2004 E E E Intemational Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong
Congestion Management Under
Deregulated Fuzzy Environment
Narayana Prasad Padhy
Abstract- In this paper, an efficient and practical hybrid
model has been proposed for congestion management analysis
for both real and reactive power transaction under
deregulated fuzzy environment of power system. The proposed
hybrid model determines the optimal bilateral or multilateral
transaction and their corresponding load curtailment in two
stages. In the first stage classical gradient descent optimal
power flow algorithm has been used to determine the set of
feasible curtailment strategies for different amount of real
and reactive power transactions. Whereas in the second stage
fuzzy decision opinion matrix has been used to select the
optimal transaction strategy considering increase in private
power transaction, reduction in percentage curtailment, and
its corresponding change in per unit generation cost and
hence profit as fuzzy variables. The performance of the
proposed algorithm has been tested using modified IEEE 30
bus test system. The solutions so obtained are found to be
quite encouraging and reliable refer to both utility and
customers.
lndex Terms- Optimal Power Flow, gradient descent
algorithm, congestion management and fuzzy decision
systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE completely unbundled electric power markets are
T mainly consisting of generation companies (GENCOs),
transmission companies(TRANSCOs), distribution companies
(DISCOS), energy brokers and an independent system
operator(IS0). The operation of transmission system under
TRANSCOs is expected to remain a regulated monopoly which
will allow “open, non-discriminatory and comparable” access
without congestion to all producers and consumers of the
deregulated system[ 11.
The term congestion has come to power systems from
economics in conjunction with deregulation although
congestion was present on power systems before
deregulation. Then it was discussed in terms of steady state
security, and basic objective was to control generator output
Narayana Prasad Padhy is currently with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee -
247667, India (nppeefee/;iiitr.ernet.in )
133
so that the system remained secured at the lowest cost.
Conflicts between security and economics could be traded off
within one decision-making entity. While this process sounds
quite exact, the expected costs of less secure operation could
not be accurately quantified and the limits themselves could
develop a great deal of flexibility when there was more to be
saved by purchasing them.
Here we are concerned with transmission congestion
and which is defined as consequence of network constraints
characterizing a finite network capacity that prevents the
simultaneous delivery of power from an associated set of
power transactions or when the producers and consumers of
electric energy desire to produce and consume in amounts that
would cause the transmission system to operate at or beyond
one or more transmission limits, then the system is said to be
congested. So finally controlling both the generation and
loads so that transfer limits of the transmission system are
properly taken care is known as congestion management[2].
In the deregulated power system the challenge of
congestion management for the transmission system operator
(ISO) is to create a set of rules that ensure sufficient control
over producers and consumers (generators and loads) to
maintain and acceptable level of power system security and
reliability in both the short term (real-time operation) and the
long term while maximizing market efficiency[4]. The rules must
be robust, because there will be many aggressive entities
seeking to exploit congestion to create market power and
increased profits for themselves at the expense of market
efficiency. The rules should also be fair in how they affect
participant, and they should be transparent, that is, it should
be clear to all participants why a particular outcome has
occurred.
If there is no congestion, there is one zone price throughout
the system, and the generators are paid the same price for their
energy as the loads pay. When there is congestion, zone
prices differ, each generator paid different price.
Deregulation in power market leads to decentralized
dispatch of generated power and due to which, power system
operation poses greatest challenge within the competitive
market in handling both bilateral and multilateral transactions
together or even separately. Transmission lines are stressed or
congested proportionally with increasing transactions.
Whereas the above said problem can be solved partially by
increasing the transmission line capabilities using FACTS
devices[3] or do not encourage private transactions. In this
2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong

paper it has been suggested to encourage the private bus numbers associated in the multilateral transaction and the
transactions with minimum curtailment on the customers loads. group load that to be transferred.
So to counter this problem, congestion has been managed Step 3 : Run the OPF for the IEEE 30 bus test system
based on curtailment on loads within a specified operational and calculate the per unit generation cost of the system with
limit till we obtain an optimal curtailment strategies for both and without transaction.
bilateral and multilateral transactions of real and reactive 1. Prepare the database for the system including line data,
power. bus data, generator data and tap setting of the
There exist three basic types of curtailment strategies transformers. Line data includes the information of the
implemented by the I S 0 in collaboration with market lines such as resistance, reactance and shunt admittance.
participants in the optimal transmission dispatch model. Bus data includes the information of the generators, loads
Point to point curtailment: The strategy concerns connected at each and every bus. The generator data
individual contracts in which the curtailment in load includes the cost coefficient of the generators and real
must be same as generation in a bilateral transaction. power generation limits.
Group curtailment: The concern of group curtailment 2. Formation of Y bus using line resistance, reactance, shunt
is to make possible a group transfer without group elements and tap changing ratio.
curtailment. If the power supplies within a group have 3. Assume suitable values of voltage magnitude at all the
to be curtailed then this shortfall has to be spread buses excluding swing bus and its angle for all the buses,
across the loads. also set the error for calculated active and reactive power.
Separate Curtailment: The concern of this strategy is 4. Assume a set of control variables U, such as real power (It
to minimize the change to every injected or extracted may be real power or voltage magnitude or its angle at
power blocks at the generator bus and the load bus of voltage control bus).
a group based on willingness to pay factor. 5. Calculate real and reactive power using formula for all
Linear Curtailment: If required we may have to curtail buses.
all the load points linearly to make the system free
from congestion. e = ZK
l 115Iy, cos(q +s/ - 4)
fiN
i=
Specific Curtailment: This concern with the
1,2,3......N
curtailment of loads normally near congested lines in
the system.
In the proposed hybrid model a different procedure
has been adopted for charging the customers under 1,2,3......N (2)
congestion compared to other existing methods[5-61 such as Where N is total no of buses.
Price Area Congestion Management, Buyback Congestion 6. Calculate error for real and reactive power between
Management and US transaction based solution. specified and calculated for load buses and only real
Finally In developing countries like India the above said power for voltage control buses. If it is within tolerable
proposals may not be valid due to certain practical and limit goto 11 else continue the next steps.
political reasons. So in the proposed model, along with linear 7. Calculate Jacobian matrix using formula
curtailment, curtailment on the customers load based on their
importance and willingness to pay price in different buses has
been adopted to encourage both bilateral and multilateral (3)
transactions. If the transaction is possible only through the
consumers load curtailment then the profit obtained through
transactions can be transferred to the customers to reduce
their per unit consumption cost.
8. Calculate voltage magnitude and angle increment using
Among the various factors considered to evaluate
formula (except reference bus)
curtailment strategy for congestion management, the factors
like reduction in power transaction, percentage curtailment and
variation in per unit generation cost are considered to be most (4)
fhzzy in nature[8-10]. So based on fuzzy opinion matrix
approach the optimal transaction and curtailment strategy has 9. Calculate new bus voltage magnitude and its angle on all
been obtained to help both customers and private transaction buses (except refrence bus)
parties in their decision making[ 10-111. V,,, = Void+ A V (5)
en
=
, eoid + A 0 (6)
II STEP BY STEP ALGORITHM OF THE PROPOSED MODEL 10. Goto 5 .
11. Calculate [A] using equation
Step 1: Select the transaction(bilatera1 or multilateral).
Step 2: If bilateral then enter the bus numbers taking part in the (7)
transaction and the load to be transacted. Otherwise enter the

134
2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DWT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong

ag is. Jacobian TABLE 1A. Linear curtailment strategies for the bilateral
where - matrix (3); J’is the cost
ax Line
function of the generators(Cost functions are in terms of
unit Congeste
generation and voltage & angle in the non-reference bus and
generation
at reference bus respectively).
12. Calculate Vf using equation
I I
Vf= [E]+[$]‘[I. 25.00
24.50 I
24.00
I
I
11.00
9.50
8.50
I
cost($:MWh
2.873 1
I 2.8869 I
I 2.8960
I
I
27
27
27
13. If Vf is close to zero then goto 16 else continue.
14. Calculate new value of control variables. 23.50 I 7.00 I 2.9097 I 27
Unew = uold i-AU (9)
23.00 I 6.00 I 2.9188 I 27
Where A U = -C. Vf 22.50 I 4.50 I 2.9325 I 27
C is correction factor 22.00 I 3.00 I 2.9461 I 27
15. Goto 5. 21.50 I 2.00 I 2.9551 I 27 I
16. Calculate cost using the formula and stop. 21.00 I 0.50 I 2.9686 I 27
ginbus 20.50 I 0.00 I 2.9730 I 27
Cost= c a p ’ ;+ b p i + C $/hr (10) Line 27 is in between bus 10 and 21
i =I
Assuming cost function is quadratic.

17. Calculate the per unit generation cost.

Step4: Check for the transmission line limits (MVA limits) If Load in Real power System per Line
any of the line limits are violated, curtail the remaining loads MW curtailment unit Congested
linearly, curtail the load at one and both the buses across the in % generation
congested line till congestion is eliminated. I I cost($/MWh) 1
Step5: Check for percentage of curtailment on remaining loads. 25.00 I 17.50 I 2.9603 I 27
If it is greater than a fixed percentage (we have considered it to 24.50 15.50 2.9617 1 27
be 7%) then these bilateral contracts should not be 24.00 13.50 2.963 1 27
encouraged and go to step6. Else calculate the corresponding
bilateral transaction load, percentage of curtailment and per 2.966 1
unit generation cost.
22.50 2.9680
Step6: If percentage of curtailment on remaining loads is more
22.00 2.9694
than 7%, curtail the transaction power by steps (say 2% of the
maximum power ) till the system is free from congestion. 21.50 3.00 2.9709
Step7: Apply fuzzy opinion matrix approach, discussed in 21.00 1.oo 2.9723
detail in the section 4 for optimal selection of the transaction 20.50 0.00 2.9730
among feasible transactions. Line 27 is in between bus 10 and 2 1

III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS TABLE 1C. Single point curtailment at bus No. 10 for the
bilatera
The performance of the proposed hybrid model has Line
been tested with the modified IEEE 30 bus test case system. In curtailment unit Congested
which both bilateral and multilateral real and reactive power MW in % generation
transactions have been introduced. In case 1 both real and I I cost($/MWh) I
reactive power bilateral transaction between bus No 5 and 22 25.00 I 17.00 I 2.9637 I
27
has been discussed. Three different curtailment strategies such 24.50 I 15.00 I 2.9648 I 27
as linear, two point and single point have been adopted for the 24.00 13.00 2.9660
above case 1. Table 1A, 1B and 1C shows the transaction load, 23.50 11.00 2.9671
percentage curtailment, per unit generation cost and the line
23.00 2.968 1
congested with real power transfer for linear, two point and
single point curtailment respectively, whereas Table lD, 1E and 22.50 7.00 2.9692
1F shows the transaction load, percentage curtailment, per unit 22.00 I 5.00 I 2.9703 I 27
generation cost and the line congested with reactive power 21.50 I 3.OO 2.9714 27
transfer for linear, two point and single point curtailment 21.00 I 1.oo I 2.9725 I 27 I
respectively. 20.50 I 0.00 I 2.9730 1 27 I
line no 27 is between bus no 10 and 2 1

135
2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong

Load in Reactive System per Line MW in % generation

MVAR power unit Congested cost($/MWh)
curtailment generation 20.00 3.00 2.9512 18
in % cost($/MWh) 19.60 1S O 2.9649 18
30.00 6.50 2.9796 27 19.20 0.50 2.9739 18
29.40 3.50 2.9798 27 18.80 0.00 2.9782 18
28.80 I 0.50 I 2.9799 I 27 Line 18 is in between bus 12 and 15
28.20 0.00 2.9797 I 27
Line 27 is in between bus 10 and 21 TABLE 2B. Two point linear curtailment at the bus No. 12
and 15 for the bilateral transaction of real power in between
TABLE 1E. Two point linear Curtailment at the bus No. 10 and bus No. 8 and 15
21 for the bilateral transaction of reactive power in between

1 I I I I
bus No. 5 and 22
Load in Real power System per Line
MW curtailment unit Congested
unit Congested in % generation
I I cost($/MWh) I
20.00 I 16.50 I 2.9688 I 18
30.00 9.50 2.9801 27 19.60 10.50 2.9723 18
29.40 5.00 2.9800 27 19.20 5.00 2.9755 18
28.80 0.50 2.9800 27 18.80 0.00 2.9784 18
I 28.20 I 0.00 I 2.9797 I 27 1 Line 18 is in between bus 12 and 15
Line 27 is in between bus 10 and 2 1

TABLE 2C. Single point curtailment at bus No. 15 for the

TABLE 1F. Single point curtailment at bus No. 21 for the
bilateral transaction of real power in between bus No. 8 and
bilateral transaction of reactive power in between bus No. 5
15
and 22
Load Real power System per Line
Load in Reactive System per Line
in curtailment unit Congested
MVAR power unit Congested
MW in % generation
curtailment generation
in % cost($/MWh)
30.00 6.50 2.9801 27
20.00 11.50 2.9756
19.60 2.9767
29.40 3.50 2.9800 27
19.20 3.50 2.9776
I 28.80 I 0.50 I 2.9800 I 27 I 0.00 I 2.9784 I 18 I
I 28.20 ] 0.00 I 2.9797 I 27 Line 18 is in between bus 12 and 15
Line 27 is in between bus 10 and 2 1
TABLE 2D. Linear curtailment strategies for the bilateral
In case 2 both real and reactive power bilateral transaction of reactive power in between bus No. 8 and 15

1 1
transaction between bus No 8 and 15 has been discussed.
Three different curtailment strategies such as linear, two point

1 ZwI
Load Reactive System per Line
and single point have been adopted for the above case%.Table power unit Congested
2A, 2B and 2C shows the transaction load, percentage curtailment generation
curtailment, per unit generation cost and the line congested
with real power transfer for linear, two point and single point I in YO I cost($/MWh) I
curtailment respectively, whereas Table 2D, 2E and 2F shows 30.00 I 8.50 I 2.9802 I
18
the transaction load, percentage curtailment, per unit 29.40 4.50 2.9804 18
generation cost and the line congested with reactive power 28.80 0.50 2.9806 18
transfer for linear, two point and single point curtailment 28.20 0.00 2.9803 18
respectively. Line 18 is in between bus 12 and 15
TABLE 2E. Two point linear curtailment at the bus No. 12
TABLE 2A. Linear curtailment strategies for the bilateral and 15 for the bilateral transaction of reactive power in
transaction of real power in between bus No. 8 and 15 between bus No. 8 and 15

136
2004 IEEE Intemational Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong

I
~ ~~

p9.20 1
0.00 2.9803 I I 31
Line Line 3 1 is in between bus 24 and 22
power unit Congested
curtailment generation
in YO cost $IMWh TABLE 3B. Single point curtailment at bus No. 24 for the
2.9805 multilateral transaction of real power in between bus No. 4,
29.40 52.00 2.9802 15(13,11 MW initial) and 24,27(15,9 MW initial)
28.00 I 4.00 I 2.9806 I 18

Line 18 is in between bus 12 and 15 in curtailment unit Congested

MW in YO generation
TABLE 2F. Single point curtailment at bus No. 15 for the cost($/MWh)

11 1 1 1
bilateral transaction of real power in between bus No. 8 and 24.00 I 29.50 I 2.9733 I 31
15 23.52 I 26.00 I 2.9741 31

I Load I Reactive I Systemper I Line 1 23.04 I 23.00 I 2.9748 I 31

3356 - I 3nnn I 3 9756
.-- 31-
I in I power I unit I Congested I __.I

22.08
~~ .. I 16.50
I

I 2.9765 I
_

31
curtailment geyration
21.60 13.5 2.9772 31
~ ~~

in YO cost $/MWh
21.12 10.5 2.9779 31
50.00 2.9806
20.64 7.50 2.9787 31
26.00 2.9806
20.16 4.00 2.9795 31
28.00 2.00 2.9806 18
19.68 1.oo 2.9802 31
28.20 0.00 2.9803 18
19.20 0.00 2.9803 31

In case 3 both real and reactive power multilateral

transaction between bus No 4,15 and 24, 27 has been TABLE 3C. Linear curtailment strategies for the
discussed. Two different curtailment strategies such as linear multilateral transaction of reactive power in between bus No.
and single point have been adopted for the above case3. Table 4,15(13,11 MVAR initial) and 24,27(15,9 MVAR initial)
3A and 3B shows the transaction load, percentage curtailment,
per unit generation cost and the line congested with real power
transfer for linear and single point curtailment respectively,
unit Congested
whereas Table 3C and 3D shows the transaction load,
percentage curtailment, per unit generation cost and the line
congested with reactive power transfer for linear and single
point curtailment respectively. 24.00 37.50 2.9772 31
23.52 30.50 2.9775 31
TABLE 3A. Linear curtailment strategies for the 23.04 23.00 2.9779 31
multilateral transaction of real power in between bus No. 4, 22.56 16.00 2.9782 31
15(13,11 MW initial) and 24,27(15,9 MW initial) 22.08 I
9.00 I 2.9787 I 31 I
21.60 I 1.50 I 2.9792 I 31
21.12 1
0.00 2.9792 I 31
Line 3 1 is in between bus 24 and 22

TABLE 4B. Single point curtailment at bus No. 24 for the

multilateral transaction of reac tive power in between bus
No. 4,15(13,11 MVAR initial) and 24,27(15,9 MVAR
initial)

Load in Reactive System per

unit Congested
curtailment generation
in% cost $/MWh
24.00 27.50 2.9795
23.52 22.50 2.9795 31

137
2004 IEEE Intemational Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong

17.00 2.9795
12.00 2.9794
22.08 2.9794
2 1.60 1.50 2.9793 Profit:
21.12 0.00 2.9792 31
Line 3 1 is in between bus 24 and 22

IVFUZZY OPINION MATRIX APPROACH

Among the various factors considered to evaluate a
transaction , the factors like increase in private power
transaction, reduction in customers load curtailment and profit
based on the transaction are considered to be most fuzzy in
nature. In the ordinary set representation, if any transaction The fuzzy decision set regarding reduction in
leads to no curtailment then its grade is 1 othenvis e it will be 0. customers load curtailment is obtained by using Hunvitz
The fuzzy values and the relative grades for the above rule[ lo],
mentioned fuzzy variables are given by

Excellent Where a is the optimism - pessimism index and taken as 0.8.

Now for reduction in customers load:

0.5
Fair 0.4
In general the opinion of the public and utility varies
due to so many reasons and to avoid such discriminations the
author has considered two different experts in decision making
one belongs to utility and the other from public.
The highest grade for all the transactions are obtained as
below:
Hi=(0.9,0.8,0.6,0.6,0.8,0.9,0.9)
Similarly the lowest grades for all the candidates are obtained
as:
L, = (0.2,0.4,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.4,0.2)

To test the performance of the proposed model the The hunvitz fuzzy decision set based on reduction in
results obtained for Case 1 and Table 1A has been considered. customers load curtailment is,
Only seven transaction cases with curtailment percentage less
than 7% have been considered for analysis. The experts F, =[(0.76, TI), (0.72, T2), (0.58, T3), (0.58, T4), (0.74, T5), (0.80,
opinion about the transactions based on the reduction in T6), (0.76, T7)]
customers load curtailment is given below in the form of a
&. For increase in private power transaction:

I I UtilityExpert(E1) I Public Expert(E2) 1 below:

The highest grade for all the transactions are obtained as
T1 I 0.9 I 0.2
Hi=(0.8,0.9,0.8,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.2)
T2 0.8 0.4
Similarly the lowest grades for all the candidates are obtained
as:
T4 I 0.5 I 0.6 L, = (0.6,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.4,0.2,0.2)
T5 0.5 0.8
T6 0.4 0.9 The Hunvitz set for increase in private power transaction is,
T7 0.2 0.9
F, =[(0.76, Tl), (0.84, T2), (0.74, T3), (0.56, T4), (0.48, T5), (0.36,
Increase in power transaction: T6), (0.20, T7)]
I I UtilityExpert(E1) I Public Expert(E2)
For overall profit:
T2 0.9 0.6
T3 0.8 0.5 The highest grade for all the transactions are obtained as
T4 0.6 0.4 below:
T5 0.5 0.4 H,= (0.8,0.6,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.4,0.2)

138
2004 IEEE Intemational Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT2004) April 2004 Hong Kong
Similarly the lowest grades for all the candidates are obtained
as :
L, = (0.6,0.6,0.4,0.4,0.4,0.2,0.2)
The Hunvitz set for increase in overall profit is,
F,=[(0.76, Tl), (0.60, T2), (0.60, T3), (0.48, T4), (0.40, T5), (0.36,
T6), (0.20, T7)]
The overall fuzzy decision set has been obtained as follows:
F = v CFc ,Ft F p l
= [(0.76, TI), (0.84, T2), (0.74, T3), (0.58, T4), (0.74, TS), (0.80,
T6), (0.76, T7)]
From the above decision set, transaction T2 has the highest
grade and hence it may be selected.
I
VCONCLUSION
In the proposed hybrid model transactions those are
making the system free from congestion as well as helping the
utility in gaining financial benefit have been encouraged.
Based on the classical programming multiple solutions are
obtained considering a tolerable percentage of curtailment on
loads. To overcome the above said difficulties and specify the
best transaction that to be encouraged has been evaluated
using a simple fuzzy opinion matrix. The proposed model
performed efficiently with IEEE 30 bus test system and the
same can be extended to any practical network. The proposed
model is mainly free from complex mathematical formulations
and provides quite encouraging results.
VREFERENCES
1. Perveen Kumar and S. C. Srivastava. “Congestion
Management in Deregulated Market - A case study on an
Indian Power System”. NPSC, Bangalore, India, Dec.2000,
pp. 191-196.
2. R. S. Fang and A. K. David. “Transmission Congestion
Management in Electricity Market”. IEEE Transactions on
Power System, Vo1.14, No.3, August 1999, pp. 877-883.
3. Kankar Bhattacharya and Jin Zhong. “Reactive Power as
an Ancillary Service”. IEEE Transactions on Power
System, Vol. 16, No.2, May 2001, pp. 294-300.
4. Harry Singh, Shangyou and Alex papalexopalos.
“Transmission Congestion Management in Competitive
Electricity Market”. IEEE Transactions on Power
System,Vol. 13, No.2, May 1998, pp. 672-680 .
5. R. S. Fang and A. K. David. “Optimal Dispatch Under
Transmission Contracts”. IEEE Transactions on Power
System, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 1999, pp. 732-737.
139
6. Richard P. Christe, F. Wollenberg and Ivar Wangensteen.
“Transmission Management in the Deregulated
Environment”. Proceeding of IEEE, Vo1.88, No.2, Feb.2000,
pp. 170-195.
7. Hermann W. Dommel and William F. Tinney. “Optimal
Power Flow Solutions”. IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-37, No.10, October
1968, pp. 1866-1876.
8. Deutsch, S. J. and Malmborg, C., “A Fuzzy Set Approach
to Data Set Evaluation for Decision Support”, IEEE
Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-
15, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1985, pp. 777-783.
9. Hauffman, A. ‘‘ Theory of Fuzzy Sets”, Volume 1,
Academic Press, New York, 1975.
10. Ramachandran, V. and Sankaranarayana, V. “ Fuzzy
Concepts Applied to Statistically Deck ion Making
Methods”, Proceedings of 15 IFIP International
Conference, 1991.
11. Rau, N. S., “Transmission Loss and Congestion Cost
Allocation -An Approach Based on Responsibility
VI BIOGRAPHIES
Narayana Prasad Padhy received the Degree in Electrical
Engineering and Masters Degree in Power
Systems Engineering with Distinction in
1990 and 1993, respectively. He received
the Ph.D., Degree in Electrical Engineering
from Anna University, Chennai, India in
1997. Then he joined Birla Institute of
Technology & Science(B1TS) as an
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
Department in 1997.
Currently, he is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee. He taught course in Basic Electrical Engineering,
Power Systems and Artificial Intelligence. His field of interest
is Power System Privatization, Restructuring and Deregulation,
Artificial Intelligence Applications to Power System Operation
and Optimization Problems, Unit Commitment, Power System
Wheeling and FACTS.