Chapter # 4

UNIT COMMITMENT
 Economic Dispatch vs Unit Commitment

• Economic Dispatch:
We assumes that there are Ngen units already connected to
the system. The purpose of the economic dispatch problem is
to find the optimum operating policy for these Ngen units.
• Unit Commitment:
We may assume that we have Ngen units available to us and
that we have a forecast of the demand to be served.
 Unit Commitment Problem
Given that there are a number of subsets of the complete set of
Ngen generating units that would satisfy the expected demand,
which of these subsets should be used in order to provide the
minimum operating cost?
The unit commitment problem is a much more difficult problem
to solve. The solution procedures involve the economic
dispatch problem as a sub problem.
Example
 Question in Example?
If we are to supply a load of 550 MW, what unit or combination
of units should be used to supply this load most economically?
For each feasible combination, the units will be dispatched using
the techniques of Chapter 3. The results are presented in
Table 4.1.
 Contd.
Suppose the load follows a simple “peak-valley” pattern as shown in Figure 4.1.

If the operation of the system is to be optimized, units must be shut down as the
load goes down and then recommitted as it goes back up.
We would like to know which units to drop and when.
This problem is far from trivial when real generating units are considered.
One approach to this solution is demonstrated in Example 4B, where a simple
priority-list scheme is developed.
 Example 4B
Suppose we wish to know which units to drop as a function of system load. Let the
units and fuel costs be the same as in Example 4A, with the load varying from a peak
of 1200 MW to a valley of 500 MW. To obtain a “shutdown rule,” simply use a brute-
force technique wherein all combinations of units will be tried (as in Example 4A) for
each load value taken in steps of 50 MW from 1200 to 500. The results of applying
this brute-force technique are given in Table 4.2. Our shutdown rule is quite simple.
 Problems
So far, we have only obeyed one simple constraint: Enough units will be committed
to supply the load.

If this were all that was involved in the unit commitment problem—that is, just
meeting the load—we could stop here and state that the problem was “solved.”

Unfortunately, other constraints and other phenomena must be taken into account
in order to claim an optimum solution.

These constraints will be discussed in the next section, followed by a description of

some of the presently used methods of solution.
 Constraints in Unit Commitment
• Spinning Reserve
Spinning reserve is the term used to describe the total amount of generation
available from all units synchronized (i.e., spinning) on the system, minus the
present load and losses being supplied.

Spinning reserve must be carried so that the loss of one or more units does not
cause too far a drop in system frequency (see Chapter 10).

In simple words, if one unit is lost, there must be ample reserve on the other units
to make up for the loss in a specified time period.
 Rules for Spinning Reserve
Spinning reserve must be allocated to obey certain rules, usually set by regional
reliability councils (in the United States) that (specify how the) reserve is to be
allocated to various units.

1. Typical rules specify that reserve must be a given percentage of forecasted peak
demand
or
that reserve must be capable of making up the loss of the most heavily loaded unit
in a given period of time.

2. Others calculate reserve requirements as a function of the probability of not

having sufficient generation to meet the load.
 Thing We must do
Not only must the reserve be sufficient to make up for a generating unit failure,
but the reserves must be allocated among fast-responding units and slow-
responding units.

This allows the automatic generation control system (see Chapter 10) to
restore frequency and interchange quickly in the event of a generating unit
outage.
 Contd.
Beyond spinning reserve, the unit commitment problem may involve various
classes of “scheduled reserves” or “off-line” reserves.

These include:
1. quick-start diesel or gas-turbine units
2. as well as most hydro-units and
3. pumped-storage hydro units

These units can be brought on-line, synchronized, and brought up to full

capacity quickly.

As such, these units can be “counted” in the overall reserve assessment, as

long as their time to come up to full capacity is taken into account.
 Contd.
Reserves, finally, must be spread around the power system to avoid transmission
system limitations (often called “bottling” of reserves).

This technique allow various parts of the system to run as “islands,” should they
become electrically disconnected.
 Example
Suppose a power system consisted of two isolated regions: a western region
and an eastern region. Five units, as shown in Figure 4.3, have been committed
to supply 3090 MW. The two regions are separated by transmission tie lines that
can together transfer a maximum of 550 MW in either direction. This is also
shown in Figure 4.3. What can we say about the allocation of spinning reserve in
this system?
Contd.
 Observations
With the exception of unit 4, the loss of any unit on this system can be covered by
the spinning reserve on the remaining units.

Unit 4 presents a problem, however. If unit 4 were to be lost and unit 5 were to be
run to its maximum of 600 MW, the eastern region would still need 590 MW to
cover the load in that region.

The 590 MW would have to be transmitted over the tie lines from the western
region, which can easily supply 590 MW from its reserves.

However, the tie capacity of only 550 MW limits the transfer.

Therefore, the loss of unit 4 cannot be covered even though the entire system has
ample reserves.

The only solution to this problem is to commit more units to operate in the
eastern region.
 Thermal Unit Constraints
Thermal units usually require a crew to operate them, especially when turned on
and turned off.

A thermal unit can undergo only gradual temperature changes, and this translates
into a time period of some hours required to bring the unit on-line.

As a result of such restrictions in the operation of a thermal plant, various

constraints arise, such as:

• Minimum uptime:
once the unit is running, it should not be turned off immediately.
• Minimum downtime:
once the unit is decommitted, there is a minimum time before it
can be recommitted.
• Crew constraints:
if a plant consists of two or more units, they cannot both be
turned on at the same time since there are not enough crew members to attend both
units while starting up.
 Contd.
In addition, because the temperature and pressure of the thermal unit must be
moved slowly, a certain amount of energy must be expended to bring the unit on-
line.

This energy does not result in any MW generation from the unit and is brought into
the unit commitment problem as a start-up cost.
The start-up cost can vary from a maximum “cold-start” value to a much smaller value
if the unit was only turned off recently and is still relatively close to operating
temperature.

There are two approaches to treating a thermal unit during its down period.

The first allows the unit’s boiler to cool down and then heat back up to operating
temperature in time for a scheduled turn on.

The second (called banking) requires that sufficient energy be input to the boiler to
just maintain operating temperature.
The costs for the two can be compared so that, if possible, the best approach (cooling
or banking) can be chosen.
Contd.
Contd.
 Other Important Constraints
Must Run:
Some units are given a must-run status during certain times of the year for
reason of voltage support on the transmission network or for such purposes as supply of
steam for uses outside the steam plant itself.

Fuel Constraints:
A system in which some units have limited fuel, or else have constraints
that require them to burn a specified amount of fuel in a given time, presents a most
challenging unit commitment problem.

Hydro-Constraints:
Unit commitment cannot be completely separated from the
scheduling of hydro-units. In this chapter, we will assume that the hydrothermal
scheduling (or “coordination”) problem can be separated from the unit commitment
problem. We, of course, cannot assert flatly that our treatment in this fashion will
always result in an optimal solution.
 Unit Commitment Solution Method

To understand Unit Commitment Problem, Let

us consider:
• We must establish a loading pattern for M periods.

• We have Ngen units to commit and dispatch.

• The M load levels and operating limits on the Ngen units are such that any one unit
can supply the individual loads and that any combination of units can also supply the
loads.
 Contd.
Next, assume we are going to establish the commitment by enumeration (brute
force). The total number of combinations we need to try each hour is
 Example

These very large numbers are the upper bounds for the number of enumerations
required.
Fortunately, the constraints on the units and the load–capacity relationships of typical
utility systems are such that we do not approach these large numbers.

Nevertheless, the real practical barrier in the optimized unit commitment problem is
the high dimensionality of the possible solution space.
 Techniques used for Unit Commitment
Problems

•• Priority-list schemes,

•• Dynamic programming (DP),

•• Lagrange relaxation (LR).

•• Mixed integer linear programming (MILP)

 Priority-List Methods
As we saw in Example 4B, a simple shutdown rule or priority-list scheme could be
obtained after an exhaustive enumeration of all unit combinations at each load
level.

The priority list of Example 4B could be obtained in a much simpler manner by noting
the full-load average production cost of each unit,

full- load average production cost = net heat rate at full load x fuel cost.
 Example
Construct a priority list for the units of Example 4A. (Use the same fuel costs as in
Example 4A.)

First, the full-load average production cost will be calculated:

 Contd.
A strict priority order for these units, based on the average production cost, is as
follows:

And the commitment scheme would (ignoring min up-/downtime, start-up costs, etc.)
simply use only the following combinations.
 Contd.

This scheme would not completely parallel the shutdown sequence described in
Example 4B, where unit 2 was shut down at 600 MW leaving unit 1. With the priority-
list scheme, both units would be held on until load reached 400 MW, then unit 1
would be dropped.
 Rules for Priority-list Scheme
priority-list schemes are built around a simple shutdown algorithm that might
operate as follows:

1. At each hour when load is dropping, determine whether dropping the next unit on
the priority list will leave sufficient generation to supply the load plus spinning reserve
requirements. If not, continue operating as is; if yes, go on to the next step.
2. Determine the number of hours, H, before the unit will be needed again, that is,
assuming that the load is dropping and will then go back up some hours later.
3. If H is less than the minimum shutdown time for the unit, keep the commitment as
is and go to step 5; if not, go to the next step.
4. Calculate two costs. The first is the sum of the hourly production costs for the next
H hours with the unit up. Then recalculate the same sum for the unit down and add in
the start-up cost for either cooling the unit or banking it, whichever is less expensive.
If there is sufficient savings from shutting down the unit, it should be shut down;
otherwise, keep it on.
5. Repeat this entire procedure for the next unit on the priority list. If it is also
dropped, go to the next and so forth.
Disadvantages of DP method of Solution
of the Unit Commitment Problem
Necessity of forcing the DP solution to search over a small number of commitment
states to reduce the number of combinations that must be tested in each time
period.
 Lagrange Relaxation Solution
This method is based on a dual optimization approach:

When the function to be optimized is convex, and the variables are continuous,
then the maximization of the dual function gives the identical result as minimizing
the primal function.
Dual optimization is also used in solving the unit commitment problem.

However, in the unit commitment problem, there are variables that must be
restricted to two values: 1 or 0.

These 1–0 variables cause a great deal of trouble and are the reason for the
difficulty in solving the unit commitment problem.

The application of the dual optimization technique to the unit commitment

problem has been given the name “Lagrange relaxation”
Example of Dual Optimization Problem
The problem is structured with 1–0 variables, which makes it clearly non-convex.

Note: we have two functions, one in x1 and the other in x2. and both are numerically
close only differ by a small constant number.
 Contd.
There is also a constraint that combines the x1 and x2 variables again with the 1–0
variables. There are four possible solutions.
 Contd.
• Solve this Lagrange Function and calculate the
values
 Contd.
When there are more than a few 1–0 variables, this cannot be done because of the
large number of possible combinations. However, there is a systematic way to solve
this problem using the dual formulation.
 Contd.

We can minimize the entire function by minimizing each term separately

 Contd.
Since each term is the product of a function in x and λ (which is fixed) and these are
all multiplied by the 1–0 variable u, then the minimum will be 0 (i.e., with u = 0) or it
will be negative, with u = 1 and the value of x set so that the term inside the
parentheses is negative.

Looking at the first term, the optimum value of x1 is found by (ignore u1 for a
moment):
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Lagrange Relaxation on Unit Commitment
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
The Procedure is as follows
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Adjusting Lembda
Contd.
Example
Solution
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.