Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 July 2012
Received in revised form 15 August 2013
Accepted 11 January 2014
Keywords:
Smart Grid
State space
Demand response
Generation surplus
Jacobian
Load curtailment
a b s t r a c t
This paper proposes an optimization model to maximize social welfare by standardizing the operating
conditions with an overall improvement of dynamic stability of power markets endowed with Smart Grid
communication technology. The state space based model developed along with the proposed methodology maximizes load catering and simultaneously minimizes the operating standard constrained generation cost to restore power market equilibrium even in the most inadvertent states of the Energy System
Network. For optimum utilization of smart metering facility, the model effectively involves resources like
demand response, generation surplus and an efcient methodology to optimize the Market Clearing Price
(MCP) as well as prot of the market participants by effective categorization. The power market dynamic
price equilibrium has been estimated by forming Jacobian of the sensitivity matrix to regulate the state
variables for the standardization of the quality of solution. A novel load curtailment strategy has also
been proposed to amalgam stability restoring shedding with prot retentive load cut. The model has been
tested in IEEE 30 bus system in comparison with standard curtailment based optimization technique to
produce encouraging results.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The synergism of power system with information network has
emerged as Smart Grid to undertake the modern power network
issues like demand side management, standardization of operating
conditions and integration of renewable energy sources. Moreover
the Smart Grid is inherently designed to be self-healing to improve
reliability and to respond to natural disaster or malicious sabotage
[1]. Efcient deployment of information network augmented with
Smart Grid can appear to be an invaluable resource to regulate the
operational condition of the system and to optimize the system
operation to a prolic solution [2,3]. In the quest of optimizing
the utilization of these new resources, researchers in the recent
past have been proposing indigenous methodologies and solution
algorithm. Though the power system planers heavily rely upon
the methodologies in [4,5] introduced a distinctive work where
operating conditions viz loss and voltage proles were optimized
with a coordination methodology of plug in vehicle charging. A hybrid method has been enunciated in [6] for effective utilization of
Smart Grid data viz synchrophasor to improve grid reliability from
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9836921589.
E-mail addresses: sandipee1978@gmail.com (S. Chanda), abhinandan.de@
gmail.com (A. De).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.01.029
0142-0615/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
generation side. Ref. [7] portrayed a framework of future transmission grid while [810] identied the challenges associated with the
incorporation of Demand Response (DR) in distribution of the
existing grid. From this survey, it is quite evident that all the major
parts of the grid require extensive reformation for optimization of
Smart Grid resources summarized in [11]. All these alterations will
lead to a grid capable of monitoring and control and fast responsive
devices are to be installed to retaliate almost instantaneously [12]
to locate disturbance and to minimize the same. The grid under
consideration must possess at least these attributes to negotiate
matters like intermittent energy sources, up-gradation of operating
conditions and self-regularization. During the incorporation of
renewable energy sources the unprecedented intermittent nature
and cost curve pose immense difculty to system optimization.
The challenges and possible solutions have been enunciated for
the power system networks of Europe in [13]. Refs. [1416] proposed optimization methodologies to escalate the operational status of power grid subscribing a particular renewable energy source.
Ref. [17] depicted a novel algorithm to regulate the system parameters under multiple intermittent sources. The model optimized
the system operation by an energy hub concept but the implementation of the same will require efcient infrastructure which may
not be available and the model moreover does not incorporate issues like line ow management and load curtailment. Ref. [18]
308
dealt with the integration of demand response with irregular energy sources. The multi objective algorithm proposed minimized
cost and curtailment but could not maximize load catering policy
of the system operator. In addition, issues like payment cost minimization by involving maximum number of consumers as suggested in [1921] have not been considered. Apart from
tribulations associated with intermittent renewable energy
sources, Smart Grid has to efciently employ demand side management technique. The methods proposed in [2224] effectively
utilize demand side bidding or auction strategy or multi-agent policy but the price responsiveness of other available parameters have
not been considered. All these efforts concentrated only one of the
price responsive parameter and their objective was to minimize
the market clearing price rather than maximizing social welfare
by catering optimum load at minimum cost. Refs. [25,26] introduced social welfare as an objective but apply less emphasis on
sustaining operating conditions of the system or the load shedding
technique. The contemporary load curtailment strategies have
been illustrated in [27,28] whereas in [29,30] some new strategies
have been introduced. Most of these techniques are operating condition constraint Optimal Load Curtailment (OLC) programs could
not assure customer a reliable supply with standard operating conditions. In view of this above survey, the need of an algorithm can
be felt which can ensure a standard parametric operational condition with an objective of minimizing the price of electricity with
optimal load catering without violating the price equilibrium of
the market. The algorithm is required to be supported by a pricing
model, which not only integrates the demand response and generation characteristics but also involves price sensitivity of voltage
prole, line loss, congestion and load curtailment. The existing
price forecasting models proposed in [3139] are optimistic in nature developed to offer solutions under specic operational constraints and these models are only fertile for single objective
domain. Moreover they do not consider the dynamic price equilibrium as stated in [40] hence cannot provide an insight of the power
market stability. The endeavor of the work presented in this paper
has been to develop a state space model of a power system network endowed with smart metering facility not only to forecast
price, but also to minimize the same without compromising social
welfare, power market stability and thus ensuring sustenance of
prolic operating conditions. The convex nature of solution algorithm with nonlinear working surface was compelling in the selection of a stochastic optimization technique like Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO). For comparison of the solution obtained a
standard Optimal Power Flow (OPF) [41] has been adopted. The
simulations have been carried out in IEEE 30 bus system and the
obtained results looked quite promising.
where d1, d2. . .etc. are the power demands and the bid curve is
expressed as a function of demand such as f(di). The Market Clearing
Price (MCP) corresponding to each point of the bid curve have been
plotted in Fig. 2a and b. In this gure it has been assumed that
b1 = d1MCP1, b2 = d2MCP2, b3 = d3MCP3. Let us assume that the
two curves are tted with two different polynomials. k1x2 + l1x + m1
represent the bid curve while k2x2 + l2x + m2 represent the price
responsive curve where k1, l1, m1 are the coefcients of bid curve
and k2, l2, m2 are the coefcients of price responsive curve. Now
mapping willingness to pay into price responsiveness of demand
tan h
2. Market structure and functioning in Smart Grid
f d1 f d2 b1 b2
d1 d2
d1 d2
b2 b1 d2 MCP 2 d1 MCP1
d2 d1
d2 d1
2
2
d2 k2 d2 l2 d2 m2 d1 k2 d1 l2 d2 m2
d2 d1
2
2
k2 d2 d2 d1 d1 l2 d2 d1 m2
309
Fig. 1. Interaction of power market entities of Smart Grid. Note: Conceptualized architecture of modern power grid or Smart Grid to ensure optimum utilization of generation,
transmission and distribution resources.
Fig. 2. A and B: Mapping the price responsiveness of demand from Bid curve. Note: Incorporation of this price responsive demand curve into optimal power ow ensures load
curtailment of consumers in accordance with their willingness to pay.
generation schedule, the willingness to pay of individual consumers are available to the system operator. The operator under peak
load condition, for security limit violation, can curtail a part of
the load according to consumers demand response curve but the
310
xh 1 f p Axh Buh
Is a function of price of electricity
where A is the sensitivity
(m + n + 4) (m + n + 4).
A11
..
.
6
A6
4
Pmax S Smin
P Pmax
Smax Smin
Amn41
...
matrix
of
5
the
order
of
A1mn4
7
7
5
. . . Amn4mm4
bi;1
bi;1
bi;1
with the elements Aij bj;1
bj;1n1 bj;1n , for linear approximation
n1
n
about hth hour.
B is the contingency or state modication matrix, which will
arise only when participant characteristics are altered by either
deliberately or inadvertently.
In an energy system or power system network the above modeling not only enables the ISO to determine stability of a particular
optimal solution in an hour but also makes the ISO capable of predicting the most feasible optimal generation pattern and load schedule for a specied operational standard.
The ISO benet function can be dened as
yh 1 Cxh
The demand cost benefit function
where S represents generation surplus and P represent the corresponding upper limit of curtailment or ISO set limit of load curtailment. The proposed method utilizes Eq. (3) to determine the
maximum allowable load curtailment at any given price equilibrium point or ISO set limit of curtailment.
The proposed methodology with the assistance of PSO searches
for an optimal solution which can maximize the income of the
generators by reducing generation surplus to minimum while limiting load curtailment to an optimum value by adjusting the demand of the consumers.
The price of electricity in modern power markets not only relies
on demand response or load curtailment, but also includes generator cost characteristics, congestion, voltage and loss prole management costs [24,4446]. Optimum utilization of Smart Grid
infrastructure will be ensured only when all these inuencing factors are standardized with an objective to maximize the benets
for all the market participants.
4. State space modeling of the proposed system
Cd Cglv
Social Welfare with desired operating conditions 6
where
Cd
nd
X
r j P 2dj sj Pdj demand cost benefit function
j1
i1
C g1 C g2 . . . C gm C L1 C L2 . . . C Ln C Pc C TL C Vmin C Plmax
For m numbers of generators and n numbers of loads the price
sensitive state variables of a power system network may be dened as follows:
X P1 P2 . . . Pm L1 L2 . . . Ln Pc T L V min Plmax T
Fig. 3. Traditional optimization technique. Note: Conventional optimization technique based on generation cost and Market Clearing Price (MCP).
Maximize
nd
X
r j P 2dj sj Pdj
j1
ng
X
ai P2gi
PGi PDi V i
Q Gi Q Di V i
bi P gi ci Pc P1 T L P2 V min P3 P lmax P4
10
i1
i1
311
b
X
11
i1
where PGi = Active power injected in bus i, PDi = Active power demand on bus i, Vi = magnitude of voltage of buses i, Vj = magnitude
Fig. 4. The proposed optimization technique. Note: Proposed energy systems structure with smart metering facility which will assist the consumers to alter their
consumption level by directly participating in optimization with their price responsive demand characteristics.
312
Pmin
Pgi Pmax
gi
gi
12
Q min
Q gi Q max
gi
gi
13
where, Pgi, Qgi = Active and reactive power of generator i respectively, Pmin
Q min
gi Lower limit of active and reactive power of the
gi ,
generators,
Pmax
gi ,
Q max
Upper limit of active and reactive power
gi
of the generators
14
15
16
Pci is the ISO set limit of maximum allowable curtailment determined by Eq. (3).
17
J r
AI
dxn
dxn
dxn
dxn
18
In the proposed method this Jacobian and its eigen values are
determined to estimate stability. It may be mentioned that if the
price stability is not obtained for a given value of curtailment, it
may be necessary to alter curtailment P even beyond Pmax (As stated in Section 2). Obviously, the optimal operation will be hampered under such a situation but this may be inevitable to
maintain stability at the cost of losing optimality.
A comparison of the traditional and proposed optimization
techniques has been depicted in following Figs. 3 and 4
Table 1
Parameter setting of PSO.
Parameter
27
04
100
24
02
02
0.9
0.4
1 1025
0
Fig. 5. Flowchart of the proposed algorithm. Note: The state space based model is a part
of this methodology which ensures social welfare by maximizing load catering and
minimizing generation cost maintaining standard operational conditions in the system.
313
Table 2
Comparison of performance of traditional and proposed optimization technique with active, reactive loading stress and line contingency.
Observations
MCP ($/
MW h)
Traditional optimization
Proposed optimization
Line loss
(MW)
Max line ow
(MW)
Line loss
(MW)
Max line ow
(MW)
11.8
11.68
12.71
12.42
125.18
131.17
130.27
130.34
0.9742
0.9743
0.9740
0.9740
6.79
8.03
9.13
9.42
71.93
84.22
98.14
97.07
0.9782
0.9761
0.9800
0.9748
13.62
13.51
14.6
15.08
131.36
132.52
130.37
130.86
0.9440
0.9046
0.8606
0.8089
11.33
13
13.5
13.65
113
125
123
117.08
0.9600
0.9077
0.8667
0.8611
22.28
22
21.02
21.59
178.84
177.07
176.99
169.84
0.9687
0.9657
0.9660
0.9123
10.61
14.00
13.50
14.61
115.96
134.52
131.22
134.26
0.9776
0.9706
0.9723
0.9224
Under contingency
12
12, 24
12, 24, 2122
12, 24, 2122, 27
29
3.34
3.35
3.35
3.35
Generator1 (%)
Generator2 (%)
Generator3 (%)
Generator4 (%)
Generator5 (%)
Generator6 (%)
h-1
h-2
h-3
h-4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
60
40
20
100
90
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
50
30
10
Renewable energy sources may not be available in full capacity at every hour. Arbitrary shortages have been considered for different generating sources.
314
Table 4
Performance comparison of traditional and proposed optimization technique during intermittency of generation.
Observations
MCP ($/MW h)
h-1
h-2
h-3
h-4
3.33
3.12
3.08
2.75
Traditional Optimization
Proposed Optimization
12.06
14.20
13.27
18.14
124.85
140.80
142.96
121.28
0.9740
0.9741
0.9746
0.9739
6.75
13.26
12.50
15.80
71.91
129
105.13
110.09
0.9763
0.9701
0.9767
0.9900
During intermittency of generation at different hours, the operating conditions have been found to improve by the application of the proposed optimization technique.
the present and future grids. However, their intermittent generation prole requires extensive load management for power market
equilibrium. With the intermittency of the generators as shown in
Table 3, the performance of the proposed algorithm has been observed to be remarkably superior in sustaining the operating conditions within safe limit (Table 4), owing to the fact that the
proposed algorithm not only manages generation for an optimal
cost (as in case of traditional method) but also efciently manages
loads to cater maximum demand at minimum cost in the most
optimal way maintaining all operating constraints.
The efciency of the proposed algorithm to self heal under the
alterations of operating conditions particularly during peak periods, when the available generation is less than requested demand
is depicted in Fig. 6, where the peak shaving attribute of the proposed algorithm has been demonstrated at selected buses.
Fig. 7 illustrates the comparison of load curtailment in the proposed method with reference to the ISO set limit for the case
Fig. 7. Comparison of curtailment by proposed method against their corresponding ISO set limit. Note: The ISO set limit is proposed to be determined by consumer price
responsiveness and maximum generation surplus. Load curtailment below this limit will benet all the stakeholders.
315
studies conducted in Table 2 and 4. As discussed earlier, the curtailment should not always be price dependent but ISO should also
monitor the generation surplus in order to maintain a protable
curtailment operation in the power market. The ISO is constrained
to perform selective curtailment in order to keep the price of electricity constant or in other words to balance generation and demand at particular MCP. The results shown in Fig. 7AD depict
that, the proposed algorithm is capable of curtailing load at a more
conservative margin, well below the limits set by ISO.
The load curtailment limit has not fall below the ISO set curtailment limit in any of the test cases as in Fig. 7. The formula proposed in Eq. (3) is the optimal allowable load curtailment limit in
accordance with minimum generation surplus and curtailment
policy of ISO. This limit not only minimizes the generation surplus
for the benet of GENCOs but also retains the result within maximum curtailment limit for the welfare of consumers. As the results
are the outcome of Particle Swarm Optimization within the limit of
error gradient, the result has been tested to be optimal. Thus the
proposed methodology proves to maximize social welfare.
The claim of social welfare maximization may thus be assured
by the convergence of the objective function of optimization as
shown in Fig. 8.
7. Conclusion
The accessibility to smart metering infrastructure has brought
about radical changes in power grid operation and simultaneously
has thrown newer operational challenges for electric power system
operators, where a departure from traditional operations planning,
scheduling, and dispatch practices needs to be altered to take into
account tribulations like voltage instability, line congestion, line
loss intensication and payment cost minimization. In this pursuit
this paper presents a new state space based pricing model and a
methodology to illustrate optimal and efcient operations of Smart
Grid. The model effectively identies the state variables of MCP
and regulates the same utilizing PSO to reach prolic solutions
negotiating with generator characteristics, demand response, voltage stability, and congestion, curtailment and line loss limits. As
f x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . xn f X
A1
316
!
random positions marked by xi and random velocities v i . The population of such particles is called a Swarm S. A neighborhood
relation N is dened in the swarm. N determines for any two particles pi whether they are neighbors or not. Thus for any particle p,
neighborhood can be assigned as N(p), containing all the neighbors
of that particle. A popular version of PSO uses N = S for each particle. In this case, any particle has all the remaining particles in the
swarm in its neighborhood. Each particle has two state variables
viz., its current position and velocity as stated earlier. It is also
equiped with a small memory comprising its previous best position (One yielding the highest value of the tness function found
!
!
so far) pt that is personal best experience and the best pt of
!
p 2 Np : gt that is the best position so far in the neighborhood
!
of the particle. When we set N(p) = S, gt is referred to as the
globally best particle in the entire swarm. The PSO scheme has
the following algorithmic parameters:
!
A3
Table B1
Description of IEEE 30 bus system.
SL No
1
2
3
Adopted system
Branches
Generators
Total demand (MW)
41
6
365 (In the base case)
Fig. B1. SLD of IEEE 30 bus system. Note: Single Line Diagram of the test system with positions of generations and loads.
1
2
5
8
11
13
Cost co-efcient
Min
Max
A (US$/MW2)
B (US$/MW)
C (US$)
50
20
15
10
10
12
200
80
50
35
30
40
0.00375
0.01750
0.06250
0.00834
0.02500
0.02500
2.00
1.75
1.00
3.25
3.00
3.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table B3
Coefcients of consumer cost benet function.
Bus no
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
29
30
Cost co-efcient
Min
Max
A (US$/MW2)
B (US$/MW)
C (US$)
21.7
2.4
7.6
94.2
22.8
30
5.8
11.2
6.2
8.2
3.5
9
3.2
9.5
2.2
17.5
3.2
8.7
3.5
2.4
10.6
31.7
5
10
110
40
45
10
15
12
10
10
15
5
12
5
20
6
10
5
4
15
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.2
0.075
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.1
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
87.2
90
85.5
87
70
90
70
50
80
60
70
65
90
68
90
80
60
80
90
95
95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
References
[1] Gang L, Debraj D, Wen-Zhan S. Smart Grid Lab: a laboratory-based smart grid
test bed. In: The 1st IEEE international conference on smart grid
communications, 2010; Gaithersburg, USA; 2010. p. 1438.
[2] Farrokh R, Ali I. Demand response as a market resource under the smart grid
paradigm. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2010;1(1).
[3] Ali Ipakchi. Demand side and Distributed Resource Management a
transactive solution, IEEE OATI Power and Energy, July 22nd, 2011.
[4] Natarajan Ramsamy. Computer-aided system analysis. New York,
Basel: Marcel Dekkar INC.; 2002.
[5] Sara D, Amir S, Paul S, Moses S, Masoum Mohammad AS. Real-time
coordination of plug-in electric vehicle charging in smart grids to minimize
power losses and improve voltage prole. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2011;2(3).
[6] Yunzhi C, Wei-Jen L, Shun-H, Huang John A. Dynamic parameter identication
of generators for smart grid development. In: Power and energy society
general meeting, IEEE, 2429 July, 2011, San Diego; 2011. p. 17.
[7] Fangxing L, Wei Q, Hongbin S, Hui W, Jianhui W, Yan X. Smart transmission
grid: vision and framework. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2010;1(2).
[8] Jose M, Nelson M, Ilya R. Demand response and distribution grid operations:
opportunities and challenges. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2010;1(2).
[9] Amir-Hamed M, Wong Vincent WS, Juri J, Robert S, Alberto L. Autonomous
demand-side management based on game-theoretic energy consumption
scheduling for the future smart grid. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2010;1(3).
[10] Pouyan K, Hassan M, Hassan A. Load prole reformation through demand
response programs using smart grid modern electric power systems 2010,
Wroclaw, Poland MEPS10; 2010.
[11] David Sun, Laurent Schmitt. Advanced power system operations with smart
grid technologies, 2010 IEEE PES Panel Session; 2010.
[12] In-Ho C, Joung-Han Lee. Development of smart controller with demand
response for AMI connection. In: International conference on control,
automation and systems 2010 October, 2730, 2010, Korea; 2010. p. 7525.
[13] Hammons TJ. Integrating renewable energy sources into European grids. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 2008;30(8):46275.
317
318
[43] Losi Arturo. Trade curtailment schemes for security control of transmission
network in a deregulated environment. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2002;24(1):917.
[44] Juan Carlos M, Pablo Cuervo F. Transmission loss allocation through equivalent
bilateral exchanges and economical analysis. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2005;20(4).
[45] Tripathy M, Mishra S. Bacteria foraging-based solution to optimize both real
power loss and voltage stability limit. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2007;22(1).
[46] Sandip C, Abhinandan D. Improvement of economic aspect of power network
congestion management by swarm intelligence based multi-objective
algorithm. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2011;3(5).
[47] Coelho LdSa, Lee C-Sb. Solving economic load dispatch problems in power
systems using chaotic and Gaussian particle swarm optimisation approaches.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2008;30(5):297307.
[48] Fanga Debin, Wua Jingfang, Tangb Dawei. A double auction model for
competitive generators and large consumers considering power transmission
cost. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;43(1):8808.
[49] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimisation. In: The proceedings of
IEEE international conference on neural networks; 1995. p. 19428.
[50] Venter G, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J. Particle swarm optimization. AIAA J
2003;41(8):15839.