Power system sensitivity analysis for probabilistic small signal stability assessment in a deregulated environment

Deregulations and market practices in power industry have brought great challenges to the system planning area. In particular, they introduce a variety of uncertainties to system planning. New techniques are required to cope with such uncertainties. As a promising approach, probabilistic methods are attracting more and more attentions by system planners. In small signal stability analysis, generation control parameters play an important role in determining the stability margin. The objective of this paper is to investigate power system state matrix sensitivity characteristics with respect to system parameter uncertainties with analytical and numerical approaches and to identify those parameters have great impact on system eigenvalues, therefore, the system stability properties. Those identified parameter variations need to be investigated with priority. The results can be used to help Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) perform planning studies under the open access environment.

Eigenvalue sensitivity analysis for probabilistic small signal stability assessment

This paper presents a method to analyze the first order eigenvalue sensitivity with respect to the operating parameters of a power system. The method is based on explicitly expressing the system state matrix into sub-matrices. The eigenvalue sensitivity is calculated based on the explicitly formed system state matrix. The 4th order generator model and 4th order exciter system model are used to form the system state matrix. A case study using New England 10-machine 39-bus system is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. This method can be applied into large scale power system eigenvalue sensitivity with respect to operating parameters.

Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.