

21 hence be taken into account in operational and planning models of the electricity generation sector [1].

22 A full implementation of the network in this kind of models is not always feasible due to the large size

23 of real-life networks and the concomitant high computational cost. Therefore, reduced network models

24 are needed, representing as good as possible the characteristics of the full network model without

25 jeopardizing the computational tractability.

26 Reduced network models can also be relevant for congestion management purposes in electricity mar-

27 kets [2]. Policy makers might prefer a reduced network model to a full network implementation for,

28 besides computational reasons, historical and socio-political reasons. For instance, current electricity

29 markets in Europe are based on a strongly reduced model of the electricity network.

30 A standard network reduction technique is equivalencing of the external network by computing impedances

31 and eliminating unnecessary elements [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Equivalent networks have been used for short

32 circuit analysis as they can reproduce the voltages and currents of the remaining buses. However,

33 equivalent networks are not able to approximate flows of the eliminated branches. Therefore, the us-

34 age of equivalent networks is limited in power flow analysis [9]. Another network reduction technique

35 consists of grouping nodes in a limited number of zones, hereby reducing the number of nodes in

36 the network [10][11]. A zone is assumed to be a copper plate, meaning that transmission constraints

37 within a zone can be neglected. The remaining transmission lines between zones can be grouped in

38 inter-zonal links. This second network reduction technique is referred to as the nodal-zonal reduction

39 in this paper.

40 The nodal-zonal reduction technique starts from a full nodal description and derives a simplified

41 zonal network in three sequential steps. First, nodes with similar electric characteristics are clustered

42 in zones [12][13][14][15][16]. Second, nodes within a zone are replaced by an equivalent node with

43 - approximately - the same relationship between power injections in the network and power flows

3
44 through the remaining inter-zonal lines [17][18][9][19]. Third, the remaining inter-zonal lines between

45 two zones can be replaced by one equivalent inter-zonal link [12][20].

46 A full non-linear AC power flow would be the most accurate network representation in electricity

47 generation models [21]. However, due to the high computational cost of an AC power flow, a DC

48 power flow is often preferred [22]. The DC power flow gives a linear relation between power injections

49 and power flows by means of Power Transfer Distribution Factors (PTDF).

50 This paper deals with the second step in the nodal-zonal reduction, i.e., grouping nodes in an equivalent

51 node. A commonly used grouping approach is based on Generation Shift Keys (GSKs) [23]. GSKs are

52 a mathematical expression of the spatial distribution of electricity generation (and load) within a zone.

53 Each node within the zone contributes to the equivalent node in accordance with its GSK. The GSKs

54 are an important parameter, influencing the nodal-zonal reduction to a great extent. Nevertheless,

55 GSKs are underexposed in the literature. Typically, it is assumed that all nodes contribute equally to

56 the equivalent node [9]. However, GSKs vary widely for different nodes in real-life electricity networks.

57 Moreover, GSKs are time-dependent, as the spatial distribution of generation (and load) changes in

58 time. This paper discusses the complexity of calculating GSKs and presents an improved method to

59 determine them.

60 The paper proceeds as follows. Section II presents in detail the nodal-zonal network reduction tech-

61 nique. Section III discusses the challenges related to generation shift keys and proposes an improved

62 method to calculate them. This improved method is evaluated in section IV based on a case study of

63 the central European electricity network. Section V concludes.

64 2. Nodal-zonal network reduction

65 The nodal-zonal network reduction starts from a full nodal PTDF-matrix and ends up with a simplified

66 zonal PTDF-matrix. The nodal-zonal reduction method is illustrated by a simple example (see Fig.

67 1).

68 2.1. Nodal PTDF-matrix

The DC power flow is a linearization of the AC power flow equations, based on three assumptions:

(i) line resistances are negligible relative to line reactances, (ii) the voltage profile is flat and (iii) the

voltage angle differences between neighboring nodes are small. Given these assumptions, the static

4
 (a) Nodal network.

(b) Zonal network.

Figure 1: Simple electricity network to illustrate the nodal-zonal network reduction. Generation units
are located at node 1 (base load unit), node 2 (peak load unit) and node 4 (base load unit). Load is
located at nodes 2 and 3. Zone 1 consists of nodes 1 and 2, zone 2 of nodes 3 and 4.

AC power flow equation for active power injections simplifies to:

PN = Bbus θ (1)

The active power flow through a transmission line can be written as:

FN = Bbranch θ (2)

Substituting the voltage angles θ from Eqs. (1)-(2) gives the DC power flow equation:

FN = ISF PN (3)

or in scalar format:
N N
Fl,t = ISFl,n Pn,t ∀ l, ∀ t (4)

with

ISF∗
 
ISF = 0 (5)

5

−1
ISF∗ = Bbranch∗ Bbus∗ (6)

69 Since Bbus is a rank-deficient matrix, Eq. (6) can only be solved after removing the reference node.

70 In this example, node 1 is denoted as reference node. The full LxN-dimension of the Injection Shift

71 Factor matrix (ISF) can be restored by inserting a zero column in the reduced ISF-matrix (see Eq.

72 (5)).

An element in the ISF-matrix gives the sensitivity of the active power flow through line l with respect

to an additional power injection in node n and with the reference node as sink. Given the properties

of linearity and superposition, the sensitivity of line flows to power injections in node n1 with node

n2 as sink can be written as a linear combination of the ISF-elements with the reference node as sink

[24]:
N
P T DFl,n1 −n2
= ISFl,n1 − ISFl,n2 (7)

73 An element in the nodal PTDF-matrix (PTDFN ) gives then the sensitivity of the active power flow

74 through line l with respect to an additional power injection in node n1 and withdrawal at node n2 . The

75 nodal PTDF-matrix hence doesn’t depend on the chosen reference node, unlike the ISF-matrix. The

76 nodal PTDF-matrix depends on the network topology but not on the operating point of the system

77 [25].

The before mentioned equations are valid for every time step. An additional equation is added to the

DC power flow equation to ensure a unique solution after removing the reference node from Eq. (6).

This equation imposes the sum of all power injections to be zero:

X
N
Pn,t = 0 ∀t (8)
n

78 Consider the simple 4-node network in Fig. 1a. Assuming the same line susceptance for all lines (0.5

79 p.u.), defining positive flow directions as denoted in Fig. 1(a), and taking node 1 as the reference node,

80 the ISF-matrix becomes:

 
0 −0.25 −0.75 −0.5
 
 
0 −0.25 0.25 −0.5
ISF =  (9)
 

0 −0.25 0.25 0.5 
 
 
0 0.75 0.25 0.5

6
81 The ISF-matrix indicates that a power injection of 1 MW in node 3 (see third column in ISF-matrix)

82 with off-take in the reference node (i.e., node 1) results in a line flow of -0.75 MW in line A and 0.25

83 MW in lines B, C and D.

84 2.2. Clustering nodes into zones

85 The first step in reducing the nodal to a zonal PTDF-matrix is defining the zones. Nodes should be

86 clustered such that no congestion occurs within a zone, and that nodes within the same zone have

87 a similar impact on the inter-zonal links. A well-known clustering approach is based on Locational

88 Marginal Prices (LMP, also referred to as nodal prices). No congestion occurs between nodes with

89 the same LMPs and hence these nodes can be grouped in one zone. Another clustering principle

90 is based on nodal PTDFs. Nodes with similar nodal PTDFs are grouped in a zone. The before

91 mentioned clustering approaches are based on electric characteristics of the network. However, in

92 real-life examples, nodes are often clustered into zones based on administrative regions (e.g., one zone

93 per country or province).

94 Clustering algorithms are not part of this paper’s research question and it is assumed that the zones

95 are already defined.

96 In the simple example (see Fig. 1), nodes 1 and 2 are grouped in zone 1 and nodes 3 and 4 in zone

97 2. The intra-zonal lines B and D can be removed from the ISF-matrix, resulting in the node-to-link

98 PTDF-matrix:

 
0 −0.25 −0.75 −0.5
PTDFN∗ =  (10)
0 −0.25 0.25 0.5

99 2.3. Zonal PTDF-matrix

100 In a second step, the nodes within a zone are replaced by one equivalent node and the zonal PTDF-

101 matrix is determined. The zonal PTDF-matrix gives the linear relation between the flow on inter-zonal

102 lines and zonal power injections.

103 The zonal PTDFs are derived from the node-to-link PTDF-matrix by means of Generation Shift Keys

104 (GSKs). GSKs indicate the nodal contribution to (a change in) the zonal balance. As such, GSKs

105 contain information about the spatial distribution of generation within a zone.

106 In this paper, the GSKs are calculated as the nodal power injection divided by the zonal generation

7
107 balance:

N
Pn,t
GSKn,z,t = P N
∀ z, ∀ n ∈ z, ∀ t
n∈z Pn,t (11)
GSKn,z,t = 0 ∀ z, ∀ n 6∈ z, ∀ t

N
108 The nodal power injection Pn,t can be positive (injection in the network) or negative (off-takes from

109 the network). The sum of each column in the GSK-matrix is one. The GSK can not be determined in
N
P
110 case of balanced zones (i.e., n∈z Pn,t = 0 ).

111 GSKs have to be known a priori to derive a zonal network, whereas the zonal network is needed to

112 determine the power injections and hence the GSKs. Therefore, GSKs are determined a priori based

113 on expected nodal power injections. In this paper, the GSKs are based on a nodal simulation. In

114 real-life applications, GSKs are determined based on simplified simulations and/or the expertise of

115 system operators. However, the use of the nodal simulations to calculate the GSKs is justified since

116 the aim of this paper is to compare an improved GSK-calculation method with the standard method,

117 which can be done as long as both methods are based on the same assumptions.

118 The zonal PTDF-matrix follows from the matrix multiplication of the node-to-link PTDF-matrix with

119 the GSK-matrix. This multiplication indicates that the columns of the zonal PTDF-matrix are a

120 weighted sum of the columns of the node-to-link PTDF-matrix, based on the spatial distribution of

121 generation and load within a zone.

PTDFZ = PTDFN∗ GSK (12)

122 Consider the simple example of Fig. 1 and assume that zone 1 exports 100 MW to zone 2 and nodal

123 power injections are as follows: P1 = 120 MW, P2 = -20 MW, P3 = -150 MW, P4 = 50 MW. The

124 GSK-matrix and the zonal PTDF-matrix for the simple example are, respectively:

 
1.2 0
 
 
−0.2 0 
GSK =  (13)
 

 0 1.5 
 
 
0 −0.5
 
0.050 −0.875
PTDFZ =   (14)
0.050 0.125

8
125 GSKs can correspond to a change of the system state relative to a so-called base case. One speaks

126 then of an incremental GSK-matrix. A base case is, for instance, a system state in which each zone is

127 balanced (i.e., no net export or import). An incremental GSK-matrix indicates the nodal contribution

128 to a change in the zonal balance. A GSK-matrix can also correspond to a single system state (i.e.,

129 absolute GSK-matrix), indicate the nodal contribution to the zonal balance. The zonal PTDF-matrix

130 following from incremental GSKs is an incremental PTDF-matrix and only valid for the considered

131 base case. The base case causes transmission flows, both within the zones and between the zones.

132 Therefore, a term is added to the zonal DC power flow, corresponding to the inter-zonal flows in the

133 base case. In case of absolute GSKs, the base-case flows are zero.

134 The zonal DC power flow equation becomes:

FZ = PTDFZ PZ + FZ,0 (15)

or in scalar format:
X
Z Z Z
Fk,t = P T DFk,z Pz,t + FzZ,0 ∀k, ∀ t (16)
z

135 The remainder of this paper focusses on absolute GSKs, but an analogous reasoning is applicable to

136 incremental GSKs.

137 3. Improved method to calculate GSKs

138 The calculation of the GSK-matrix is a crucial but not straightforward step in the nodal-zonal network

139 reduction. This section gives an overview of one of the main difficulties with GSK calculation, i.e.,

140 time-averaging, and proposes an improved method to solve this issue.

141 3.1. Time-averaging of GSKs

142 The nodal-zonal network reduction is typically performed for multiple time steps at once (e.g., on a

143 daily basis). In order to derive one zonal network which is valid for the whole considered time frame,

144 time-independent GSKs are needed. However, GSKs can change from time step to time step as the

145 spatial distribution of generation and load within a zone changes in time. Time-averaging of GSK

146 results in a loss of accuracy of the zonal network.

147 Fig. 2 shows for the considered case study of the central European electricity system (see section 4.1)

148 the daily average GSKs and the standard deviation for the daily average GSKs. The daily average

9
149 GSKs can be positive or negative; the absolute values of the daily GSKs are shown in Fig. 2. The

150 standard deviation is a measure for time-variability. Fig. 2 indicates that certain nodes have a highly

151 time-variable GSK. Both the average GSK as the standard deviation are expressed in percentage.

800

700

Standard deviation daily GSK [%]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Daily average GSK [%]

Figure 2: Daily average GSK (absolute value) and standard deviation for the simple zonal model (case
study of Central Europe). The standard deviation is a measure for the variability in time of the GSKs.
Certain nodes have a highly time-variable GSK.

152 Time-variability of GSKs is caused by changing nodal or zonal balances, and is enforced if the zonal

153 balance is small compared to the nodal balance (see Eq. (11)). These effects are illustrated in Fig. 3

154 for one particular node in the network. The nodal balance is constant, but the zonal balance varies

155 during the day. Moreover, the zonal balance is smaller than the nodal balance and fluctuates around

156 zero (i.e., the zone is a net exporter during certain hours of the day and a net importer during others).

157 The result is a strongly fluctuating GSK.

2500
nodal balance [MW]
2000 zonal balance [MW]
GSK [%]
1500

1000

500

−500

−1000

−1500

−2000
5 10 15 20
time step [h]

Figure 3: The GSK of a particular node can vary strongly during a day if the zonal balance fluctuates
around zero and is small compared to the nodal balance. The daily average GSK of the considered
node for the considered day is -230%, with a standard deviation of 520%.

10
158 Clearly, using one fixed GSK per day is a rather strong approximation for nodes with a highly vari-

159 able GSK. Therefore, another method is required which results in less time-variable GSKs. Such an

160 improved method is proposed in the following section.

161 3.2. Improved GSKs

162 The accuracy of the GSKs can be improved by increasing the number of zones or by shortening the

163 time frame for which the zonal network has to be valid. Both improvements are mostly not possible

164 as the number of zones and the time frame are set fixed (e.g., flow-based market coupling framework

165 in the Central Western European region [26]).

166 The GSK-matrix can also be improved by working with different GSK-matrices for different categories

167 of generation and load units. Categories can refer to, for example, power injections from base load

168 units, power injections from peak load units, load off-takes from industrial consumers and load off-takes

169 from residential consumers.

170 The spatial distribution of one category varies less in time than the spatial distribution of the whole

171 generation and load portfolio together. Consider for instance base load units. The aggregated gen-

172 eration from base load units is rather constant in time and the contribution of one base load unit to

173 the aggregated base load generation is likely to be rather constant in time as well. Therefore, the

174 GSKs for the category of base load generation vary little in time. As a result, less accuracy is lost

175 with time-averaging a GSK-matrix which is specific for a certain category. When certain categories are

176 predominant in some sub-regions, the category-specific GSK method is to a certain extent equivalent

177 to dividing the system in smaller zones.

The GSK for category Y can be calculated as follows:

N,Y
Y
Pn,t
GSKn,z,t =P N,Y
∀ z, ∀ n ∈ z, ∀ t
n∈z Pn,t (17)
Y
GSKn,z,t = 0 ∀ z, ∀ n 6∈ z, ∀ t

N,Y N,Y
178 with Pn,t the nodal power injection of category Y. Pn,t is positive for injections in the network and

179 negative for off-takes. Like in the basic GSK-method (see Eq. (11)), the nodal power injections are

180 estimated a priori.

The zonal PTDF-matrix is now different for the various categories:

PTDFZ,Y = PTDFN∗ GSKY (18)

11
 The resulting DC power flow equation becomes:

X
FZ = PTDFZ,Y PZ,Y + FZ,0 (19)
Y

or in scalar format:
X Z,Y Z,Y
Z
Fk,t = P T DFk,z Pz,t + FzZ,0 ∀ k, ∀ t (20)
z,y

Z,Y
The zonal injection of category Y, Pz,t , is positive for generation-related categories and negative for

load-related categories. The zonal injection per category is limited by the generation or load of that

category:
Z,Y
X N,Y
0 ≤ Pz,t ≤ Pn,t ∀ z, ∀ y ∈ yG , ∀ t
n∈z
X (21)
Z,Y N,Y
0 ≥ Pz,t ≥ Pn,t ∀ z, ∀ y ∈ yL , ∀ t
n∈z

The net zonal injection is the sum of all zonal injection per category

X Z,Y
Z
Pz,t = Pz,t ∀ z, ∀ t (22)
y

181 The improved method is illustrated on the basis of the simple network in Fig. 1. Three different

182 categories are considered: injections from base load generation (i.e., unit at node 1 and unit at node

183 4), injections from peak load generation (i.e., unit at node 2), and load off-takes (i.e., nodes 2 and 3).

184 The GSKs per category for this example are:

 
1 0
 
 
0 0
GSKbase = (23)
 

0 0
 
 
0 1
 
0 0
 
 
1 0
GSKpeak = (24)
 

0 0
 
 
0 0

12
  
0 0
 
 
1 0
GSKload = (25)
 

0 1
 
 
0 0

185 The zonal PTDF-matrices for the different categories then become:

 
0 −0.50
PTDFZ,base =  (26)
0 −0.50
 
−0.25 0
PTDFZ,peak =  (27)
−0.25 0
 
−0.25 −0.75
PTDFZ,load =  (28)
−0.25 0.25

The DC power flow equation for the example in Fig. 1 becomes:

FZ = PTDFZ,base PZ,base + PTDFZ,peak Ppeak

Z
(29)
+PTDFZ,load PZ,load + FZ,0

186 4. Evaluation of improved GSK

187 The central European electricity system is studied to evaluate the improved GSK-method.

188 4.1. Case study - Central European electricity network

189 The case study considers the interconnected high-voltage electricity system of 10 Central European

190 countries: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, France, Luxembourg,

191 the Netherlands and Poland.

192 The nodal network model contains 2,339 nodes, 3,367 line elements (transmission lines and transform-

193 ers) [27]. The generation portfolio consists of 511 generation units with a total installed capacity of 205

194 GW (82 GW nuclear units, 73 GW coal-fired units, 40 GW gas-fired units and 10 GW internal com-

195 bustion engines). Residual load time series with an hourly time resolution are studied for two specific

196 days: a high-load day with peak load of 200 GW (i.e., based on a working day in the winter time of

13
197 2012) and a low-load day with peak load of 155 GW (i.e., based on a weekend day in the summer time

198 of 2012) [28]. The residual load is the original electricity load minus generation from non-dispatchable

199 renewable and cogeneration units. It is assumed that the residual load is fully inelastic.

200 The optimal operational generation schedule for this electricity system is determined for three different

201 network models:

202 (1) a nodal network model as reference case;

203 (2) a simple zonal network model with 40 zones;

204 (3) an improved zonal network model with the same 40 zones as in the simple zonal network, but

205 different GSK-matrices for 2 categories: generation-related and load-related injections.

206 The nodes are clustered in 40 zones by a k-means algorithm with the nodal PTDF-values of the lines

207 which are congested in the nodal simulation as observations. The resulting zonal network contains 315

208 inter-zonal lines.

The optimal generation schedule follows from from a deterministic generation dispatch model formu-

lated as a linear program in GAMS 24.2 and solved by CPLEX 12.6. The objective function is to

minimize the total operational system cost for the simulated days:

X
min M Ci Gi,t (30)
i,t

209 The objective function is subject to the market clearing constraint (see Eq. (31) for a nodal and Eq.

210 (32) for a zonal network model), the power plant generation limits (see Eq. (33)), the transmission

211 line limits (see Eq. (34) for a nodal and Eq. (35) for a zonal network model), and the DC power flow

212 equations (see Eqs. (4) and (36) for a nodal network, Eqs. (16) and (37) for a simple zonal network

213 and Eqs. (20) and (37) for an improved zonal network). For the improved zonal network, Eqs. (21)

214 and (22) are taken into account as well.

AN,gen
n,i
N
Gi,t = Dn,t N
+ Pn,t ∀ n, ∀ t (31)

AZ,gen
z,i
Z
Gi,t = Dz,t Z
+ Pz,t ∀ z, ∀ t (32)

14
 0 ≤ Gi,t ≤ Gi ∀ i, ∀ t (33)

N N N
−F l ≤ Fl,t ≤ Fl ∀ l, ∀ t (34)

Z Z Z
−F k ≤ Fk,t ≤ Fk ∀ k, ∀ t (35)

X
N
Pn,t = 0 ∀t (36)
n

X
Z
Pz,t = 0 ∀t (37)
z

215 4.2. Time variability of the GSKs

216 The GSK-matrices for the case study are determined with Eq. (11) and Eq. (17), respectively for the

217 simple zonal network and the improved zonal network. The results of the nodal simulation are used

218 as estimation of the nodal power injections and off-takes.

219 The zonal network model is determined on a daily basis. This implies that the GSKs are averaged

220 over 24 hours, in order to derive a zonal network which is valid for a whole day. As mentioned before,

221 this entails a loss in accuracy. The larger the variability in time of the GSKs, the larger the loss in

222 accuracy due to time-averaging.

223 Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 show the daily average GSK and the standard deviation in time for the simple

224 zonal model and the improved zonal model, respectively. It is clear that the time-variability of the

225 GSKs reduces drastically with the improved zonal method. The average GSK also becomes smaller in

226 the improved method. In the simple method, GSK are calculated as the nodal injections divided by

227 the zonal balance. The zonal balance can become small for almost balanced zones, resulting in high

228 (average) GSKs. By splitting the zonal balance in zonal load and zonal generation in the improved

229 method, the (average) GSK becomes smaller as the zonal generation or load is always at least as large

230 as the nodal generation or load. The standard deviation of the GSKs in the improved method is

231 maximal for average GSKs around 50%. For average GSK close to 0 (i.e., the node does not contribute

232 to the zonal balance) or close to 1 (i.e., the node is the only contribution to the zonal balance), the

233 standard deviation becomes zero.

15
234 In short, the improved method thus results in less time-variable GSKs. This implies that less accuracy

235 is lost by time-averaging the GSK-matrix.

100

90

80

Standard deviation daily GSK [%]

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Daily average GSK [%]

Figure 4: Daily average GSKs and standard deviation for the improved zonal network with 2 different
categories. The standard deviation reduces drastically in the improved GSK-method, compared to
Fig. 2 (note the different scale of the axes).

236 4.3. Flows through the network

237 The power flows through the network follow from the generation dispatch model. Depending on the

238 network model, different flows are obtained. Table 1 shows the mean absolute error between the inter-

239 zonal flows from a zonal and a nodal simulation. Table 1 indicates that the improved zonal network

240 approximates the inter-zonal flows better than the simple zonal network.

241 Working with GSKs for different categories (i.e., splitting generation-related injections from load-

242 related off-takes) results in a more accurate time-averaging of GSKs, as seen in the previous subsection.

243 However, introducing categories leads to additional freedom for the generation scheduling algorithm.

244 With multiple categories, the algorithm has the freedom to choose which category exports to other

245 regions (in case of generation-related injections) or imports from other regions (in case of load-related

246 injections). For instance, consider a zone with a positive zonal generation balance of 100 MW, an

247 aggregated zonal generation of 350 MW and a zonal load of 250 MW. In the simple zonal network,
Z
248 the zonal power injection Pz,t is 100 MW, whereas in an improved zonal network with generation-

249 related and load-related injections, the zonal generation-related injection can vary from 0 to 350 MW

250 and the zonal load-related off-take from 0 to 250 MW (as long as the net zonal balance remains 100

251 MW). Depending on the specific PTDF-matrices for both categories, the algorithm can choose to

252 minimize zonal import/export and cover the zonal load with zonal generation, or to maximize zonal

16
253 import/export and import all zonal load and export all zonal generation, or any situation in between.

254 Both situations will result in different flows through the network.

255 Inter-zonal flows can deviate from the optimal flows as long as the line capacities are respected.

256 However, this is not always the case. Table 2 shows how often a line overloading occurs if the zonal

257 generation schedules are imposed to the nodal network. Line overloadings occur more often during the

258 high-load day as the network is more used at these moments. Line overloadings occur also more often

259 on inter-zonal lines than on intra-zonal lines. This can be explained by the fact that the zones were

260 clustered such that intra-zonal congestion occured as little as possible. The improved zonal network

261 model results in fewer line overloadings than the simple zonal network.

MAE inter-zonal flow [MW] low-load day high-load day

Simple zonal network 1,058 470
Improved zonal network 266 316

Table 1: Mean absolute error (MAE) of inter-zonal flows, comparing the zonal with the nodal simula-
tion results. A low-load and a high-load day are considered, each with an hourly time resolution.

Overloading penetration low-load day high-load day

rate [%] inter intra inter intra
Simple zonal network 4.7 0.4 42.2 22.6
Improved zonal network 3.0 0.1 30.1 14.1

Table 2: The overloading penetration rate is defined as the sum of overloaded lines over all time steps
divided by the number of lines and the number of time steps (inter: inter-zonal lines; intra: intra-zonal
lines).

262 4.4. Zonal generation balances

263 Different zonal import/export balances are obtained if different network models are used in the gener-

264 ation scheduling model. Table 3 shows the mean absolute error between the hourly zonal generation

265 balances from a zonal and a nodal network model. Again, the improved zonal network model outper-

266 forms the simple zonal network model.

267 The zonal balance error is larger in a low-load day than in a high-load day. In a high-load day, almost

268 all generation units are used to fulfill load. Therefore, the generation scheduling algorithm has less

269 options to optimize the generation schedule, leading to fewer deviations between the different network

270 models.

17
 MAE zonal balance [MW] low-load day high-load day
Simple zonal network 777 440
Improved zonal network 347 335

Table 3: Mean absolute error (MAE) of hourly zonal balance, comparing the zonal with the nodal
simulation result. A low-load and a high-load day are considered, each with an hourly time resolution.

271 4.5. Computational tractability

272 The previous subsections have focussed on the accuracy of the zonal network models. This subsection

273 deals with the computational cost (see table 4). Simulations were run on an Intel(R) Core(TM)

274 i7-2620M [email protected] GHz, 8 GB RAM.

275 The size of the problem, i.e., the number of equations and variables, is an order of magnitude larger

276 with the nodal network than with the various zonal networks. The improved zonal network results in a

277 slightly larger optimization problem compared to the simple zonal network model. The run time with

278 a nodal network is two orders of magnitudes larger than the run time with a zonal network model.

279 The run times for the zonal network models increase by adding categories, but stay within the same

280 order of magnitude.

281 In this paper, an economic dispatch model, formulated as a linear program, is used. However, if one

282 wants to include the dynamic constraints of the generation portfolio (e.g., minimum operation point,

283 minimum down times), a mixed-integer program is needed, introducing binary variables in the op-

284 timization problem. This increases the computational cost of the optimization problem drastically,

285 which makes it more important to limit the size and the computational cost of the network representa-

286 tion. Moreover, a rather short time frame is considered in this paper, i.e., one day. The computational

287 cost increases exponentially if longer time frames are considered, again underlining the importance of

288 computational tractable network models.

Equations Variables Run time

Nodal network 51.4·105 28.7·105 206min
Simple zonal network 5.1·105 3.0·105 23s
Improved zonal network 5.8·105 3.3·105 38s

Table 4: Computational cost of the different network models (generation scheduling optimization, 24
time steps, 511 generation units, nodal network with 2,339 nodes, zonal network with 40 nodes).

289 5. Conclusion

290 Reduced zonal network models are needed to take network constraints into account in generation

291 scheduling models without losing computational tractability. A full nodal network can be reduced to

18
292 a zonal network model by clustering nodes into zones and replacing the nodes in the same zone by one

293 equivalent node.

294 Generation Shift Keys (GSK) are needed to group nodes into zones and determine the zonal Power

295 Transfer Distribution Factors (PTDF). GSKs give the nodal contribution to the zonal balance, are

296 estimated a priori and often averaged over multiple time steps in order to derive a zonal network

297 model which is valid for multiple time steps.

298 This paper presents an improved method to calculate GSK. According to this improved method,

299 the injections and off-takes from the network are split up in different categories and the GSKs are

300 determined separately for the different categories. A category can refer to, for example, power injections

301 from base load generation or power off-takes from industrial consumers. The method is based on the

302 insight that the GSKs from one category vary less in time than the GSK of the whole system. The

303 improved method thus results in less time-variable generation shift keys and a lower loss in accuracy

304 by time-averaging the GSK-matrix.

305 The improved method is evaluated by means of a case study of the Central European electricity net-

306 work. The study shows that an improved zonal network model, with generation-related injections

307 considered separately from load-related off-takes, is able to better approach the flows and zonal gener-

308 ation balances than a simple zonal network model with the same number of zones, and this with only

309 a modest increase in computational cost.

310 References

311 [1] E. G. Kardakos, C. K. Simoglou, A. G. Bakirtzis, Optimal bidding strategy in transmission-

312 constrained electricity markets, Electric Power Systems Research 109 (2014) 141–149.

313 [2] A. Ehrenmann, Y. Smeers, Inefficiencies in European congestion management proposals, Utilities

314 Policy 13 (2) (2005) 135–152.

315 [3] J. B. Ward, Equivalent circuits for power-flow studies, Electrical Engineering 68 (9) (1949) 794–

316 794.

317 [4] S. Deckmann, A. Pizzolante, A. Monticelli, B. Stott, O. Alsac, Numerical testing of power system

318 load flow equivalents, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems 6 (1980) 2292–2300.

319 [5] S. Deckmann, A. Pizzolante, A. Monticelli, B. Stott, O. Alsac, Studies on power system load flow

320 equivalencing, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems 6 (1980) 2301–2310.

19
321 [6] E. Housos, G. Irisarri, R. Porter, A. Sasson, Steady state network equivalents for power system

322 planning applications, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems 6 (1980) 2113–2120.

323 [7] W. F. Tinney, J. M. Bright, Adaptive reductions for power flow equivalents, IEEE Transactions

324 on Power Systems 2 (2) (1987) 351–359.

325 [8] M. K. Enns, J. J. Quada, Sparsity-enhanced network reduction for fault studies, IEEE Transac-

326 tions on Power Systems 6 (2) (1991) 613–621.

327 [9] H. Oh, A new network reduction methodology for power system planning studies, IEEE Transac-

328 tions on Power Systems 25 (2) (2010) 677–684.

329 [10] J. B. Bart, M. Andreewsky, Network modelling for congestion management: zonal representation

330 versus nodal representation, in: Proc. 15th Power Systems Computation Conference, 2005, pp.

331 1–6.

332 [11] A. Papaemmanouil, G. Andersson, On the reduction of large power system models for power

333 market simulations, in: Proc. 17th Power Systems Computation Conference, 2011, pp. 1–7.

334 [12] H. Oh, Aggregation of buses for a network reduction, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 27 (2)

335 (2012) 705–712.

336 [13] M. Klos, K. Wawrzyniak, M. Jakubek, G. Orynczak, The scheme of a novel methodology for

337 zonal division based on power transfer distribution factors, in: Conference of IEEE Industrial

338 Electronics Society, 2014, pp. 1–7.

339 [14] P. N. Biskas, A. Tsakoumis, A. G. Bakirtzis, A. Koronides, J. Kabouris, Transmission loss allo-

340 cation through zonal aggregation, Electric Power Systems Research 81 (10) (2011) 1973–1985.

341 [15] C. Kang, Q. Chen, W. Lin, Y. Hong, Q. Xia, Z. Chen, Y. Wu, J. Xin, Zonal marginal pric-

342 ing approach based on sequential network partition and congestion contribution identification,

343 International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 51 (2013) 321–328.

344 [16] E. Shayesteh, B. F. Hobbs, L. Soder, M. Amelin, ATC-based system reduction for planning power

345 systems with correlated wind and loads, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

346 [17] X. Cheng, T. J. Overbye, PTDF-based power system equivalents, IEEE Transactions on Power

347 Systems 20 (4) (2005) 1868–1876.

20
348 [18] K. Purchala, E. Haesen, L. Meeus, R. Belmans, Zonal network model of european interconnected

349 electricity network, in: in Proc. CIGRE/IEEE PES International Symposium, 2005, pp. 362–369.

350 [19] M. Doquet, Zonal reduction of large power systems: Assessment of an optimal grid model ac-

351 counting for loop flows, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

352 [20] C. Duthaler, M. Emery, G. Andersson, M. Kurzidem, Analysis of the use of power transfer distribu-

353 tion factors (PTDF) in the UCTE transmission grid, in: Proc. 16th Power Systems Computation

354 Conference, 2008, pp. 1–6.

355 [21] A. Kumar, S. Srivastava, S. Singh, A zonal congestion management approach using AC transmis-

356 sion congestion distribution factors, Electric Power Systems Research 72 (1) (2004) 85–93.

357 [22] B. Stott, J. Jardim, O. Alsac, DC power flow revisited, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems

358 24 (3) (2009) 1290–1300.

359 [23] M. Vukasovic, S. Skuletic, Implementation of different methods for PTDF matrix calculation in

360 flow-based coordinated auction, in: International Conference on Power Engineering, Energy and

361 Electrical Drives, POWERENG, IEEE, 2007, pp. 791–795.

362 [24] T. Guler, G. Gross, M. Liu, Generalized line outage distribution factors, IEEE Transactions on

363 Power Systems 22 (2) (2007) 879–881.

364 [25] R. Baldick, Variation of distribution factors with loading, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems

365 18 (4) (2003) 1316–1323.

366 [26] Amprion, APX, Belpex, Creos, Elia, Transnet BW, EpexSpot, RTE, Tennet, CWE enhanced

367 flow-based market clearing intuitiveness report, Available at www.elia.be/en/projects/market-

368 integration/flow-based-marktkoppeling-centr-w-europaf (2013).

369 [27] European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), Study model

370 2020 - Continental Europe, Available at request via www.entsoe.eu (2013).

371 [28] European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), Data portal -

372 statistical database, Available at www.entsoe.eu/data (2013).

21