2SHUDWLRQ &RQWURORI3RZHU6\VWHP

Unit Commitment

Load Demand Cycles

z Human activity follows cycles
Š systems supplying services will also experience usage cycles
z transportation, communication, and electric power systems
Š electric power consumption follows a daily, weekly, and
seasonal cycles
z high power usage during the day and evening hours
ƒ industrial and commercial operations and lighting loads
z lower usage on the weekends
z higher usage during the summer and winter
ƒ greater temperature extremes
z Load cycles create economic problems for power generation
Š it is quite expensive to continuously run all generation, which
is needed to meet the peak power demands
2
 Load Demand Cycles
z Definition
Š commitment means to turn-on a given generation unit
z have the prime mover operating the unit at synchronous speed
z synchronize and connect the unit to the network grid
z Economics
Š savings are gained by decommitting some of the generation
units when they are not need to meet the current load demand
Š the engineering problem is committing enough units to meet
current and future load demands while minimizing starting and
operating costs

Load Demand Cycles

z Example
Š consider the cost for operating three generation units
Unit 1: F1(P1) = 561 + 7.92 P1 + 0.001562 P12 150 ≤ P1 ≤ 600
Unit 2: F2(P2) = 310 + 7.85 P2 + 0.00194 P22 100 ≤ P2 ≤ 400
Unit 3: F3(P3) = 93.6 + 9.56 P3 + 0.005784 P32 50 ≤ P3 ≤ 200

Š what combination of units is best to supply a 550 MW load?

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

Ftotal
Max
Gen

Gen
Min

P1

P2

P3

F1

F2

F3

Off Off Off 0 0 Infeasible

Off Off On 200 50 Infeasible
Off On Off 400 100 Infeasible
Off On On 600 150 0 400 150 0 3760 1658 5418
On Off Off 600 150 550 0 0 5389 0 0 5389
On Off On 800 200 500 0 50 4911 0 586 5497
On On Off 1000 250 295 255 0 3030 2440 0 5471
On On On 1200 300 267 233 50 2787 2244 586 5617

4
 Load Demand Cycles
z Example
Š notes:
z the least expensive way to supply the generation is not with all
three units running or with any combination involving two units
z the optimal commitment is to only run unit #1, the most
economic unit
ƒ by only running the most economic unit, the load can be supplied
by that unit operating closer to its best efficiency
ƒ if another unit is committed, both unit #1 and the other unit will be
loaded further from their best efficiency points, resulting in a
higher net cost

Load Demand Cycles

z Daily load patterns
Š consider the load demand with a simple peak-valley pattern
Š in order to optimize the operation of the system
z units must be shut down as load goes down
z then the units must be recommitted as load goes back up
Š simple approach to the solution is a simple priority list scheme
1500 MW
1150 MW Peak Load
Total Loading

1000 MW

500 MW

450 MW Min. Load

3 PM 9 PM 3 AM 9 AM 3 PM
Time of day

6
 Load Demand Cycles
z Example
Š use a brute force technique to obtain a “shut-down rule” for the range of
loads from 1200 to 500 MW in steps of 50 MW
z when load is above 1000 MW, run all three units

z loading between 600 MW and 1000 MW, run units #1 & #2

z loading below 600 MW, only run unit #1

Load Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
1200 on on on
1500 MW 1150 on on on
1100 on on on
1050 on on on
Total Loading

200 MW Unit #3
1000 MW 1000 on on off
400 MW 950 on on off
Unit #2 900 on on off
850 on on off
500 MW 600 MW 800 on on off
Unit #1 750 on on off
700 on on off
650 on on off
3 PM 9 PM 3 AM 9 AM 3 PM 600 on off off
Time of day 550 on off off
500 on off off

Constraints in Unit Commitment

z Primary constraints
Š enough units are committed to supply the load economically
z Spinning reserve constraints
Š spinning reserve definition
z the total amount of on-line, synchronized generation power
committed less the current loading and power losses supplied
ƒ protects the network from an unexpected loss of one or more
generation units
Š typical spinning reserve rules
z the reserve is a given percentage of the forecasted demand
z must be capable of making up the loss of the most heavily
loaded generation unit
ƒ reserves must be spread around the system to avoid transmission
limitations (bottling) and permit parts of the system to run as
“islands”
8
 Constraints in Unit Commitment
z Example
Š consider a power system consisting of two isolated regions
z transmission tie-lines join the regions and may transfer power up
to a maximum of 550 MW in either direction
z five units have been committed to supply 3090 MW of loading

Interchange
Unit Output

Generation

Load (MW)
Regional

Regional
Capacity

Spinning
Reserve
Region

(MW)

(MW)

(MW)

(MW)

(MW)
Western region

Unit
Unit
Units 1, 2 & 3

550 MW 1 1000 900 100

maximum Western 2 800 420 1740 380 1900 160
3 800 420 380 (in)
Eastern region 4 1200 1040 160 160
Eastern 1350 1190
Units 4 & 5 5 600 310 290 (out)
Total 4400 3090 3090 1310 3090

Constraints in Unit Commitment

z Example
Š verify the allocation of spinning reserves in the system
z western region
ƒ generation of largest unit: 900 MW
ƒ available spinning reserve
• local: 760 MW; tie-line capacity: 390 MW; eastern region: 450 MW
• total: 1150 MW - load can be supplied
z eastern region
ƒ generation of largest unit: 1040 MW
ƒ available spinning reserve
• local: 450 MW; tie-line capacity: 550 MW; western region: 700 MW
• total: 1000 MW - load can not be completely supplied
z lack 40 MW of spinning reserve in the eastern region
ƒ commit 40 MW of new generation within the eastern region

10
 Constraints in Unit Commitment
z Thermal unit constraints
Š a thermal unit can undergo only gradual temperature changes
z results in a time period of several hours to bring a unit on-line
z minimum up time: it should not be turned off immediately
z minimum down time: once decommitted, the minimum time
before a unit can be recommitted
z crew constraint: at a multiple unit plant, there is usually only
enough personnel to start one unit at at time
Š a certain amount of energy is expended to bring a unit on-line
z to slowly bring up the temperature and pressure
z this energy does not result in any power delivered from the unit
z the energy cost is brought into the unit commitment problem as
a start-up cost

11

Constraints in Unit Commitment

z Start-up costs
Š the start-up cost can vary from a maximum
cold-start value to a much smaller warm-start value
z warm unit: a recently turned-off unit with latent heat
that is near the normal operating temperature
Š two approaches available to treating a thermal unit during its
down time
z allow the boiler to cool down and then heat it back up to
operating temperature in time for a scheduled turn-on
z provide enough fuel to supply sufficient energy to the boiler to
just maintain the operating temperature

12
 Constraints in Unit Commitment
z Start-up cost comparison
Š cooling
z allowing the unit to cool down
Cstart-up
z start-up cost function:
cooling
= H cold §¨1 − e α ·
− t shut − down
Ccold ¸ F fuel + C fixed break-even
© ¹ banking point
Š banking Cfixed
z input sufficient energy into
the boiler to just maintain
the operating temperature
z banking cost function:
0
Cbank = H bank F fuel tshut −down + C fixed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hr
Time-dependent start-up costs

13

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Typical utility situation involving the commitment problem
Š must establish a loading pattern for M periods
Š have N generation units available to commit and dispatch
z the M load levels and operating limits on the N units are such
that any one unit can supply the load demand and any
combination of units can also supply the loads
z Commitment by enumeration
Š a brute force method
z total combinations to investigate: 2N – 1
z for the total period of M intervals, the maximum number of
possible combinations is: (2N – 1)M
ƒ example: for a 24-hour period made up of 1-hr intervals,
a 5 unit network become 6.2 × 1035 combinations

14
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z Priority-List Methods
Š consist of a simple shut-down rule
z obtained by an exhaustive enumeration of all unit combinations
at each load level
z or obtained by noting the full-load average production cost of
each unit
ƒ the full-load average production cost is the net heat rate at full load
multiplied by the fuel cost
Š various enhancements can be made to the priority-list scheme
by the grouping of units to ensure that various constraints are
met

15

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Typical shut-down rules
Š at each hour when load is dropping, determine whether
dropping the next unit on the list leaves sufficient generation
to supply the load plus the spinning-reserve requirements
z if the supply is not sufficient, keep the unit committed
Š determine the number of hours before the unit is needed again
z if the time is less than the minimum shut-down time for the unit,
keep it committed
Š perform a cost comparison
z the sum of the hourly production costs for the next number of
hours with the next unit to be dropped being committed
z and the sum of the restart costs for the next unit based on the
minimum cost of cooling the unit or banking the unit

16
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z Example
Š construct a priority list for the units in the first example using
the same cost equations
Unit 1: F1(P1) = 561 + 7.92 P1 + 0.001562 P12 150 ≤ P1 ≤ 600
Unit 2: F2(P2) = 310 + 7.85 P2 + 0.00194 P22 100 ≤ P2 ≤ 400
Unit 3: F3(P3) = 93.6 + 9.56 P3 + 0.005784 P32 50 ≤ P3 ≤ 200

Š the full-load average production costs

Unit 1: F1(600)⏐ 600 = 9.7922
Unit 2: F2(400)⏐ 400 = 9.4010
Unit 3: F3(200)⏐ 200 = 11.1848

Š a strict priority order for these units: [ 2, 1, 3 ]

17

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Example
Š the commitment scheme
z ignoring minimum up/down times and start-up costs
Combination Min MW Max MW
1+2+3 300 1200
1+2 250 1000
2 100 400
Š notes
z this scheme does not completely parallel the shut-down
sequence described in the first example
ƒ there unit 2 was shut down at 600 MW leaving unit 1
ƒ here unit 1 is shut down at 400 MW leaving unit 2
ƒ why the differences? where is the problem?

18
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods

Š chief advantage over enumeration schemes is the reduction in

the dimensionality of the problem
z in a strict priority order scheme, there are only N combinations
to try for an N unit system
Š a strict priority list would result in a theoretically correct
dispatch and commitment only if
z the no-load costs are zero
z unit input-output characteristics are linear
z there are no other limits, constraints, or restrictions
z start-up costs are a fixed amount

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Dynamic programming
Š the following assumptions are made in this implementation of
the DP approach
z a state consists of an array of units
ƒ with specified units operating and the rest decommitted (off-line)
ƒ a feasible state is one in which the committed units can supply the
required load and meets the minimum capacity for each period
z start-up costs are independent of the off-line or down-time
ƒ i.e., it is a fixed amount w.r.t. time
z no unit shutting-down costs
z a strict priority order will be used within each interval
z a specified minimum amount of capacity must be operating
within each interval
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z The forward DP approach
Š runs forward in time from the initial hour to the final hour
z the problem could run from the final hour back to the initial hour
z the forward approach can handle a unit’s start-up costs that are a
function of the time it has been off-line (temperature dependent)
ƒ the forward approach can readily account for the system’s history
z initial conditions are easier to specified when going forward
Š the minimum cost function for hour K with combination I:
Fcost (K , I ) = min[Pcost (K , I ) + Scost (K − 1, L : K , I ) + Fcost (K − 1, L )]
{ L}

z Fcost(K, I) = least total cost to arrive at state (K, I)

z Pcost(K, I) = production cost for state (K, I)
z Scost(K–1, L: K, I) = transition cost from state (K–1, L) to (K, I)

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z The forward DP approach
Š state (K, I) is the Ith commitment combination in hour K
Š a strategy is the transition or path from one state at a given
hour to a state at the next hour
z X is defined as the number of states to search each period
z N is defined as the number of strategies to be saved at each step
ƒ these variable allow control of the computational effort
ƒ for complete enumeration, the maximum value of X or N is 2N – 1
ƒ for a simple priority-list ordering, the upper bound on X is n, the
number of units
z reducing N means that information is discarded about the highest
cost schedules at each interval and saving only the lowest N
paths or strategies
ƒ there is no assurance that the theoretical optimum will be found
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z The forward DP approach
Š restricted
search
paths
z N=3
z X=5

X X N X

Interval Interval Interval

K–1 K K+1

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Example
Š consider a system with 4 units to serve an 8 hour load pattern
Incremental No-load Full-load Min. Time
Unit Pmax Pmin Heat Rate Cost Ave. Cost (h)
(MW) (MW) (Btu / kWh) ($ / h) ($ / 0Wh) Up Down
1 80 25 10440 213.00 . 4 2
2 250 60 9000 585.62 . 5 3
3 300 75 8730 684.74 1. 5 4
4 60 20 11900 252.00 2.0 1 1

Initial Condition Start-up Costs Hour Load (MW)

Unit off(-) / on(+) Hot Cold Cold start 1 450
(h) ($) ($) (h) 2 530
1 -5 150 350 4 3 600
2 8 170 400 5 4 540
3 8 500 1100 5 5 400
4 -6 0 0.02 0 6 280
7 290
8 500
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z Example
Š to simplify the generator cost function, a straight line
incremental curve is used
z the units in this example have linear F(P) functions:
§ dF ·
F ( P ) = Fno−load + ¨ ¸P
© dP ¹
z the units must operate within their limits
F(P) No-load Incremental
Unit Pmax Pmin Cost Cost
(MW) (MW) ($ / h) ($ / MWh)
1 80 25 213.00 20.88
Fno-load 2 250 60 585.62 18.00
3 300 75 684.74 17.46
4 60 20 252.00 23.80
P
Pmin Pmax

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Case 1: Strict priority-list ordering
State Unit status Capacity
Š the only states examined each hour
5 0010 300 MW
consist of the listed four: 12 0110 550 MW
ƒ state 5: unit 3, state 12: 3 + 2 14 1110 630 MW
state 14: 3 + 2 + 1, state 15: all four 15 1111 690 MW

Š all possible commitments start from state 12 (initial condition)

Š minimum unit up and down times are ignored
Š in hour 1:
z possible states that meet load demand (450 MW): 12, 14, & 15
Pcost (1, 15) = F1 (25) + F2 (105) + F3 (300) + F1 (20) Economic Dispatch Eq.
= 1735.36 + 20.88(25) + 18.00(105) + 17.46(300) + 23.80(20) = 9861.36
Fcost (1, 15) = Pcost (1, 15) + Scost (0, 12 : 1, 15) DP State Transition Eq.
= (9861.36) + [(350) + (0.02 )] = 10211.38
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z Case 1
K Pcost Scost Fcost
Š in hour 1:
15 9861 350 10211
14 9493 350 9843
12 9208 0 9208

z minimum at state 12 (9208)

Š in hour 2:
z possible states that meet load demand (530 MW): 12, 14, & 15
Pcost (2, 15) = F1 (25) + F2 (185) + F3 (300) + F1 (20)
= 1735 + 20.88(25) + 18.00(185) + 17.46(300) + 23.80(20) = 11301
Fcost (2, 15) = Pcost (2, 15) + Scost (1, L : 2, 15) DP State Transition Eq.
ª350 + 9208º
= (11301) + min « 0 + 9843 » = 20859
« »
«¬ 0 + 10211 »¼

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Case 1: DP diagram
state
unit status hour 0 hour 1 hour 2 hour 3 hour 4 hour 5 hour 6 hour 7 hour 8
capacity 450 MW 530 MW 600 MW 540 MW 400 MW 280 MW 290 MW 500 MW

15 9861 11301 13410 11481 8964 6869 7043 10761

1111 10211 20860 33618 43953 52615 58828 64976 74442
690 MW 12 12 12 14 12 12 5 5
0
350 350 350 350 350 750 750
14 9493 10933 12265 0 11113 8593 6490 6665 10393
1110 9843 20492 32472 43585 52244 58449 64597 74074
630 MW 350 12 350 12 350 12 14 350 12 350 12 5 5
0
750 750
12 0 9208 0 10648 10828 0 8308 0 6192 6366 10108
0110 9208 19857 43300 51609 57800 63949 73439
550 MW 12 12 14 12 12 400 5 400 5
0

5 5574 0 5748
0010 57182 62930
300 MW 12 5

Š total cost: 73,439

z priority order list, up-times and down-times neglected
 Unit Commitment Solution Methods
z Case 2:
Š complete enumeration (2.56 × 109 possibilities)
z fortunately, most are not feasible because they do not supply
sufficient capacity
Š in this case, the true optimal commitment is found
z the only difference in the two trajectories occurs in hour 3
ƒ it is less expensive to turn on the less efficient peaking unit #4 for
three hours than to start up the more efficient unit #1 for that same
time period
z only minor improvement to the total cost
ƒ case 1: 73,439
ƒ case 2: 73,274

Unit Commitment Solution Methods

z Case 2: DP diagram
state
unit status hour 0 hour 1 hour 2 hour 3 hour 4
capacity 450 MW 530 MW 600 MW 540 MW

15 9861 11301 13410 11481

1111 10211 20860 33618 43953
690 MW 12 12 12 14

350 350 350

14 9493 10933 12265 11113
1110 9843 20492 32472 43585
630 MW 12 12 12 14

350 350 350

13 9576 11016 12450 11113
0111 9576 20221 32507 43503
610 MW 12 12 12 13

12 9208 10648 10828

0110 9208 19857 43135
550 MW 12 12 13

5
0010
300 MW