I
1106
A report of the AGC Task Force of the IEEE/PES/PSE/System Control Subcommittee
UNDERSTANDING
AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL
Nasser Jaleeli 1 (TF Chairman) Donald N. Ewart 3
Louis S. VanSlyck 2 Power Technologies, Inc.
American Electric Power Service Corporation Schenectadv, New York
Columbus, Ohio
1 Member, IEEE z Senior Member, IEEE
Abstruct - This paper describes what automatic generation
control (AGC) might be expected to do, and what may not be
possible or expedient for it to do. The purposes and objectives
of AGC are limited by physical elements involved in the pro-
cess and, hence, the relevant characteristics of these elements
are described. For reasons given in this paper, it is desired that
AGC act slowly and deliberately over tens of seconds or a few
minutes. From a perspective of utility operations, there is no
particular economic or control purpose served by speeding up
the AGC action.
By this Task Force paper, the System Control Subcom-
mittee is providing a resource to the power engineering com-
munity to help guide research into topics related to AGC.
Key Words- Area Control Error, Automatic Generntion
Control, Economic Dispatch, Frequency Response, Govemor
Action, Inadvertent Energy, Load Frequency Control, Power
System Control, Power System Operation, Speed Droop.
INTRODUCTION
Present schemes of automatic generation control (ACC),
have evolved over the past six decades and are in use on inter-
connected systems as large as one-fourth the North American
continent. Continued enhancement of these schemes is
expected via new application9 and yet to be developed logic
algorithms and prwcss con~rollechnology. However, certain
concepts, objectives, and simulation models that too often
have been assumed for research effofis in AGC are not applica-
ble for present day power systems. This paper (prepared under
the auspices of the System Control Subcommittee) attempts
to describe basics that are applicable to today's power systenis
and AGC in order to assist interested research parties in direct-
ing their work at nieanirigful objectives.
The way loads and unit govemors respond to various
upsets of electric power mismatch in the system is presented.
This is followed by a brief description of types of generating
units, arid constraints on their range and rate of response to
AGC signals. Within these constraints, the objectives of AGC
in isolated, and then in multi-conlrol areas are presented. For
the latter, the philosophy of tie-line bias control is reviewed.
Additional fundamental considerations affecting AGC, together
wilh some concluding rematks, m presented at the end
91 WM 229-5 PWRS A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1991 Winter Meeting, New York,
New York, February 3-7, 1991. Manuscript submitted
September 4, 1990; made available for printing
January 3, 1991.
0885-8950/92$03.00 Q 1992 IEEE
I
Transactions on Power Systems. Vol. 7, No. 3, August 1992
Lester H.Fink 4
Arthur G. Hoffmann 2
ECC, Inc.
Fairfax, Virginia
3 Fellow. IEEE 4 Life Fellow, IEEE
SYSTEM NATURAL PERFORMANCE
Power system loads and losses are sensitive to frequency.
Data captured right after frequency disturbances indicate that
their aggregate initial change is in the same direction as the
frequency change.
o n c e a generating unit is tripped or a block of load is
added to the system, the power mismatch is initially compen-
sated by an extraction of kinetic energy from system inertial
storage which causes a declining system frequency. As the fre-
quency decreases, the power taken by loads decreases.
Equilibrium for large systems is often obtained when the fre-
quency sensitive reduction of loads bal'wces the output power
of the tripped unit or that delivered to the added block of load
at the resulting (new) frequency. If this effect halts the
kquency decline it usually does so in less than 2 seconds.
If the mismatch is large enough to cause the frequency to
deviate beyond the govemor deadbarid of generating units, thcir
output will be increased by govemor action. For such mis-
matches, an equilibrium is obtained when the reduction in the
power taken by loads plus the increased geeneration due to gov-
emor action compenqates for the mismatch. Such equilibrium
is normally obtained within a dozen seconds after the tripping
of a unit or connection of the additional load.[ I ]
Many govemor deadbands are beyond 35 mHz. This
amount of frequency deviation requires the upset of more than
1000 M W in the eastem interconnection of the US.Thus, in
this interconnection many govemors may be called upon as
unit speed stabilizers (21only a few times per month.
Typical speed droops for active govemors are in the range
of about 5%. (Govemor droop is the percent change in fre-
quency which would cause the unit's generation to change by
Io()%of its capability.) This level of sensitivity to frequency
allows many isolated systems, which are not necessarily small
in capacity, to perform satisfactorily without AGC. Thus, at
the expense of some tiequency deviation, generation adjust-
nient by govemors provides aniple opportunity lor a follow up
manual control of units. The objectives of the follow up con-
trol, especially under normal changes of load, are to retum the
frequency to the schedule, to minimize productioti cost, and to
operate the system at an adequate level of security.
The purpose of AGC is to replace portions of the above
mentioned manual control. As it automatically responds to
normal load changes, AGC reduces the response time to a
minute or two, more or less. Mainly due to delays associated
with physically limited response rates of energy coiivcrsion,
further reductioti in the respoiisc tliiie ol AGC i s ucillier pos-
sible nor desired.
NeiIher Iiw follow up nianrml cnntrol nor' AGC. i.\ irhle
or' expected to pluy urry role in linrititrrg tire ntugrri~rrtle(d rlw

first frequency swing which occurs within seconds ajier the
loss of a block of generation or loud in the system. In fact, in
the U.S., the procedure in most control areas requires AGC to
be suspended when the frequency deviates 200 mHz or more.
For conditions where change of generation due to govemor
action and change of load due to its sensitivity to frequency are
not enough to intercept the run-away frequency, over- and
under-frequency relays are among the last resorts for shedding
loads to prevent system collapse, or tripping generating units
to prevent their damage.
GENERATING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
A G C realizes generation changes in the system by
sending signals to units under its control. The design and
performance of an AGC system is very dependent on how
units respond to such signals.[ 3,4,5] Unit response
characteristics vary widely and are dependent on many factors
such as:
Type of generating unit; for example fossil-fired, combustion
tuhine, combined cycle, nuclear, or hydro.
Type of he1 being used; i.e. coal, oil, gas, or uranium.
Generic plant type; i.e. drum-type or once-through boiler,
boiling- or pressurized-water nuclear steam supply, high- or
low-head hydro plant.
Type of plant control; i.e. boiler-follow, turbine-follow, or
coordinated. Also, whether the unit is operated in a sliding
pressure or fixed presswe mode.
Operating point; frequently the ability of a unit to respond is
different at one load point than at another. E.g., operation near
a valve point will be different than operation between valve
points. Also, a generating unit operating with valves wide
open cannot respond to a signal to generate more power.
Operator actions; unit operators may take a unit off AGC
control for various reasons. Problems with auxiliaries such as
boiler feed pumps, and coal mius are two examples.
A brief description of the characteristics of several types
of generating units as they affect the response to AGC signals
Ls given below.[6]
-
Fossil-Fired Stem-Turbine Units
Many existing drum-type units are still controlled in a
boiler-following or turbine-following mode. Controlling the
steam flow at the turbine inlet allows fast initial unit power
response by altering the rate of boiler energy conversion.
Boiler-following controllers tend to he fairly responsive to
AGC signals, on the order of 3% per minute for a 30% excur-
sion, particularly if fueled by oil or gaq. The AC‘ signal usu-
ally drives the speed-load setpoint adjuster on the speed-gover-
nor control which, in turn, cauSes turbine valve movement.
The boiler controls sense the changes in steam pressure to
adjust flows of air, fuel, etc.
Once-through steam generators are frequently supplied
with coordinated control systems, meaning that the AGC sig-
nal is processed by a master controller that “coordinates” the
fuel, air, temperature, and turbine valve controls so as to limit
undesirable stresses on the plant components. Many of the
newer drum-type steam generators are &“oiled this way too.
Depending upon how these controls are designed and adjusled,
unit response cm v i l q widely.l71 A wcll-adjustcd unit of this
type be o f Iliaking a 20% in 10
minutes.
1107
Nuclear Units
Nearly all nuclear plants have either boiling-water (ESWR)
or pressurized-water (PWR) steam generators.[8,9] Most are
not currently controlled by AGC, but there are exceptions.
BWR units operated under AGC, typically can respond at 3%
per minute for 10 minutes or so within their regulating range.
To move outside the range requires malcing changes manually
in the control-rod pattem, a more lengthy process.
Power control in P W R units is accomplished by
adjusting control rods in the reactor core, and for larger
excumions at slower rates, by changing the concentration of
boric acid in the primary loop. These units are capable of
making 20% excursions at rates of nearly 3% per minute.
fi
Combustion turbines, particularly simple-cycle gas tur-
bines, are capable of the fa..test response of m y units on util-
ity systems, but since typically used as peaking units they are
seldom equipped for operation under AGC. Combined-cycle
units, where the gas-turbine exhaust gas is used to generate
steam to power a steam turbine, are more likely to be equipped
for AGC control if operated by a utility. The response of a
combined-cycle plant is not quite as rapid as a simple gas tur-
bine. Combined-cycle units operated by independent power
producers and cogenerators may constitute a significant
fraction of generation in some areas, but are seldom operated
under AGC.
Hydro Units
Low-head hydro units, such as used in run-of-river plants,
have excellent response capabilities. Many can be cycled over
their entire operating range in under a minute. High-head units
must have their response rates somewhat curtailed to prevent
water-hammer damage in long penstocks. Even with such a
limitation, the units can respond with very large excursions, if
desired. However, hydro plant loading maneuvers may require
careful coordination with other hydro units upstream or down-
stream on the same river system.[lO]
AGC OBJECTIVES
The objectives traditionally defined for AGC appear to be
vague and incomplete. However, any attempt in this paper to
precisely detine them may introduce a constraint on future
opportunities. Hence, we only compare attributes of AGC
strategies from different aspects. For each attribute, the pre-
ferred strategy is indicated. Yet, we leave the selection (or
weighting) of attribute importance and the exact determination
of m overall score for individual consideration.
For the comparison of the strategies, a power system hav-
ing some units under AGC and others manually controlled, is
considered. Various attributes are to be assessed over a selected
time window (duration of their comparison.) This comparison
is lint made when the system operates as a single (isolated)
control area. The concepts developed for the single control area
caye are then extended to that of an interconnection comprising
several control areas.
Shide (isolated) Control Area
‘The following nspects for which the strategies are coni-
pared ant by no niems intended to be coinplcte nor to k appli-
cable for all systems. We also acknowledge that niucli is lelt
 1108
for improving the definition of each aspect and the qualifying
words used in them. For example, how should the acceptabil-
ity of a frequency trend be defined, or measured? This issue
will be addressed again later.
Of AGC strategies, the one which yields a geaeration trend
acceptably matching the trend required to serve the varying
load at scheduled frequency over tbe selected t h e window gets
a high score, The more acceptable the generation trend, the
more acceptable becomes the kquency head, and vice versa.
Therefore, a main input to AGC for a single control area is the
system frequency.
The strategy which accumulates lower fuel cost over the
time window is preferred. Such an AGC may also be expected
to recognize undesirable unit generation ranges (including
steam valve points ot hydro rough spots) and avoid un-
necessary sustained operation in such ranges.
The strategy should maintain a sufficient level of reserved
control range and a sufficient level of control rate. System load
can potentially have more sudden sustained changes than those
which occurred in the selected time window. Prior to such
changes the operating point of each unit would be preferred to
be in the middle of its controllable range. Also at any time,
the number of speed-govemor type units in a wound-up state
should be minimized
The strategy should operate the system with a better security
margin as specified by the system’s management.
The strategy which accumulates lower cost associated With
the wear and tear of regulation for all units combined is pre-
ferred. This strategy, therefore, is expected to avoid unneces-
sary rapid maneuvering of unit generation (or the chasing of
high frequency components of demand change.)
The strategy which requires less effort fiom system operators
gets a higher score.
The strategy which provides timely recommendations for
changing tbe output of units that are manually controlled gets
a higher score.
The strategy should provide timely recommendations for
changing the automatic regulation band (whether set at the
plant ot at the control center) for units controUed by AGC.
The strategy should provide meaningful alarms, e.g. for
units not responding to either system operators’ requests or to
the AGC signals. This may include displays in the control
center and/or at the plant for prior deviation from desired
generation level and anticipated trends of future desired
generation. This could also include the automatic observation
of security constraints on the generation level of units.
The strategy which requires less computing power and other
hardware may deserve a higher score. This would recognize
that “simpler” is easier to understand and maintain, and is
usually more reliable.
We now address the issue of frequency trend acceptability.
Under normal variation of load, the frequency must be main-
tained sufficiently within a band where under- or over-
frequency relays could not be actuated by the next credible
contingency, e.g., a unit trip, or loss of a block of load. In
most systems, AGC can accomplish this objective even if it
yields a generation trend which laps by several minutes that
wliich would colrtirlually serve the load at the scheduled
fquency.
Oacr the ficquency goes out of the above band for any
reason, eitllcr suddenly or slowly, the role of AGC UI its quick
1
restoration becomes very limited. Almost all units can provide
a higber rate and range of control from the unit control room
than via AGC signals from a control center. Following a large
frequency deviation, the mode of operation of a number of
units is normally changed from automatic to manual and unit
operators are usually asked to adjust the generation manually.
Therefore, the time required for restoration of frequency to the
schedule mainly depends on how quickly manual changes can
berealized.
While frequency is maintained within the acceptable
range, electric clocks may still gain or lose time. To maintain
accurate time, the scheduled frequency is offset from nonlinal
whenever the time error exceeds a threshold.
When the frequency is lower than nominal, the system
loses a small component of sewed load. When it is higher, the
system imposes a small additional component onto the con-
nected load.[ll] As long as the time e m r is forced to cross
zero frequently, the difference between tbese lost and gained
load components remaios negligible. (Depending on frequency
amplitude excursion, “fkquently” may mean merely “several
times per week.”)
Multi-Area Control
A ”multi-area interconnection” is comprised of regions, or
“areas”, that afv interconnected by tie-lines. Tie-lines have the
benefit of providing inter-area support for abnormal conditions
as well as transmission paths for contractual energy exchanges
between the ateas. The area boundaries are determined by tie-
line metering for AGC and contractual billing purposes. Both
power and energy flows are metered. Energy metering is usu-
ally on an hourly basis and the data values used for accounting
purposes must be identical (after auditing) for each corporate
party sharing the tie-line. Accounting, and auditing, are
described in reference 12.
The mnd of fiquency measured in any area is an indicator
of the trend of mismatch power in the interconnection and not
in the area alone. Any area, of a multi-area system, that
attempts to adjust its generation to restore the frequency to
schedule, requires a block of controllable generation large
enough to respond to the mismatch power in the interconnec-
tion. Furthermore, the interconnection requires tie-lines which
can carry such amounts of power between this area and the
Others.
In an interconnection where AGC in more than one area
is driven solely by a frequency signal, there will be large
power oscillations between controlling areas unless regulating
actions taken by all areas can be realized simultaneodsly.
Further, the operation of such an interconnection would face a
more severe problem if the areas attempting to control
frequency had measurement error. An area that measured the
frequency at a value higher than others would reduce its
generation, while others raised, both attempting lo force
frequency (as they each measured it) to the scheduled value.
O n the surface, an alternative to frequency based control
may seem to be that each area generate enough power to serve
its intemal loads and losses, plus the total scheduled power
interchange ‘Ts” with other areas. However, if every area oper-
ated wilh this objective, then for reiso~lsdescribed below U t e
interconnectiorltiright not be able to operite salisfactorily.
‘ h e tliflerence between an area’s pelwrition and the power
takeo internally by loads and losses is the suln of power llows

“Ta” on all tie-lines between this area and others. The scheme
whereby each area controls its Ta to match its Ts is called con-
stant net interchange (or flat tie-line) control. Consider a sys-
tem comprising two areas, 1 and 2, and suppose area 1 mea-
sures its interchange several M W below the actual, and area 2
measures its own correctly. Then both areas will continuously
raise their generation and no equilibrium can ever be reached.
Altemately, assume area 1 uses an erroneous interchange
schedule whose magnitude is higher than that used by area 2
for its purchase. The same instability occurs.
Even in the absence of the above errors, this method of
control is unable to provide satisfactory operation because it
m u l l s in severely depressed frequency when either area is not
able to produce its share of generation. As area 2 will attempt
to maintain its interchange at the schedule, the system may
collapse if a large unit is tripped in area 1.
Just as it was found impossible, for reasons that are now
obvious, for generators to operate stably in parallel without
providing a suitable droop to their govemor characteristics, so
it was found impossible for systems to operate stably in p a d -
le1 under either constant frequency or constant net interchange
control. Ther@ore,a quick return of eitherfrequency or inter-
change to the schedule must not be used as a basis for advocat-
ing an AGC algorithm.
Tie-Line Bias Control
Multi-area control philosophy 1131 constitutes assistance
from area 2 to area 1 beyond the scheduled interchange when
area 1 is not, for whatever reasons, satisfying its obligations.
All areas of an interconnected system respond relatively
quickly, under load and govemor action, to changes in demand
as signalled by changes in frequency. The concept of tie-line
bias control, developed in the mid Ihirtias, permits areas, over
the longer run, to readjust generation (to follow changes in
their intemal load) without compromising the area’s share! of
natural response for frequency support.
To understand the basis of the above mentioned control
philosophy, we examine a power system in two cases, first
operated as one control area, and then as two control areas. The
system is assumed to be operating at scheduled frequency, Fs,
when it loses a block of load or generation.
However operated, system natural response (aka.regula-
tion, or primary response) based on design criteria, is expected
(for credible contingencies) to stabilize the system at a new
frequency, Fa. With Fs and Fa in Hz,this response is conven-
tionally expressed as 10 J3 (Fa - Fs). The coefficient, J3, is neg-
ative and traditionally is given in M w / O . 1 Hz. It represents
the combination of both load and govemor sensitivity 1141 to
frequency. As system frequency is retumed to the schedule, pri-
mary response diminishes.
When the system operates as one control area, it benefits
from primary response of the complete system until central
(supplementary or secondary) control actions can fully com-
pensate for the power upset. Assume the same system operates
as two control areas and the location of the power upset is in
area 1. It is desired, of course, to obtain a smooth restoration
of frequency in this case roo. Therefore, area 2 should, as
before, assist area I with iis natural response - a power coni-
parable to its share or IO J3 (Fa - Fs) - aid ihis natural
rcsponse should riot he unduly compromised by AGC action.
Thus, the AGC iri area 2 should yield a generation tretid wliidi
1109
has an “acceptablematch” with the sum of the area’s own load
and losses, Ts, and the area portion of 10 p (Fa - Fs).
The system natural response coefficient, J3, is not a con-
stant, neither is it accurately obtainable nor predictable. It
depends on the current status and governor response character-
istics of the presently on-line units [15] and the sensitivity of
loads. Depending on the magnitude of upset from the prevail-
ing pre-disturbance frequency, the variable number of gover-
nors coming out of deadband causes J3 to be highly sensitive to
upset size.[ 1,121Moreover, the observation or measurement of
natural response can be obscured by normal system activities.
E.g., generating units may be actively responding to prior
control signals and, of course, individual system loads are con-
stantly and arbitrarily changing.
The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
Guidelines specify using 10 B (Fa - Fs) to represent the area
portion of the frequency response term in area’s AGC process.
The Guidelines allow the use of a constant for B which i to
be estimated annually based on the average of apparent area p
values as observed for disturbances that occurred during on-
peak hours. (The sum of all area J3 values is system J3.)
Guidelines altemately allow using a variable B so as to repre-
sent an estimate of the area’s p variation. However, they fur-
ther require that the monthly average of IBI should not be
numerically smaller than 1% of the control area’s estiniated
yearly native peak load demand (IBI is the magnitude of B.)
Hevery area used an underestimated value for IBI, opera-
tion of the interconnection would tend to show characteristics
similar to those associated with constant net interchange con-
trol. On the other hand, indiscriminate use of over-estimated
values for IBI, would tend to yield inter-area generation oscilla-
tions.
Using B as proxy for an area’s J3 restates one of the major
objectives of AGC - it is desired that ACK in each control
area provide a generation trend which has an acceptable matdi
witli that representing the sum of the area’s own load and
losses, 10 B (Fa - Fs),and Ts. Generation in this area equals
the sum of load and losses, and Ta. Therefore, the difference,
called the area control e m r (ACE), between the trend of gener-
ation and that with which an acceptable match is desired, is:
ACE=(Ta-Ts)-lOB(Fa-Fs)
Even if it were possible, it would not be desirable to
maintain ACE at zero because this would require unnecessarily
rapid maneuvering of units. The definition of a desirable gen-
eration trend remains an open issue.
As long as each area manages to keep ACE and its
(several minute) average bounded, the interconnection will
continue to operate successfully despite reasonable errors in
metering of frequency and tie-line tlows, and/or the use of
imprecise fmquency and power interchange schedules. Meeting
these conditions, each area will be supported by other mas
when it faces a large change of load, or the tripping of a unit,
that it otherwise could not alone handle satisfactorily.
Furthermore, huge economic savings are realii~dby utility
interconnections versus the altemative of each operating a$an
isolated entily.
Power nihmatch in the intcrconncction causes frequency
to change, and sustained frequency dcviation lroni Uie noniind
value causes t h e error. Siniilarly, sustained deviation lroni
I
1110
tbe interchange power schedule results in inadvertent energy
exchange between area$.Even if an area were able to maintain
its ACE at zero all the time, sustained frequency deviation
from the scheduled value (whether offset from nominal or not)
would cause inadvertent accumulation. However, such inadver-
tent exchange benefits those areas requiring support and they
accept respomibility for its subsequent retum.lo multi-area
operation, over the very long term, the energy generated in
each area must he made to match the area's native load and
losses, and the area's interchange energy schedule. There is no
equivalent energy balance consmint for isolated operation
because Ta and Ts are each identically zero.
"bere are procedures by which time error is corrected and
inadvertent energy is paid back. Methods m described in =fer-
ences 12 and 16.
To define the objectives of AGC when the area is a part
of an interconnection we again refer to the comparison of
AGC strategies. However, for a multi-area interconnection the
first attribute listed for a single controt area should be replaced
by:
Of AGC strategies, the one that yields a more acceptable
ACE trend gets a higher score.
All other aspects for which the AGC strategies were com-
pared for a single control area are also applicable for multi-area
operation. In addition, the following ataibute is included for
multi-area systems.
The strategy which maintains a mote acceptable range of
inadvertent energy and repays its accumulation in a timely
manner is preferred. Strategies that exploit unilateral inadver-
tent corrections, which simultaneously reduce time error, may
be consided to deserve a higher score.[12,161
Timely and accurate calibration of power metering on
each tie-line versus energy metering over recent hours can con-
tribute to the veracity of the AGC process.
T N
It is typical for only a subset of units in any area to be
equipped with remote control hardware. For a variety of rea-
sons, a fraction of those equipped m not operated under AGC
at any given time. Of those that are, some do not always re-
spond to control signals, e.g. because of backlash and wind-up
in speed-govemormotom. Thus, the rate and range of output
M W change that AGC can realiie is limited.
With this limitation, and notwithstanding the details of
AGC algorithm designs, control areas are Undbk to compen-
sate quickly for an abrupt large power mismatch caused, for
example, by a unit trip. NERC Guidelines define disturbance
conditions for such events. The guidelines require that ACE in
the disturbed area should be returned to zero within ten
minutes following the start of the disturbance. To satisfy this
requirement for large power upsets, system operators typically
need to manually intervene, to alter interchange schedules, to
bring some hydro and combustion units on line, and/or to
manually q u e s t generation cbanges Erom some units whether
or not they are on AGC. In non-disturbed areas, depending on
the match between B and area p, AGC may be quite in-
sensitive to the power upsel - thereby avoiding undo
comproniise of naturdl wsponse.
Disturbance conditions it] an area are not frequent evcnts.
They typically occur only a few tinics pcr nioritli. I n contrast
with its limited role under disturbancc cordictilions, AGC plays
a dominate role in providing an acceptable generation trend
under nonnal conditions.
Such a tend should have an acceptable match with that of
the area demand [i.e. the sum of the area's own load and losses,
-
10 B (Fa Fs), and Ts.] Area demand unpredictably varies
around an average mnd. With the existing limits on the rate
and range of generation change and the fact that steam units
take a few to several dozen seconds to fully respond,
maneuvering generation to match fast varying components of
area demand is impossible. Furthermore, maneuvering
generation based on these components will not necessarily
produce a moR desirable ACE brend[l7]
Even if generation control rate and range were not as lim-
ited as they are and units could respond much faster, it may
still be undesirable to maneuver generation attempting to
match fast varying components of the m a demand. Such oper-
ation would increase equipment wear and tear.
For normal operation, NERC guidelines encourage each
area to control so that ACE crosses zero at least every ten
minutes and has a ten-minute average below an area specific
value. Lack of generation reaction to the components of area
demand whose periods are smaller than several dozen seconds
should not reduce the level of compliance with these guide-
lineS.
Almost all systems filter tie-line power flow measure-
ments to compute ACE, and then process ACE to arrive at an
AGC decision in each cycle. Any form of signal processing is
in fact a filtering action: the sampling process in itself is a fil-
ter; therefore filtering is inescapable. Filtering of any type
introduces delays and distortion, and design should attempt to
minimize them.Moreover, unless digital sampling is preceded
by coordinated analog filtering, disruptive aliasing will be
introduced into the process.
Typical filters on tie-line metering introduce delays of up
to a few seconds. ACE processing logic introduces further
delays. Given these delays and the response characteristics of
units, most systems use 2 or 4 seconds for the data acquisition
*and decision cycles of the AGC system. Reduction of this
cycle to a fraction of a second would substantially increaqe the
percent of overall CPU time required for AGC with little or no
improvement in system perfomaoce; in the presence of alias-
ing, performance could even be degmded.
SIMULATIONMODELS F0R AGC STUDIES
In various literature one can find analyses related to elec-
tro-mechanical transients and intermachine oscillations which
follow power balance upsets. Where these analyses utilize
such variables as rate of change of power angles, or local
frequency, etc., the phenomena being studied are really not the
slow and deliberate process of AGC, but the dynamics
themselves. The requirement of anti-aliasing filters for the
typical time scales of AGC measurements prevents the
observation of such dynamics. The studied systems may come
to some final off-nominal frequency, or other imbalance from
scheduled conditions which AGC is then responsible to
correct on its own time scale of action.
As U cpntrol control process AGC is n P i t k p r able nor t n n
be e.yper*ted to pluy any role in dcmipinR elecuw-mPclruiiic,~I
transients iricluding intermachine o.wi1kution.v.111 systems pos-

sessing coordinated control steam units, it takes a few to sev-
eral dozen seconds for AGC actions to be reali74. Therefore,
system models developed for AGC studies need not repment
phenomena having time coostants shorter than a few seconds.
AGC studies, the momentary difference between the
frequency of different areas can be ignored. For all AGC pur-
poses, the frequency used for one area to compute ACE should
be the same as used in other areas so long as they remain
interconnected. In AGC practice, rapidly varying components
of frequency are almost unobservable due to filters involved in
the process.
OVFRVIFW AND CONCLUSIONS
A major factor that must be comidered in the design of a
control system is the nature of the utility plant to be con-
tmlled. If it already exists, or its design has been completed,
the control system must accommodate the characteristics of
that design. Even if the control system is designed as part of
the overall design, so that insofar as possible the plant and the
Control system designs are coordinated with each other, physi-
cal and thermodynamic limits am non-negotiable, and often
constrain control objectives.
In the case of automatic generation control of electric
power systems, the utility plant, i.e. those individual com-
pany systems, pools or interconnections that comprise
subcontinental or continental systems, already exists and
represents a massive investment that can only be changed
slowly over time in an evolutionary manner. Accordingly, any
proposed contribution to improved control of such systems
must accommodate existing physical realities if they am to be
meaningful.
Most important of these physical realities are Newton’s
laws of motion, and the effects of inertia that are entailed
thereby. These effects are governing, not only at the level of
the entire system, with its massive inertial effects, but ako at
the level of the individual boiler-turbine-generator units. An
inescapable consequence is the impossibility of matching load
and generation other than in a time-average manner. The degree
of mirmatch that must be accepted is dictated by (i) the opera-
tional constraints of the utility plant, (ii) the limits of control
effom that are available and accepted, and (iii) the signal/noise
ratio in the instantaneous estimate of generation demand.
Control realization is limited by how much stored energy
is available in generating units, and how rapidly its conversion
rate can be changed. The signal/noise ratio is limited by ele-
ments of the component signals that do not represent true
changes in load, by instrumentation noise and error (possibly
including heavy aliasing if not purposely avoided by filtering),
by non-synchronicity of signals, etc. Additional, and some-
times purposeful, constraints are imposed by deadbands in
mechanical linkages, by tnmport delays, by catch-up speeds
of control motors, and other inescapable nonlinearities.
In view of the considerations described in this paper,
attempts to reduce the root-mean-square magnitude of a sys-
tem’s ACE below some threshold, or to achieve any reduction
in a portion of its spectrum beyond some frequency, are
inevitably futile and counterproductive.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h e Task Force (Authors) wisll to acknowledge
contributioiis from: C. F. Abcll, J. R. Beachman, A. Bose,
I
1111
A. M. DiCaprio, A. A. Fouad, R. K. Green, Jr, K. Hill, R.
K. McCrea, T. L. Overly, E. H. Preston, III, J. E. Price, R.
P. Schulte, G. B. Sheble, R. R. Shoults, L. H. Siddiqi, J.
Singh, J. E. Troutman, S. V e m d , a d s . Virmani.
REFERENCES
[l] D. N. Ewart, “Automatic Generation Control -
Performance Under Normal Conditions,” Systems
Engineering for Power: Status and Prospects, U.S.
Government Document COW-750867.1975, pp. 1-14.
[2] C. Concordia, “Power System Objectives’ Side Effects:
Good and Rad,” IEEE Power Engineering Review,
September 1990, pp. 12-13.
[3] R. D. Dunlop, and D. N. Ewm, “System Requirements
for Dynamic Performance and Response of Generating
Units,” IEEE PAS, May/June 1975, pp 838-849.
[4] C. Concordia, F. P. de Mello, L. K. Kirchmayer, and R.
P. Schulz, “Effect of Prime-Mover Response and
Governing Characteristics on System Dynamic
Performance,” Pmxedings of American Power Conference,
1966, pp 1074-1085.
[5] M. R. Stambach, and D. N. Ewart, “Dynamics of
Interconnected Power Systems: A Tutorial for System
Dispatchers ami Plant Operators,” Electric Power Research
In.titute, Report EL6360-L, Section 9, May 1989.
[6] E E E WG on Power Plant Response to Load Changes,
“ M W Response of Fossil Fueled Steam Units,” IEEE
PAS, March/ApriI 1973, pp 455-463.
[7] D. N. Ewart, “Who‘s Watching Frequency These Days,”
Power Technology, Issue 53, April 1988.
[8] D. G. Carroll, R. G. Serenka, and H. R. Propst, “BWR
Maneuvering Capability,” Proceedings of American Power
Conference, 1979, pp 73-78.
[9] N. P. Mueller, “Response of Pressurized Water Reactors to
Network Power Generation Demands,” IEEE PAS, October
1982, ~~3943-3950.
[IO] A. Klopfenstein, uReSponse of Steam and Hydroelectric
Generating Plants to Generation Control Tests,” AlEE
PAS, December 1959, pp 1371-1381.
[ l l ] P. D. Henderson, er al, “Cost Aspects of AGC,
Inadvertent Energy and Time Error,” IEEE TPS,February
1990, pplll-118.
[12] L. S . VanSlyck, N. Jaleeli, and W. R. Kelley,
“Implications of Frequency Bias Settings on Interconnected
System Operation and Inadvertent Energy Accounting,”
IEEE TPS,May 1989, pp712-723.
E131 N. Cohn, “Discussion of : The Megawatt-Frequency
Control Problem: a New Approach Via Optimal Control
Theory,” IEEE PAS, April 1970, ~ 5 7 4 - 5 7 6 .
[14] N. Cohn “Control of Generation and Power Flow on
Interconnected Systems,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York 1961.
[15] T. Kennedy, S . M. Hoyt, and C. F. Abell, “Variable,
Non-Linear Tie-Line Frequency Bias for Interconnected
Systems Control,” IEEE TPS, August 1988, pp1244-
1253.
1161 K. P. Schulte, W.L. McReynolds, and D. E. Badley,
“Modified Automatic Time Error Control and Inadvertent
Interchange Reduction for thc WSCC Inlcrconneded Power
Systems,” Paper 90SM 304-7 PWRS, IVesenled at I99U
1EWpES Sunmer Meeting, m K a y o l i s , July 16-19.
I
1112
[I71 L. S . VanSlyck, N. Jaleeli, and W. R. Kelley, “A
Comprehensive Shakedown of an Automatic Generation
C00tr0l Pr-s~,” IEEE TPS,May 1989, ~ ~ 7 7 1 - 7 8 1 .
BIOGRAPHIES
Nasser Jaleeli (M’79) graduated from the College of
Engineering, University of Tehran in 1%7. He earned the PhD
in Electrical Engineering from tbe Imperial College of Science
and Technology, of the University of London in 1975. He
joined the teaching staff of Arya-Mehr University of
Technology (AMUT) in 1967. While serving AMUT as an
Assistant Professor from 1975 to 1979, be actively served the
local industry and, in particular, as the head of Electrical
Services Division of Bonyan Consulting Engineers.
Dr. Jaleeli joined Ohio University in 1979, attaining the
rank of associate professor before joining AEP Service
Corporation in 1983. At AEP he has been principal or co-
principal investigator for several system control center pro-
jects. Automatic generation control has been his main respon-
sibility in recent years. He is a Principal Engineer in
Operations Control Systems.
Dr. Jaleeli is lhe author or coauthor of several research
papers in the Electric Power Systems field. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio, and a member of
Eta Kappa Nu.
Louis S. VaoSIyck (M’SS, SM’63) has over 35 yean expe-
rience in the elecaic industry, primarily in computer applica-
tions for power system operation and engineering. He earned
the BSEE and MSEE degrees from North Dakota State
University, and tbe PhD from Illinois Institute of Technology,
all in Electrical Engineering.
Joining the American Electric Power Service Corporation
in New York in 1968, Dr. VanSlyck participated in research,
development, and implementation of the h t large power sys-
tem network state estimator in the world. He is presently an
AEP Senior Staff Engineer in Engineering Computer
Applications at Columbus, Ohio.
lo the WEE, Dr. VanSlyck has been chairman, 1966, of
the Red River Valley Subsection. He was an original member
of the Power Engineering Education Committee (PEEC) and
served drat committee from 1963 to 1975, including four years
as its secretary. He was responsible for publishing the surveys
of Electric Power Engineering E<lucatiooal Resources in U.S.
accredited schools for 1970, 1972, and 1974. I n 1980 he
nxeived the IEEE award for recognition of dislinguished seMce
to the Power Engineering Society.
Dr. VanSlyck is a meniber of Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu,
and the Society of the Sigma Xi for “Dedication to Research in
Science.” He has been 3 registered Professional Engineer in
North Dakota since 1959, and in the state of Ohio siiice 1972.
He is the author or coauthor of several research papers in the
Electric Power Systems lieid.
Donald N. Ewart (M’SS, SM’75, F’78) is a native of
Buffalo, New York. He holds a BSEE degree from Come11
University and an MS degree i n Engineering from Union
College.
After gaining experience in the U S . Air Force and the
Generrrl Eleclric Transli)rlner Depdrtlllenl he joined GE’s
Electric Utility Systeais Engineering Department in
Scbeoectady, NY,where be conducted studies in bulk power
system stability, boiler and control simulations, excitation and
turbine control analyses, automatic generation control synthe-
sis, and subsynchronous resonance. Mr. Ewart was responsible
for the formu1;ltioOof GE’s digital implementation of AGC and
following through with field installation. Mr.Ewart was: named
Manager, System Dynamics and Control in 1969, and
Manager, System Performance Engineering in 1977. During
this period he made major contributions to define the role of
large interconnected power systems.
In 1980, Don changed assignments, becoming Manager,
Transmission and Distribution, with respomibilities for studies
and product application engineering for ac and HVDC
Transmission, Distribution Systems, and for EPRI’s High
Voltage Transmission Research Center in Lenox, MA. Systeni
engineering for several large General Electric HVDC projects
was carried out under his direction.
Mr.Ewart joined Power Technologies, TOC. in 1987 where
he is Manager, Consulting Services. Don i s a Fellow of the
LEEE, and an active member of the Power Engineering Society
and the Fellows Committee. He is the author of over 40 tech-
nical articles and papers, and a registered Professional Engineer
in the states of New York and Massachusetts.
Lester H. Fink (M’51, SM’S8, F’73, LF’90) received the
BS and MS degrees f” the University of Pennsylvania in
1950 and 1960. He has forty years experience in’eledric utility
systems engineering and re.search, including twenty-four years
with tbe Philadelphia Electric Company. At Philadelphia, he
conducted researcb for and drafted the functional specifications
for the indusby’s first digitaUy directed automatic generation
control system and, a decade later, its second-generation
replacement. Les has authored or coauthod some chi- papers,
and holds two U.S. patents related to power system control.
Arthur C. Hoffmann (M’62, SM’75) graduated fmm the
University of Pittsburgh with a BSEE degree. After graduation
be joined the EMS Department of Westinghouse Electric wbere
he beld various positions from Project Manager through EMS
Depmment Manager. He is currently Chairman of ECC, Inc.,
which he co-founded in 1978. Mr.Hoffmann is also Chairman
of the System Control Subcommittee of the Power System
Engineering Committee. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in several states and a member of Eta Kappa Nu.
 I
DIBCUBSION
JACX Y. YILLER, Cajun Electric Power Coopera-
tive, Baton Rouge, LA. The authors are to be
complimented for presenting the technical de-
scription of AGC so clearly. The industry
has needed such a fundamental review. It
would be interesting if the authors would ex-
pand the subject somewhat and discuss the
economics of AGC as well. Specifically, what
is the affect of generating unit load-
frequency control on production cost? Does
system load-frequency control increase or
reduce the system production cost?
H. Glavitsch, (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH8092 Zurich,
Switzerland): This is a very much needed and timely paper which
clarifies a number of subjects of automatic generation control. The
authors and the task force are to be congratulated on their efforts and
care in explaining the concepts, limitations and facts. Unfortunately,
there have been several misconceptions of AGC earlier which have led
to unrealistic investigations out of which papers have been published
whose results are quite impractical. The present paper puts almost all
of them in the right perspective and says what is possible and reason-
able in this field.
One of the main items which quite often has been the starting point
of misled investigations is the turbine-generator model which was
expanded to a two-area model for AGC. The parameters of this model
give the impression that the output of the turbine can be changed in a
fast way. Studies which do not take into account the crossover ele-
ments in a thermal unit or the behavior of the penstocks in a hydraulic
installation nor the real sampling interval of the data acquisition
system come to results where frequency or tie-line power could be
corrected within one second. Irrespective of the fact that this is not
possible there is no incentive to control the system in such a way as
the paper makes it clear from various directions. If frequency devia-
tions (several hundreds of mHz or over one Hz) are to be expected
other means like load shedding have to be employed.
In Europe there is an extended experience with AGC in the
UCPTE system. One feature is that area controllers with different
sampling rates (decision cycles) and different control laws (propor-
tional, proportional-integral) having different parameters cooperate
without difficulties. In at least one country AGC is implemented on
two levels, one receiving setpoints from the other. So the basic concept
of AGC is very robust.
It might be useful to consider the following few additional remarks
which could be helpful in understanding the material in the paper.
Under “Tie-Line Bias Control” a verbal explanation is given as to
the adjustment of the bias B, e.g. by the term “acceptable match.” In
the years of active development of AGC the term “non-interactive
control” has been introduced which means that no control actions
should be initiated, for example in area 2 when the power upset is in
area 1 (as assumed in the paper). This can be achieved by setting B
equal to p. The paper explains that p is not constant and difficult to
measure or to obtain which is certainly correct. As a concept, however,
it is worthwhile to mention it. It is to be kept in mind, that no “control
actions” means no “AGC control” (ACE = 0) whereas primary con-
trol will contribute significantly to the support \of the other area.
At another point, namely in the conclusion of the chapter on
multi-area control (written in italics), it is found by this discusser that
the foregoing arguments are not logically leading to this statement.
The points mentioned before that statement are subjects of the
control structure, observability and controllability. It is agreed that a
quick return of the frequency is no basis for advocating an AGC
algorithm but the reasons for not aiming at a quick return lie in the
technical constraints of the turbine-generator set and not in the
control structure. So, an explanation of this point may be useful.
For the purposes of discussing the effects of incorrect measure-
ments and of various modes of AGC operation the following analysis
is offered which may complement the explanations in the paper.
1113
Assume a three area system which is to operate under AGC. for
each area the formation of an ACE according the formula in the
paper is assumed.
ACE, = Ta, - Ts, - IOB, (Fa - Fs,), i = 1,2,3
In addition the power balance must hold:
Tal + Ta, + Ta, = 0
Each AGC controller should function according to a control law which
in the final steady state reduces the ACE to a small value which is
zero if the law is integrating. If the ideal case is assumed (ACE = 0)
the following system of equations can be set up
Tal Ta, Ta, Fa
a1 - 10 B, = Ts, - 10 B, Fs,
1 - 10 B, = Ts, - 10 B, Fs,
1 - 10 B, = Ts, - 10 B,- Fs,.
1 1 1 =o
All the setpoints governing the exchange of power and the frequency
are on the right-hand side. All the variables are on the left side.
The system has a solution if the matrix is non-singular which can be
achieved if the sum of the bias values does not disappear. A first
conclusion from this requirement is that at least one area has to do
frequency control (one B must be non-zero). The converse is also true.
None of the areas or several together can do flat frequency control.
This is equivalent to avoiding that one of the diagonal one’s becomes
zero which would lead to singularity. As far as errors in measuring
tie-line power or frequency is concerned which can be transformed to
errors in the setpoints it can be stated that the system has a stable
solution irrespective of inaccurate setpoints. The right-hand side must
not be consistent or must not have accurate values for Fsi, for
example. The AGC system will generate a set of tie-line powers and
one well defined frequency. They will deviate from the setpoints but
the system is stable which in general leads to inadvertent interchange
and to a time error.
Thus, there is another indication that the AGC system is quite
robust allowing non-consistent setpoints without jeopardizing the sys-
tem.
It is hoped that the findings of this paper will find its due recogni-
tion among system analysts and researchers.
Manuscript received March 3, 1991.
Charles Concordia, Consulting Engineer,
Venice, Florida. I would like to offer the
following comments:
As a general comment, transmission in a single
company not only serves to go from generator
to load, but also serves to permit sharing of
load changes among all generators. This is
well known, and within a company advantage is
taken of this to avoid large generation
changes on any particular generator. It would
be ridiculous to have tie-line control exten-
sively within a company. From a physical
point of view the-- benefits should be
obtained from interconnections between com-
panies, Thus it is almost too obvious that
rigidly controlling “tie line” loading is -
silly.
The only negative comment I have is that, even
though I agree with most of the paper, it is
always dangerous to say that something cannot
be done in the future, and the somewhat nega-
tive tone of the paper may “turn some people
off“, who ought to read it.
1114
THOMAS KENNEDY (System Operations Consultant,
St. Louis,Missouri) The authors and the System
Control Subcommittee are to be complemented
for setting the stage for further discussion
of the very complex topic of automatic
generation control (AGC). It is the opinion of
this discusser that the conclusions reached in
the paper (in italics) are correct. The North
American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
Operating Committee is certainly very much
concerned with developing an acceptable
"definition of a desirable generation trend".
The NERC Operating Committee promotes
the reliable and coordinated operation of the
North American interconnections through
operating policies and procedures that are
contained in the Reliability Criteria for
Interconnected Systems Operation (Criteria)
and the Operating Guides (Guides). The
Criteria and Guides (rather than guidelines)
deal with all aspects of interconnection
contro1,including AGC, and are designed to
promote an orderly sharing of interconnection
resources and burdens. While AGC is certainly
an important part of interconnection control,
it is just one facet of the overall
interconnected systems operation.
The paper should be read with the
perspective that the system operator has
several operating tools and procedures at his
disposal, including AGC, that aid him in
operating his system in a reliable and
economic manner. Those same tools also allow
him to contribute to the reliable and economic
operation of his interconnection by following
the NERC Criteria and Guides. Present day
control room facilities coupled with present
day operating techniques and procedures are
quite adequate for the system operator to
fulfill both of these obligations. The authors
are quite correct in stating that a number of
the requirements and recommendations of the
NERC Operating Guides, regarding system
regulation, cannot and should not be
accomplished through AGC. However, it must be
remembered that the NERC Criteria and Guides
can all be followed by the proper application
of the operating tools and procedures at the
system operator's disposal. AGC capability or
intended use should not be confused with the
control area's obligation to follow the NERC
Criteria and Guides.
The paper is correct in its description
of the "flat tie line " unstable control
action when there is a tie line measurement
error on the part of one of two control areas.
However, where the system response is
recognized through a frequency bias setting,
a stable frequency point will always
theoretically be reached. Also, both the low
and high bias setting cases, described on page
4 of the paper, will result in a frequency and
interchange movement similar to that shown in
Figure 1 of reference 15. It should be noted
that tie line bias control was developed to
eliminate some of the disadvantages of "flat
tie line" or "zero bias" control.
The strategy that discusses the cost of
"wear and tear" of regulating generating units
should also mention the obligation of each
control area to carry its share of the
regulation burden and not cause undue burden
to its interconnection neighbors. It also
should consider the differential cost of an
uneconomic combination of regulating units
that could result from insufficient regulating
capability of some generating units.
The NERC interconnections have a multi-
control area configuration and therefore must
rely on tie line bias control. However, some
interconnections of the world, such as the
British grid and the Chinese provincial
systems, are centrally controlled as a single
area. Single area control requires that
frequency be controlled by AGC but, of course,
does not require direct AGC control of tie
lines. While the multi-area configuration must
closely control frequency and interchange,
because they are so closely interlocked (l),
the centrally controlled system can use
frequency as a regulating tool if their
"biggest contingency to system size" ratio is
small.
Areas of AGC technology that the
discusser feels need further study include
HVDC interties characteristics, proper
application of expert systems, and automatic
MVAR control between control areas.
References
[I] L.A.Mollman,and T-Kennedy.
"Interrelationship of Time Error, Frequency
Deviation, and Inadvertent Flow on an
Interconnected System", Paper 31 TP 67-136
presented at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting,
New York, N.Y. January 29-February 3 , 1967.
Manuscript received February 19, 1991.
ROBERT P. SCHULTE (Consulting Engineer,
Portland, Oregon): This paper does indeed
provide a good viev of many AGC topics that
are of interest. The folloving discussion is
about the topics of acceptable ACE trend and
vear on regulation units.
In the paper the highest rated attribute of
AGC strategies for a multi-area inter-
connection is one that yields a more
acceptable ACE trend. Much further dovn the
list of strategies is an attribute that
accumulates lover cost associated vith vear
and tear of regulation on all units. These
strategies, vhich are given in preferred
order, are not exclusive. To a limit, as is
pointed out in the paper, an improved ACE
trend does require greater response by
regulating units to AGC signals.
Thus a more acceptable ACE means more strict
load and schedule folloving by energy sources
in the area. In assessing the present state
of AGC the authors point out in their
conclusion the futility of attempts to reduce
ACE performance belov some threshold. But
vhat vi11 happen in the future as pover
system demands grow? Increasingly additional
loads are being met vith scheduled imports
and alternative source or non-utility
generators vithout AGC Capability. Also, as
is mentioned, nuclear plants are not usually
used for AGC. Will ve then be obliged to put
even greater AGC duty on existing regulation
units, vi11 ACE control performance threshold
suffer or vi11 we reach a time when ve must
employ special energy conversion devices of
some kind designed for area load folloving?
Manuscript received March 4 , 1991.
 I
Carson W. Taylor, Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon: The purpose of this paper seems to be
to lay to rest the "mischief" started by Elgerd and Fosha
[A,B] over twenty years ago. Although many of the
basics in the present paper were given in the discussions
of references A and B, many subseqent academic papers
have made unwarranted assumptions.
AGC is a slow (tens of seconds) follow-up control to
return frequency and interchange to scheduled values
following disturbances. For system dynamic perfor-
mance, attention should be paid mainly to the primary
powerplant controls (excitation, prime mover, and en-
ergy supply controls). These controls are often poorly
tuned. Data is generally unavailable for energy supply
system models. Area control cannot be responsive if the
power plant generation controls are either sluggish or
excessively oscillatory.
Besides helping the bookkeepers and keeping clocks
accurate, there are other reasons for good AGC perfor-
mance. Part of the difficulties in connecting the eastern
and western North American interconnection in the late
1960s was probably due to poor AGC performance such
a s undergeneration during morning pickup. The diffi-
culties led to an expensive solution-back-to-back dc
links. My study indicated, however, that the generation
and transmission additions in Montana, Wyoming,
Nebraska, and the Dakotas of the 1970s would have
allowed successful ac interconnection. Partly because of
concerns related to the poor AGC performance of the
eastern interconnection the study was rejected by west-
ern utilities. Special generation control at selected power
plants and improved AGC logic might have improved
performance of the interconnection. Improved AGC
logic might have been reduced frequency bias coeffi-
cients for western utilities during morning pickup
hours of the eastern interconnection-. The bias coeffi-
cients should be closer to the early morning western
natural response (p). Such logic is feasible with digital
AGC .
Related to the above paragraph, recall that a motivation
for the Elgerd and Fosha work was the east-west inter-
connection problems.
The paper focuses on the potential for automatic genera-
tion control to improve system dynamic performance.
Nowadays, slowly occurring voltage instability is a
major industry concern. One solution is fast emergency
automatic generation control. There is a race between
generation increase to improve stability and generator
current limiting and transformer tap changing. Several
examples can be cited to show the importance of genera-
tion control:
A voltage collapse in southern England on May 20,
1986 was averted by emergency start of 1000 Mw of gas
turbines within five minutes [Cl.
Voltage stability along the Pacific AC Intertie [Dl
for disturbances such as loss of the 3100 MW Pacific DC
Intertie could be improved by fast generation changes in
the Pacific Southwest. The Hoover hydro power plant
and several pumped storage plants are candidates for
large power increase. AGC in the Southwest can detect
the loss of the major tie-lie (DC Intertie) and command
the generation change. Controls are available [E] to
1115
make very large hydro generation changes within one
minute.
The Puget Sound (Seattle) area voltage stability
problems can be improved by dropping hydro generation
in eastern Washington state and ramping generation to
the north (B. C. Hydro) and to the south. Activation of
reactive reserve at generators or SVCs could be used to
trigger the generation changes.
You say you are providing a resource to guide research
into topics related to AGC. What research do you think is
needed?
I think better characterization of both prime mover con-
trol deadbands (andor backlash) and natural regulation
may be useful. The statement is made that many gover-
nor deadbands are beyond 0.035 Hz (0.06%). Reference F
and its discussions address this subject; see also refer-
ence G.We should realize that a t any point in time, gov-
ernors may be positioned randomly within deadbands
and for large systems a statistical characterization is
useful. Many hydraulic governors have vibration motors
t o reduce deadband by dither modulation; process noise
may also provide dither modulation. Do you advocate in-
tentional deadbands for electronic prime mover control?
Incidentally, IEEE Std 122-1985 IEEE Recommended
Practice for Functional and Performance Char-
acteristics of Control Systems for Steam Turbine-
Generator Units depreciates the term governor % ad-
vance the understanding that control systems need not
be limited to rotating flyweights but include mechanical,
hydraulic, and electronic components."
Do you have evidence regarding the statements that
relatively small generation-load imbalances are arrested
mainly by load response?
You say that "the system natural response coefficient, p,
is not a constant, neither is it accurately obtainable nor
predictable." Do you favor research of on-line estimation
of p with a view toward adaptive control (setting B = p)?
From time-scale separation or psuedo steady-state
notions, "perfect" calculation of ACE results with B = p. I
have always felt this attacks unnecessary control and
oscillation problems at a fundamental level.
I commend you for a paper that advances the under-
standing of automatic generation control.
A . 0. I. Elgerd and C. E. Fosha, Jr., "Optimum Megawatt-
Frequency Control of Multiarea Electric Energy Systems,'
IEEE Transactiom on Power Systems,vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 556-563,
April 1970.
B . C. E. Fosha, Jr. and 0. I. Elgerd, "The Megawatt-Frequency
Control Problem: A New Approach via Optimal Control
Theory," IEEE Transactwns on Power Systems, vol. 89, no. 4,
pp. 563477, April 1970.
C M. G. Dwek, Study Group 38 discussion, Proceedings of
33rd CIGRE Session, vol. 11, 1988.
D . W. Mittelstadt, C. Taylor, M. Minger, J. LuiN, J. McCalley,
and J. Mechenbier, 'Voltage Instability Modeling and Solutions
as Applied to the Pacific Intertie," CIGRE 38-230,1990.
E . D. N. Scott, R. L. Cresap et al., 'Closed Loop Digital Automatic
Generation Controller,' IEEfPES C73 518-8.
F . C . W. Taylor, K. Y. Lee, and D. P. Dave, 'Automatic
Generation Control with Governor Deadband Effects," I E E E
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-99, pp.
2030-2036, Novembermecember 1979.
I

1116

G. C. W. Taylor, discussion of "Inertial, Governor, and A w l nitude constraint:

Economic Dispatch Load Flow Simulations of Loss of Gen-
eration Contingencies," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-104,no. 11, pp. 3020-3028,
+
( X ( t 1) - X ( t ) ( I&,e
November 1985.
e) The rate of change of state variables must be zero at t = N;
i.e., the system must reach a smooth level at the final time
of control (i.e., X(t,) = 0)

X ( t - 1) - X ( t ) = 0
A. Kryhrni (The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH): The
authors have performed an invaluable nervice to the utility in- The problem is to find a control sequence U =
dustry by presenting the practical limitations of AGC which are (Uo, U , , . . . Ut-l) and a corresponding trajectory S =
constrained by the dynamic response of the process involved. (Xo,X I , . . . Xt) determined by the above equations and condi-
The authors have defined a number of strategies that clearly tions while minimizing the performance index J:
define what AGC is expected to perform when it is controlled
M a process. In these strategies, limited knowledge of process
dynamics is utilized. However, a strategy which uses the gross t=o
dynamics of a boiler for the dynamic control of generation and
load may also be considered. In the following, such a strategy where D ( t ) is a weighting vector on control actions.
will be presented, and the authors' comments concerning the For such a control, the gross boiler model developed by
proposed strategy are welcomed. Astrom [I] can be used. In this model, the control variables
Let the gross dynamics of a boiler be represented by the fol- are fuel flow, valve setting and feed water flow, and the state
lowing linear, vector difference equations. variable is the drum pressure.
The above control strategy may be possible, if the models of
X(t + 1) = X ( t ) + B U ( t ) power plant components are developed for AGC control. AU-
thors' comments concerning the above are welcomed.
where
[I] Astram, K.J. and Eklund, K., "A Simplified Non-Linear
Model of a Drum Boiler-Turbine U i t , " Int. Journal of Con-
trol, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1972.
and P ( t ) is the MW generated at time t .
Also, ansume the energy delivered to the system is con-
strained to be equal to the energy consumed by the load over
the next few minutes; that is
T.S.Bhatti,D.P.Kothari,and J - S a t i s h (Indian
I n s t i t u t e o f Technology D e l h i , I n d i a ) : We w i s h
t o commend t h e a u t h o r s f o r their extremely
valuable and t i m e l y c o n t r i b u t i o n i n the
where &(to) is generated M W at time to;ACEis the area control important area o f AGC. T h i s Task Force paper
would go a l o n g way i n p r o v i d i n g a g r e a t
+
error, Pf is the forecseted load a t time to 2'; and T is the resource t o r e s e a r c h e r s , p r a c t i s i n g engineers
final time of control. T is appropriately chosen based on boiler and s t u d e n t s t o understand and t o c a r r y Out
response. The discrete version of the above equation can be further r e s e a r c h i n t o AGC related topics.
written BB However, we would l i k e t o o f f e r some comments
and seek the author's c l a r i f i c a t i o n on some
N-1
points.
pc(t) t A C E t PfT 1. I t i s a p r a c t i c e by u t i l i t i e s t o use a
P(t)At = small value o f speed droops f o r active
1=0 2
generators i n the range o f 3% t o 5%.The
percentage droop o f each u n i t determines the
The constraints of the control problem can be expressed as
s h a r i n g o f a d d i t i o n a l l o a d amongest the var-
i o u s generating u n i t s . & higher value o f speed
a) Final time of control in fixed droop ensures more s t a b l e p a r a l l e l o p e r a t i o n
whereas a l o w e r v a l u e o f speed droop p r o v i d e s
b) Initial and terminal boundary values are given better l o a d frequency c o n t r o l . T h u s a b a l a n c e
has t o be s t r u c k between t h e two t o a r r i v e a t
X ( 0 ) = So optimum v a l u e . ~n o u r computer simulation
X ( N )= X(T) s t u d i e s f o r AGC we have f o u n d t h a t l o w e r v a l u e
o f speed droop(4%) and h i g h e r v a l u e o f speed
droop (10%) g i v e more or l e s s same dynamic
c) The control variables and the state variables must satisfy responses(frequency,tie-power and ACE d e v i a t -
a magnitude constraint: i o n s ) f o r reheat t h e r m a l u n i t s i n presence o f
generation r a t e constraint(GRC) of 3%/min.
T h e r e f o r e , one wonders i f i t i s possible t o
Xnin I X ( t ) I Xln, p r e f e r a higher value of speed droop for
k i n I U ( t ) 5 Um.x t h e r m a l u n i t s ? . I f t h e answer i s yes, then,
w i l l t h e governor be e c o n o m i c a l l y c h e a p e r ? . I f
d) The rate of change of state variables must satisfy a mag- t h e answer i s no, t h e n f o r what reasons?
 -

1117

However. f o r hydro u n i t s g e n e r a t i o n r a t e cons- addition to ACE processing logic

traint i s v e r y h i g h (270%/min f o r raising introducing further dealys. I n v i e w of
g e n e r a t i o n and 360%/min f o r l o w e r i n g g e n e r a t - t h i s how f o r i t i s j u s t i f i e d t o u s e 2 - 4
ion) and i n o u r s i m u l a t i o n s t u d i e s we have seconds for a d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n and
found t h a t a l o w e r v a l u e o f speed droop(4%) decision cycles of the AGC s y s t e m s ?
g i v e s much b e t t e r frequency s t a b i l i z a t i o n as Shculd a h i g h e r v ~ l u eo f s a m p l i n g p e r i o d
compared t o t h e h i g h e r v a l u e o f speed droop b e e x p l o r e d t o p r o v i d e more o r less b e s t
and GRC l i m i t was never v i o l a t e d . I n f a c t . i n t h e
transient response and reduces
Northern g r i d o f I n d i a , speed droops o f many simultaneously the sampllng eiforr?
h y d r o u n i t s a r e i n t h e range o f 3% t o 4%. Carpentier[l] i n h i s s t a t e of t h e a r t
2. We f u l l y agree t h a t for t h e t h e r m a l r e v i e w p e r t a i n i n g t o AGC h a s s t a t e d t h a t
u n i t s , g o v e r n o r t i m e c o n s t a n t ( T g ) a n d t h e steam a sampling period v a r y i n g f r o m 2-10
c h e s t t i m e c o n s t a n t ( T t ) a r e much s m a l l e r than
seconds is used by u t i l i t i e s . B o s e a n d
Atiyyah [ 2 ] h a v e u s e d sampling periods
t h e o t h e r t i m e c o n s t a n t s used f o r simulation varying f r o m 2-30 s e c o n d s . would
o f AGC m o d e l [ l ] . We
t h e r e f o r e l i k e t h e a u t h o r s t o comment o n
3.The l o a d changes occur always i n random t h e o p t i m u m s e l e c t i o n of t h e sampling
f a s h i o n i n a r e a l system which r e s u l t random period.
o p e r a t i o n of t h e governor a c t i o n and produce
s t o c h a s t i c v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e frequency and t h e 3. I n t h e objectives of AGC t h e a u t h o r s
tie-line power nominal values[2].How t h e ACE state the strategies that exploit
signal will be m o n i t o r e d i n this case u n i l a t e r a l i n a d v e r t e n t c o r r e c t i o n s , which
f o r d e r i v i n g t h e supplementary c o n t r o l l e r ? . simultaneously reduce time e r r o r m a y b e
4. We have a l s o found [21 t h a t t h e e f f e c t of considered to deserve higher score.
governor deadband o n t h e dynamic response i s T h e s e are a c h i e v e d by a n AGC s t r a t e g y
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t b u t i t has a tendency t o f o r c e based on n e w a r e a c o n t r o l e r r o r (ACEN)
t h e dynamic response t o o s c i l l a t e for long 1 3 1 . T h e ACEN i s based on t i e power
p e r i o d around i t s steady s t a t e v a l u e . deviation, frequency deviation, time
Once a g a i n we would l i k e t o heartily e r r o r and inadvertent interchange. The
c o n g r a t u l a t e the authors f o r an e x c e l l e e n t AGC s t r a t e g y b a s e d o n ACEN g u a r a n G e e s
piece of work and l o o k f o r w a r d t o their zero steady s t a t e e r r o r of i n a d v e r t e n t
f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n the f i e l d . i n t e r c h a n g e a n d time e r r o r a c c u m u l a t i o n s
REFERENCES i n a d d i t i o n t o r e g u l a t i n g ACES t o z e r o
[l]. 1.J.Nagrath and D . P . K o t h a r i " Modern following load perturbations. W e would
Power System A n a l y s i s ",I1 edn, Tata McGraw- a p p r e c i a t e t h e a u t h o r s comment o n t h e u s e
Hill,NewDelhi,l989. o f AGC s t r a t e g y b a s e d o n ACEN.
[ 2 ] : S.C.Tripathy, T . S . B h a t t i , C.S.Jha, O.P.
M a l i k and G.S.Hope, " Sampled d a t a Automatic 4. I n a n AGC s y s t e m t h e n ~ t h o r sm e n t i o n t h a t
G e n e r a t i o n c o n t r o l A n a l y s i s w i t h Reheat Steam it is not d e s i r b a l c L O m a i n t a i n ACE a t
T u r b i n e s and Governor Dead-Band E f f e c t s " , I E E E z e r o as t h i s would r e q i l i r e u n n e c e s a r i l y
Trans.on P A S . v o l . P A S - 1 0 3 , N o . 5 , M a y 1984,pp.1045 r a p i d maneuvering of units. Could t h e
-1051. authors throw some l i g h t on a p p r o p r i a t e
selection o f m i n i m u m l e v e l o f ACE f o r
AGC?

REFERENCES
J.NANDA, M.L.KOTHAR1, L. H A R I , G .G . B H I S E
( D e p a r t m e n t of E l e c t r i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g , I . I . T .
Delhi, I n d i a ) : We w o u l d l i k e t o c o n g r a t u l a t e 1. J. CARPENTIER " S t a t e o f t h e a r t r e v i e w ,
t h e a u t h o r s f o r a useful. and i n t e r e s t i n g To b e or n o t t o b e modern" t h a t i s t h e
paper . providing indepth understanding of q u e s t i o n for Automatic Generation Control
a u t o m a t i c g e n e r a t i o n c o n t r o l . We s h a l l v e r y (point of v i e w of a u t i l i - . y e n g i n e e r ) " ,
much a p p r e c i a t e t o h a v e t h e commeiits o f t h e Int. J. E l e c t r i c a l Power a n d Energy
authors on the following points : S y t e m s , Vo1.7, A p r i l 1 9 8 5 , pp.81-91.
1. The a u t h o r s mention s p e e d d r o o p s for 2. A.BOSE a n d 1.ATIYYAH " R e g u l a t i o n E r r o r i n
active governors t o be i n t h e range of Load F r e q u e n c y C o n t r o l " , IEEE T r a n s o n
5%. A p p a r e n t l y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n Power A p p a r a t u s a n d S y s t e m s , V o l . PAS-99,
p a i d t o t h e optimum s e l e c t i o n o f g o v e r n o r M a r c h / A p r i l 1980, p p . 6 5 0 - 5 5 7 .
regulation parameter R which d e c i d e s t h e
g o v e r n o r droop. Our i n v e s t i g a t i o n s for a 3. M.L.KOTHAR1, J.NANDA, D.P.KOTHAR1, and
two e q u a l area s y s t e m show t h a t i n t h e D.DAS. "Discrete Mode Automatic
presence of t h e supplementary control Generation C o n t r o l o f a Two Area R e h e a t
(i.e. AGC) with a generation rate Thermal System w i t h New Area C o n t r o l
c o n s t r a i n t (GRC) o f J X l m i n , a m u c h h i g h e r Error", I E E E T r a n s On P o w e r S y s t e m s V o l .
value of percentage droop even t o t h e 4 , May 1 9 8 9 , p p . 7 3 0 - 7 3 8 .
t u n e of a r o u n d 1 5 % may b e p r e f e r r e d
that provides b e t t e r transient response.
We b e l i e v e t h a t a h i g h e r v a l u e o f R m a k e s
the realization of t h e governor s i m p l e r
and r e d u c e s its c o s t . Could t h e a u t h o r s
from t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s u g g e s t g u i d e l i n e s J. Z. PONDER, G. A. CUCCHI, (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-
for optimum s e l e c t i o n o f R f o r g o v e r n o r Maryland (PJM) Interconnection, Nomstown, PA. 19403):
design?
This paper provides an excellent tutorial summary of
2. The a u t h o r s r i g h t l y mention about t y p i c a l Automatic Generation Control. However, it is a bit frustrating
f i l t e r s on tie-line metering introducing for the reader to see the stage set so well and then be left
delays of up t o a few seconds in without seeing the play! While the general notion of what
1118
constitutes "good control" has been discussed at length within
the industry, no one has yet defined the specifics.
As it stands today, some control areas do an excellent job
of control as evidenced by their NERC A1 and A2 control
performance criteria. Some control areas approach 100%
compliance with the NERC criteria. Other control areas
perform very poorly, as defined by existing standards, with A1
and A2 compliances below 50%. Probably adequate
performance lies somewhere in between these two extremes.
Can the authors comment on the reasonability of the existing
NERC criteria for measuring control performance and/or
suggest other specific measures of performance which would
be better?
It may also be desirable to maintain "good control" for
other than reliability reasons. For instance, it is desirable to
maintain a reasonable match between scheduled and actual
interchange for accurate accounting purposes. If a control
area does a poor job of generation control, then its actual
interchange may have little relationship to its scheduled
interchange, resulting in large inadvertent interchange
accumulations and gross inequities for the parties involved
with the transactions. Inadvertent interchange is often paid
back at a more favorable time than it was accumulated. The
requirements for "good control" to prevent such inequities
may exceed that required for reliability. Has the task force
examined this and if so, what were the conclusions?
On the subject of generating unit characteristics, we have
seen instances where the modem coordinated control systems
have resulted in poorer initial response from units.
Apparently, the coordination of the turbine output with the
boiler response restricts the unit from using stored energy in
the boiler. Older systems allowed wider swings of boiler
pressure and temperature as the stored energy was drawn
from the boiler. Coordinated controls block the steam valves
from opening if it would mean drawing down the boiler
pressure or temperature. This is of course good from a boiler
control standpoint, but results in less aggressive initial
governor and AGC response from the unit.
The paper discusses kinetic energy and load frequency
response from a very traditional viewpoint. Can the authors
comment on the effects of the newer dynamic controlled
loads, such as load commutating inverters, which digitally
sense frequency and may draw more power to maintain the
local loading level? Such modem air conditioning controls
had an impact on the July 23, 1987 Tokyo voltage collapse.
Can traditional AGC techniques cope with these dynamic types
of local load control?
On a more general level, the coordination of AGC with
frequency, stability and voltage controls needs to be
addressed. While the authors point out that many of these
items have a much shorter time constant than AGC and
therefor AGC cannot be expected to react to them, there have
been instances where such problems have developed over
periods of time consistent with AGC response capability. Lack
of coordination of AGC with these problems can aggravate
rather than help the situation. It is quite conceivable that
AGC may take action counter to logic programmed for special
relay schemes, under voltage relay load shedding and thyristor
controlled devices which act independently from the AGC.
Shouldn't the AGC strategy which best coordinates with these
other independent controls be given some bonus points in the
ranking?
Many control areas today must control to specific power
transfer interface limits in addition to net interchange.
Traditional AGC schemes do not allow for this. Shouldn't this
be one of the aspects for which strategies are compared to
rank AGC schemes? At PJM, we find that we must operate
to transfer limit restrictions about 60% of the time. This
"split cost" operation of the system requires us to use manual
control.
Another subject of interest is the NERC disturbance
recovery criteria. The control areas in the MAAC and NPCC
regions of NERC have instituted a joint Shared Reserve
procedure in which neighboring control areas will assist a
control area which has experienced a large disturbance. The
assisting areas help the disturbed area to return ACE to zero
within ten minutes. Are the authors proposing that this is
unnecessary? It would seem that there is indeed some value
in quickly recovering from a system disturbance, since
additional disturbances, if they should occur before recovery
of the initial disturbance, would cause a further drop in
frequency, possibly resulting in load shedding.
There are many specific issues yet to discuss and resolve
concerning automatic generation control. We hope that the
Task Force and the industry will be able to develop more
specific recommendations for automatic generation control.
The specific answers to the question 'What is good generation
control?" still remain unresolved.
Manuscript received March 4 , 1991.
M. K. Enns, (Electrocon International, Ann Arbor, Michigan): A few
years ago I had occasion to examine the AGC behavior of a control
area in connection with a dispute between a utility and a steel-making
customer. The arc furnaces operated by the .customer caused large
swings in demand that made it impossible for the utility, which
constituted a small control area, to meet the NERC Control Perfor-
mance Criteria. The utility experienced rapid and erratic response of
their units under AGC without any apparent benefit in the form of
good control. They were, in the language of the paper, "chasing high
frequency components of demand change." They eventually took most
if not all of their units off AGC and lived, with no cost and little
inconvenience, with a somewhat large and nonconforming ACE.
This solution was really quite satisfactory. The ACE was large
because the control area was so small. Combining with neighboring
utilities to form a control area ten times larger would reduce the
effective ACE by a factor of ten, which would easily conform to the
NERC criteria. What appeared to be excessive interarea flows would
simply be internal flows, unmeasured and unnoticed.
H. H. Thompson, (Chetty Mamandur, Energy Services, Inc., Pine
Bluff, AR): We congratulate the authors for clearly summarizing the
importance for tie-line bias control it he interconnected power system
operations. We agree with the comments and conclusions of the paper
on impacts and penalties of overachieving AGC control. In systems
with significant nuclear units, which are not currently controlled by
AGC, fewer remaining units are expected to provide all the control,
hence requiring increased maintenance. Moreover, to accommodate
the nuclear base load generation during minimum load periods,
fossil-fired system-turbine units are being converted to sliding pressure
type control to achieve lower minimum run levels. However, this mode
of operation seems to result in reduced controlling capabilities for the
units hence resulting in increased control demands from other units.
Thus, the systems are forced to regulate with fewer and .fewer units
that can be trusted to control. Hence, it is becoming very important
that significant efforts be devoted to identify any unit problems and
get as many units as possible, to participate in AGC control.

Recently, there seems to be discussions for including integrated
ACE in addition to ACE to determine unit desired generations.
Would the authors kindly comment on the implications and impacts of
this control.
Manuscript received March 4, 1991.
Jaleeli, VanSlyck, Ewart, Fink, and Hoffmann: We would like
to thank all the discussers for their interest in the paper as well
as their contributions. Our closure addresses points raised i n
the discussions and provides additional comments.
Mr. Miller’s questions are very much appreciated a s tliey
provide an opportunity to emphatically state that: “of-course,
operating units with a well-designed AGC procedure rctliicrs
the total production cost in the area.” AGC systenis allow
much more frequent adjustment of the output power of cdcli
unit as compared to a manual system where the adjustnicrit
of each unit requires verbal communication b e t ~ e e i ia central
control coordinator and the unit operator. Therefore, output
power adjustments of units under AGC can be performed with
much finer steps than are possible with verbal control. Hence,
the unit output power trends can be held much closer to eco-
nomical trends with AGC than wlieri all units are unclrr verbal
control, or a mixture of AGC and verbal C O l l h Y J l .
A review of Figures 1, 2 and 3 supports this claim. Figure
1 shows the load trend over a period of several minutes lor
an area with two units. The optimal economic trend for each
unit, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, are those that will minimize
the area production cost over the given time window while
their sum equals the area load trend. As shown in Figure 2
where both units are under AGC, the output power of each
unit is adjusted frequently at fine increments and trcnds are
therefore maintained close to those of optimal rcononiiis. “lie
small deviation of the output power trend of each iinit fioin
optimal is due to irreducible imperfections of tlie AGC process
including inaccuracies in the prediction of unit response to the
control signals sent.
In the scenario depicted in Figure 3, unit 1 is verl)ally coli-
trolled and unit 2 is under AGC. Limitation on tlie frequency
of verbal communications between a control center coordinator
and the unit operator constrain the output powcr of unit 1 to
be adjusted just once in the given time window, and with a
necessarily large magnitude as shown conceptually in the up-
per portion of Figure 3. Therefore the deviation of the trcntl
of unit 1 output power from that of its optimal economic trrntl
is much larger than that of the Figure 2 scenario. This devin-
tion also impacts operation of unit 2. As the sum of the pover
generated by the two units must equal the load, the generalion
trend required from unit 2 must also differ substantially from
its optimal economic trend.
The difference between area production cost undcr tlie scc-
nario shown in Figure 2 and that in 3 depends on the incremen-
tal cost characteristics of the units. Let XI and XL respecti\ely
be the area incremental cost at the start and at the end of the
shown time window. The greater the difference betweell dl
and Xp,the more savings result from operating the units uiidrr
AGC. Of-course, if A , and X2 are equal, the prodiiction cost
for the scenarios shown in Figures 2 and 3 would he tlic same.
However, tests conducted in 1989 on the AEP system (with in-
stalled generation capacity of 23500 M W ) have indicated that,
on average, operation of an additional 1000 MW of capability
F
1119
Economic Tnnd
Tm
Unit 1
A
1.
7
I b
m. Tlnv
Unit 2
Figure 3: Unit 1 la verbally maneuveredand,
hance, can reallze generationchanges only
in large sleps. As a result, to match total
generationwith load, a step change in target,
and otherwise unnecessary movement, is
unit2 ma imposed on automaticallycontrolledunit 2.
. .-
Figure 2; BMh unita are aulMMticplly Both units are consequently operatsdaway
Conbolled. from their economic trends.
under AGC, can realize a savings of $350,000 per year in fuel
costs.
In reality, load variation is not a smooth line as shown
in Figure 1; it fluctuates irregularly about its trend. While
present NERC Control Criteria do not demand a tiglit match
between generation and load, many control areas cause their
generation to follow these fluctuations to some extent. Moving
generation up and down will cause units to operate off eco-
nomic base points some portion of the time. This can increase
production cost and, in some literature, it is called rrgulation
cost. Various authors go still further afield and call this the
cost associated with putting units on LFC or even, unfortu-
nately, on AGC.
Matching generation with area load fluctuations results in
an unavoidable increase in cost over that of constant power
output. Whether this matching is accomplished by verbal coni-
munications or automatically by AGC, the cost of doiiig so is-
an inherent requirement of the business, not of AGC, (it is sig-
nificantly less, we might add, than would be required without
the benefil of interconnected operation.) Rut, in fact, ihr cost
of matching load with generation, when the matching is ac-
complished by a well-designed AGC, can be much lower than
when units are verbally controlled. Operating an increased
number of units under a well-designed AGC realizes reduction
in system production cost.
The first two paragraphs of Professor Glavitsch’s discussion
which emphatically state the main messages of the paper are
very much appreciated. We agree with him that, if R = 8,
ACE would remain insensitive to external disturbances, but \{-e
have not advocated adjustment of 13 in an attempt to obtaiii
an “acceptable match.” Our words “acceptable match” were
between generation trend and demand, not I? and 8. In line
with the discusser, our message for normal operation is: “it
is impractical and unnecessary to attempt a precise matrli of
area generation with the trend of an area’s own load and losses,
T,, and the area portion of lO,B(F, - F?).”The iriterconnrctioii
11%
will continue successful operation as long as these trends arc
“acceptably matched.”
On the paper’s statement of “a quick return of eit her fre-
quency or interchange to the schedule must not be used as
a basis for advocating an AGC algorithm,” and in agrernieiit,
with what can be inferred from the discusser’s comments, we
mean that the interconnection is hurt if every area should at-
tempt to quickly (or even slowly):
Return its interchange to the schedule with no consider-
ation of system frequency.
or
Return frequency to the schedule with no consideration
of its interchange.
The very astute equations presented by Professor Glavitscli
for analysis of a three area system support the previous point
and complement the explanations in the paper on the subject.
The AGC process has some characteristics which are intrinsic
and some which are a manifestation of inaccuracies and un-
avoidable imprecision. An attribute of Dr. Glavitscli’s equa-
tions is that all error effects, offsets, etc. (of which there are
many in the AGC process) are constrained to the right Iiand
side while everything on the left hand side is exact.
From the left hand side of the equations, Dr. Clavitsch
made the observation that at least one area must do frequency
control. It can be noted too, that “flat” frequency control can
be done in one area, but not more than one. By the cun-
ning construction of Professor Glavitsch’s equations these ob-
servations can be seen to be intrinsic to the ACC process and
independent of its inaccuracies.
Considering collective AGC action in the interconiircf i o n .
we may add:
C A C E = -1OB,(F,, - F % )
where
B , = B1 + BP -t B ~ land
, grams developed at AEP (171 have provided the opportunity of
+
Fa = ( B I F ~ I + BJ’,,)/B,.
Therefore, for stability, B , must be negative as wrll as non-
zero. Clearly, if B , is positive, any deviation from F, will be
amplified until the system collapses. Beyond this point how-
ever, it is not sufficient that l?,be negative, because tlicre may
be occasions when a number of areas are unable to match thrir
obligations. For successful operation of the interconnection on
such occasions, it is necessary for the sum of the L? in the set
of remaining areas to be negative.
The first paragraph of Mr. Concordia’s discussion nicely
helps to promote one o f t e main messages of our paper. We
feel so strongly about th j that we want to reempliasize his
point: “It ts obvtow th .t over-control of t i e - h e loading ES
sally.’’ It is certainly not intended to discourage research in
the AGC area. We have stated today’s practical limitatioiis
and theoretical basis to help increase the usefulness of rrscarch
efforts on this subject.
Mr. Kennedy’s observation concerning“NERC Guides” vcsr-
sus “Guidelines” is correct, of-course, and we find his com-
ments to be compatible with our views. Uy broadening tlie
understanding of AGC, we hope this paper will inspire the
continued evolution and development of tools and proccdiirrs
to assist system operators, beyond tlie present level, so that
improved system operation and control can be acliirvd. We
believe that while an area is satisfying its obligation to the
interconnection, even as measured by today’s NEHC Criteria,
the area can and should avoid following fast varying cornpo-
nents of load. Such attempts are without benefit to the area
or to the interconnection, and often can amplify ACE and in-
crease the cost of wear and tear.
The belief stated above is also relevant to some aspects of
Mr. Schulte’s comments, to which we would like to add the
following. As far as response to fast varying compoiicnts of
load is concerned, the typical frequency trend in tbe Eastein
Interconnection indicates that the present level of AGC regitla-
tion is satisfactory. To continue this level of performance, the
generation adjustment capability, as related to the r a t r ol load
change during pick-up and drop-off, must be maintained near
its existing level. Relative to the “ACE control performance
threshold” point of the discusser, in our opinion, no energy
conversion device of short h c d output will be necessary in f h e
AGC domain, notwithstanding potential applications of such
devices for suppression of undesirable transients in a fnturr,
but as yet undefined and unconventional manner.
When ACE, in compliancr with performance criteria, frr-
quently crosses zero and has a small average, it essentially mea-
sures fast area load dynamics that ought iiot be a concern of
AGC, and acceptable control does not require any reaction to
them. The present performance criteria for normal conditions
have a ten minute time scale. While AGC should adjust area
generation to yield an acceptable ACE trend, it should not at-
tempt to react to components of load whose oscillation periods
are comparable to area generation response time. Attempting
to react to such components does not produce an iniprovcd
ACE trend and requires unnecessary nianeuveriIig of units.
In line with Mr. Taylor’s comments, we believe in utiliza-
tion of AGC for enhancing any aspect of area operation lwfor-
mance, including voltage stability, when it can be accomplished
by adjusting unit generation within the constraints of their as-
sociated characteristics. AGC data captiiring and plotting p ~ < ’ -
observing the response of about sixty major AEP units to small
and large (60 mHz) frequency upsets. The measured frequency
in these plots is the one second average of local frequellcy, atid
the measured unit power output is observed through an rxpo-
nential filter having a time constant of -3 seconds. Presented
below is a summary of these observations.
While many units present a discernible response to frr-
quency upsets exceeding 40 mHz, only a few respond wlien
the upset is -15 mHz. Wherever “dead-band” is referenced
in the paper or closure, it indicates the effective dead band
in the governor loop. Inspection of the frequency trend and
the power output of units, even for tlie latter few units, lias
shown no correlation when upsets are below -10 m l L . Since
AEP’s primary generation response to frequency upsets, espr-
cially those exceeding -25 m h , is very close to that of tliv
Eastern Interconnection on a per hIW basis, units with govrr-
nor dead-bands less than 10 to 15 mHz appear to be rare.
We believe tlie state of governor control in the Eastern In-
terconnection is adequate for non-islanding scenarios. (Tlir
largest frequency upset in recent years has been less than 100
mHZ.) While we do not advocate tlie introduction of intert-
tional dead-band in governors, we feel it would be cliflicult to
justify any large expenditure for reducing dead-baricls brlow
the existing level. This assumes that the percentage of units
with smaller dead-bands would be maintained near the present
ratio.
As mentioned in the paper, ACC shoulcl not i i n r l i i l , ~com-

promise an area’s primary response. This does not inean t h a t
B has to nearly equal p. There are many other reasons for
oscillations, including the nature of load in many arras. that
substantially limits perceived benefits from setting 13 = @.
Professor Keyhani’s concept of matching energy demand
with minimum unit maneuvering is commendable. Ile presents
a model for obtaining a solutioii that attempts to control uiiits
with this objective. This model requires a forecast of future
load Pj and could be enhanced to iiiclude minimization or fucl
cost over the forecast period T. Characteristics of units and
loads in many areas, however, substantially limit the usefulness
of the proposed algorithm.
Many units can fully realize a requested generation change
within one minute after AGC has stopped ramping tlieni at
the allowed rate and essentially all units will have complclrd
this task within two minutes. To realize the full bciiefit of a n
extended boiler model, the period T should therefore be about
two minutes. Although load can satisfactorily be forrcastetl
for the next hour, methods to reliably forecast the load for the
next minute or two are not available, and may be infeasible in
our opinion.
If T is taken to be several minutes, allowing flie forecasled
load Pj to be more reliable, then a detailed prediction of R I L
output power trajectory of each unit over horizons of up to two
minutes does not play a significant role. Despite these consid
erations, some areas have implemented ideas along the lilies
suggested by the discusser. AEP uses a 90 second anlicipa-
tion of interchange schedule changes and initiates generation
maneuvering to avoid ACE. Some areas also use a vrry simple
model to compute what power change is yet to be aiiticipaietl
from a unit if the ramping were to be stopped at the presciit
cycle.
We would like to offer the following comriicrits on Ihe first
and fourth remark from Messrs. Hhatti, Kotliari, a i i d Satish
and on the first remark from Messrs. Nanda. Kothari, llari,
and Bhise.
Under normal conditions, the US Eastern Interconnection
’ quisition system must also he compatible with the coiitrol
frequency rarely experiences a sudden deviation of more t tian
20 mHz from its one or two minute average. Even for the upper
range of such deviations, only a small number of units partic-
ipate in arresting frequency excursions. Since the majority
of generating unit governors apparently remain in dead-baud,
it appears governors have a minimal influenrr on operation
under normal conditions in this large interconiiectiou. Conse-
quently, supplementary control (wlidher providcd inaiiually 01
by AGC) and the performance resulting from it undei iiornial
conditions, is not sensitive to the droop of governors. Such
droop only comes into consideration when a sudden deviation
from prevailing frequency takes a substantial number of gover-
nors out of dead-band.
For such interconnections, governors (and their droops) bc-
come of great importance when units find themselves in an
island. For an island to be able to continue its operation, it
initidly must arrive at a stable frequency. For this, tlie com-
bined contribution of governors, components of load sensitive
to frequency, and (when necessary) load slieddiiig or ovrrspretl
tripping have to overcome the initial power mismatch in tlic
island.
The ratio of the maximum probable mismatch o r r r thc sine
of the island (or interconnection when islanding is n o t of coii-
cern,) the sensitivity of the island load to frequency dcvia tioii,
and the available automatic load shedding are among {hose
1121
parameters that affect selection of governor droops in order 10
arrest the frequency at acceptable level. AGC is a slow antl
deliberate process relative to governor action. I’ropcr tlrsigu of
AGC parameters prevents interaction hctween AGC aiid gor-
ernor response. Due to limited rate and range of control, AGC
of the disturbed area takes minutes to return ACE to zero. Tlir
governor droops only affect the level at which tlie frequency is
initially arrested. These droops have no significaiit effect on
how the interconnection frequency returns from its post u p w t
level to the scheduled value.
This paragraph responds to the third renlark from hlrssrs.
Bhatti, Kothari, and Satish. The ACE signal is computed aiitl
plotted in most control areas. In many of them the coordinator
can even monitor it on his CRT. Most of the AGC algorithms
in service, use a processed ACE to decide if generation nrrtl
be changed and by how much at each AGC cycle. Tlicsr pro-
cesses normally filter out fast varying components of ACE antl,
hence, to some extent prevent AGC froiii responding to rail-
dom changes in the load.
The following three bullets respond to the second to fourth
comments from Messrs. Nanda, Kothari, Hari, and Hhisr.
In many areas, the upper limit of the spectrum of collrc-
tive achievable unit response is roughly 0.015 Hz,correspond-
ing to about 60 seconds/cycle. With such generation response
characteristics, it would not only be futile, but corinterpro-
ductive to attempt to follow load fluctuation components with
periods shorter than 60 seconds.
AGC must be on the constant look-out for disturbance con-
ditions which normally require operator alert or emergelicy ac-
tion. This requirement must also be considered in the selection
of the data acquisition sampling rate and generation response
immediately after the occurrence of a disturbance in the area.
The NERC B2 criterion somewhat addresses this issiie by re-
quiring response within one minute.
Characteristics of the necessary analog filters in a data ac-
ry-
cle. The output signal from any such filters should at least l)e
sampled at the rate of 1/4th the period of the highest frequency
component present in the signal. Conversely, if the sampling
cycle is chosen, say 2 seconds, one has to make sure that all fre-
quencies beyond 1/8 Hz are removed by analog filters in order
to avoid aliasing.
Many areas use an integral term of ACE in tlicir AGC
algorithms. Fortunately, their algorithms bencfit from some
sophistication that limits or disregards the integral term whcrt-
ever its use may potentially deteriorate AGC performance.
Any significant power mismatch in the interconnection is vcry
undesirable. Adverse impact of such a power mismalch by an
integral of ACE offset should be avoided.
No algorithm can guarantee zero inadvertent and time er-
ror. There are many periods over which an area or several
areas are unable, for whatever reason including unknown erlor
and mistakes, to match their generation with their obligal ion.
During such periods, frequency may stay off schedule. TOs t o p
further degradation of frequency, other areas are requzrrd to
provide their share of system frequency support. For this, thcy
accumulate inadvertent.
Unilateral inadvertent payback with a limited rate is al-
lowed by NERC when it helps iiiterconnrction perforrnaiicc.
Many areas repay their inadvertent unilaterally if it liclps to
reduce time error and if the frequency is within a proper range.
 1122
0 The ACE level acceptable by the current NERC Guidt-s,
is stated in the last paragraph under “ACCEPTABLE ACE
TREND” of the paper. The NERC definition of an acccptable
ACE trend may, however, be changed in the future.
As Messrs. Ponder and Cucchi are aware, NERC is present-
ly considering other proposals for measuring contrrd 1 1 r r h -
mance. Some of the Task Force members are involved in t liis rf-
fort and hope to soon publish suggestions. Improvetl intercon-
nection reliability and economic equity as well as increased i n -
terconnected operation benefits to member areas are the basrs
of proposals being examined.
Messrs. Ponder and Cucchi state that coordinated unit con-
trols could result “in less aggressive initial governor and AGC
response from a unit.” We do agree that response of such units
to changes in target MW (via AGC or hand-auto control) arc
delayed by several tens of seconds for coordination with atl-
justments of air, fuel, etc. We do not believe delays of such
durations are significant to the function of AGC.
Coordinated unit controls do not necessarily introduce a
time delay for aggressive and immediate governor response.
However, to avoid a follow up compromise of the initial gover-
nor response in such units, a boiler-loop bias logic should SCIW
off-nominal frequency and allow a sustained net RI\V (droop
like) deviation from target value.[7] If AGC survives, o r is rc-
turned to service after an upset, it will subsequently Iradjust
unit output, regardless of any offset from target due to a boilrr
loop bias, so as to satisfy interchange, frequency and economic
objectives.
The discussers mention the Tokyo voltage collapse. Cer-
tainly the stabilizing effect of load sensitivity to frequency will
be compromised if modern load controls, such as those involvrtl
in the Tokyo incident, become extensively utilized. This is
an issue of primary control and not that of AGC; one line
of defense could involve larger governor response, if a n d when
the existing aggregate load-frequency characteristics slioulti be-
come drastically changed.
AGC is automatic generatton control. It changes genera-
tion by adjusting the output of each unit. Within the con-
straints of unit response delay and other characteristics. we
encourage any AGC strategy that can enhance any nsprr t o f
operation performance. This includes, as statrtl in i lw paprr.
the strategy that operates the system with a bettrr security
margin. Under this umbrella, are considerations of trarisfcr
interface limits and coordination with relay schemes.
The discussers refer to a jointly shared reserve proccdiire
of MAAC and NPCC. We understand this as a scheme of in-
voking an interchange transaction to split the ACE of a largc
disturbance between areas, getting them both into a sensed dis-
turbance state so that more units are available for emiw?prg
action. We wonder which portion of the paper has given tllc
discussers the impression that such a scheiiie could he undr-
sirable, indeed it may be a means of realizing further economy
of interconnected operation. It may also be a consitleratiou,
if implemented automatically, for an area having a problem
situation, such as that described by Dr. Enus.
We don’t believe taking units off AGC is the proper re-
sponse to the performance criteria compliance problrnl cited
by Dr. Enns. An area with this problem should, ntost impor-
tantly, control to meet its short term (less than an hour) area
energy demand. The more units on control, the less actioii
needed from any one of them for good area performance. It
may be worthwhile to consider telemetry from some customers
that could provide an anticipatory signal of load change to use
in AGC.
On the comments of Messrs. Thompson and h4amandur:
we would like to include remarks from Mr. R. A. Bulley, Man-
ager of Power System Supply, Commonwealth Edison C o n -
pany. All of Commonwealth Edison’s nuclear units, both BM‘H
and PWR, are equipped for AGC regulation and they have u p
to five years operating experience with some of them. Unit re-
sponse rates are up to 0.5% per minute. Depending on system
conditions, most on-line nuclear units may be operated in a
regulating mode.
There are various ways of implementing sliding pressure
operation for generating units. These result in corresponcl-
ingly various unit regulating capabilities, some of nliicli may
be rather minimal as the discussers suggest. AEP has iinple-
mented a hybrid sliding pressure mode 011 some of its supercrit-
ical units and could maintain a turbine control valve reserve
for AGC action. This has not been found necessary as control
obtained via the pressure control valve has been adequate.
The discussers also ask about including “integrated A C T ”
as an area control error compoIient. integrated ACE includes
both an inadvertent component and a time error component.
Over a term of days, energy metering provides an inadvrrteiit
accumulation to be controlled within bounds. Heduring the
time scale to hours, one must be concerned with energy audit-
ing uncertainty. Use of integrated ACE is simply shortening
the time scale still further. But, if done judiciously, we believe
this can be beneficial. One can think of the current inad\rrtent
as having three components: 1.The audited value, norniallj- as
of midnight yesterday, 2.The sum of the hourly valtirs since
midnight (from energy metering if available), a d 3. The inte-
gral of the tie-line component of ACE since hourly data was
last obtained. Separate accounts must be maintained for on-
peak and off-peak periods. Depending on one’s confidence iii
the accuracy of these three components their weiglited s i ~ i i i
could be an estimate of the up-to-the minute inadrertrnt. A
unilateral inadvertent correction might be invoked, following
NERC rules, of course, and including proper consideration o f
any change in time error.
In conclusion we would like again to tliank all the discussers
for the time and effort they have contributed. Tlieir questions
and interest have added clarification to many of the points of
the paper and have improved its qualtity and usefull~~ess as a
reference for AGC practice axid development.
Manuscript received A p r i l 5, 1991.