EEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No.

3, August 1993

1219

An Efficient Load Model for Analyzing

Demand Side Management Impacts
S. Rahman
Senior Member

Rinaldy
Student Member

Bradley Department of Electrical Engineering

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061,USA
e-mail : SRAHMAN @VTVMl .cc.vt.edu

ABSTRACT
The main objective of implementing Demand Side
Management (DSM) in power systems is to change the utility's
load shape - i.e. changes in the time pattern and magnitude of
utility's load. Changing the load shape as a result of demand side
activities could change the peak load, base load andor energy
demand. Those three variables have to be explicitly modeled into
the load curve for properly representing the effects of demand side
management. The impact of DSM will be manifested as higher or
lower reliability levels. This paper presents an efficient technique
to model the system load such that the impact of demand side
management on the power system can be easily and accurately
evaluated. The proposed technique to model the load duration
curve will facilitate the representation of DSM impacts on loss-ofload probability, energy not served and energy consumption. This
will provide an analytical method to study the impact of DSM on
capacity requirements. So far iterative methods have been applied
to study these impacts. The proposed analytical method results in
a faster solution with higher accuracy. It takes only 18 seconds on
an 80486 PC to solve each case study involving different peak and
base loads, and energy use.
Keywords: Capacity expansion planning, demand side
management, load shape impacts, load duration curve, loss-of-load
probability, energy not served.

1.0 Introduction
In the era of load growth and increasing constraints on new
and existing generation capacity, Demand Side Management
(DSM) options are being considered all over the world as possible
bridges between these two apparently conflicting requirements.
The high variability of load from one day to another, and from one
hour to the next, may provide significant opportunities for demand
side management. DSM provides a workable solution to some of
the major problems confronting the electric utility today. There is
a great deal of uncertainty in future demand, fuel prices,
construction cost, availability and cost of power from other
utilities, independent power producers, and the regulatory

9 2 SM 422-6 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 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA,
July 12-16, 1992. Manuscript submitted January 21,
1992; made available for printing June 4 , 1992.

environment. This is leading electric utilities toward incorporating

DSM concepts in their resource planning as discussed in several
papers [3,4,6,7 and 113.
Utility programs falling under the umbrella of DSM
include load management, identification and promotion of new
uses, strategic conservation, electrification, customer generation
and adjustments in market share. The DSM activity can be
characterized as a two level process [I] :
Level I

- Load shape objective

Level I1 - End use

- Technology altervatives
- Market implementation methods
The load shape objective can be realized in various ways.
Six generic load shape objectives illustrate the range of
possibilities: peak clipping, valley filling, load shifting, strategic
conservation, strategic load growth, and flexible load shape. Once
load shape objectives have been selected, an appropriate set of
DSM programs needs to be identified.
Load Duration Curve (LDC) is the vehicle through which
DSM impacts are incorporated into power system planning and
operation. Models of the LDC is one of the most important tools
in the analysis of electric power systems. It has been utilized for
various purposes, such as estimating the operating cost of a power
system, predicting the amount of energy delivered by each unit,
and calculating reliability measures. Due to the nature of
electricity, and dependence of our society on its uninterrupted
supply, reliability is one of the most important design criteria of an
electric power system [ 171. Furthermore, reliability assessments
are a necessary part of power system studies used to assist in
managerial decisions regarding the adequacy and reliability of the
system as discussed in [18].

As the needs and opportunities for DSM are discussed, two

issues become obvious. First is, how to quantify the effects of
these myriad of options such that proper credits can be provided.
This would ensure that the utility is not unfairly subsidizing one
group of customers at the expense of the other. Second is, how to
represent the impact of demand side management activities in
capacity expansion planning models. In the absence of an
analytical model, there is currently no straight forward load model
for use in capacity expansion and production costing models.
There are DSM screening models available, though not much
research has gone into the modeling of the effects of DSM on the
system load for production costing models. A proposed approach
to addressing these issues is discussed in the following sections.

0885-8950/93$03.00 0 1992 IEEE

1220

2.0. Proposed Analytical Model For ILDC

Once the expected impacts of demand side activities on the
system load are estimated, ways have to be found to represent
these in the load curve model. The impacts of DSM activities will
manifest themselves in three different ways -- changes in base
load, peak load and energy served. Following is a discussion on
how the impacts of DSM may be represented in the load curve.
An LDC is commonly used to represent the system load
over an extended period of time. As with a chronological hourly
load curve, the area under the load duration curve represents the
total system energy requirement. There are several models that try
to express the LDC mathematically. One of them is Snyder [12].
Snyder model represents the LDC with a fifth-order polynomial,
where the coefficients of the polynomial are closely related to two
quantities -- the ratio of the minimum to the maximum load during
the period, and the ratio of the average load to the maximum load.
There are other models, such as Wien Automatic System Planning
Package (WASP), which try to model the LDC with a fifth-order
polynomial obtained by fitting the hourly load data [9]. In such
cases it is difficult to represent the changes to peak load, base load
and energy usage in the load curve.

= 0.

where:

It is more convenient in probabilistic simulation work to

use the load duration curve with the ordinate and abscissa reversed
[9]. This form of the curve is called Inverted Load Duration
Curve (ILDC) which can be used to estimate the loading of various
generation units by placing equivalent capacities of the units on the
curve. A direct inversion of the LDC expression to the ILDC
causes the resulting mathematical expression to give unacceptable
errors. WASP uses Fourier series expansion to express the ILDC
[IO].
The DSM induced changes in system load (total energy,
base and peak load) generate new load shapes. This implies that
the expression for the new load shape has to be derived each time
there is any change in these three parameters.

P
B

= peakload;

= baseload;
E = energy;
h = total hour in the period ;
X = 1oad;and

A,=

--a?

a2

(5al+a3 - a12a4- Sa:)

a1
1
A, = 7(6a:a2a4 + 3aI2a: + 14a: - a13a5- 21ala:a3)
a1
1
A, = y(7a:a2a5 +7a,3a3a,+84ala23a3-a14a6-~a12a~a4
a1
28a12a2a: - 42a,5)
1
A, = -&3a~a2a6+8a,4a3a5+4a~a~+120a12a~a4+132a~+
a1
180alza:a,2-a~a, - 36a~%2a,72%3%a3a4-12a~a~-

A, =

One of the important benefits of DSM is the reduction of

generating capacity required to serve system load while
maintaining a satisfactory level of reliability. Accordingly, an
accurate assessment of the effects of DSM on system reliability
performance is needed. Two widely used indices of reliability are:
loss-of-load probability (LOLP) and energy not served (ENS).
Such accurate reliability assessments are only possible through the
use of probabilistic models of the system load curve.

for: B<X<P;
for : X < B ; and
for : X > P.

f(x) = 1.

a,, = 7
(n+2). ,n = 1,2,3,.........,7

The equation (1) above is a direct mathematical representation of ILDC in terms of peak load, base load and total energy.
This has been named the "VPI model".
This model
mathematically represents the amount of time (normalized) a
certain level of load is present. See appendix A for the derivation
of the model.

The currently available models can not handle the variation

of energy, base and peak load in the mathematical expression for
ILDC directly. In order to represent the ILDC including the DSM
impacts, they have to go back to the numerical data to show the
changes in system load, regenerate the LDC and calculate the
ILDC again. This is a slow process and is subject to errors. Thus
the availability of a closed form analytical expression for ILDC
will be a significant step forward to study the impacts of DSM.

2.2. Test case study of the VPI Model

2.1. The new model

As a sample, a data point is taken from Table 1 for

demonstrating the closeness between the VPI model and the actual
load data.

The analytical model of an inverse of the load curve is

presented in the following. The model represents the Inverted
Load Duration Curve (ILDC) directly as a function of peak load
(P), base load (B) and total energy (E). This is a more accurate
model of the load shape for use in planning and operation
activities, especially after incorporating demand side management
alternatives. The model is :

Now, in order to show how well the VPI model represents

the actual load of a system under different conditions, a test case is
formulated and analyzed under various conditions. The actual
load and generation data from a Virginia utility are used to test the
model. 12 monthly load duration curves are represented in Table
1. Table 2 represents the generating unit data for the test system.

The data : July 1990 :

Total energy : 3 977 202.45
:
7 873.45
Peakload
:
3 209.70
Baseload
:
744.00
Total hour

MWh
MW
MW
Hour

1221

Table 1. Load Data

2.3. Comparison of the VPI Model to Others

leak Load Base Load Total Energy

(MW)

7382.05
6524.70
6600.75

3060.85
2399.15
2596.10
2679.30
3114.80

5525.00
7764.25
5686.20
6604.00
5731.05
7873.45
6802.25

2594.80
2873.00
2740.40
3077.10
2763.15
3209.70
2812.55

7011.55
5033.60

8
9
10
11
12

(MW)

(MWh)

372890123
2571077.60
3735832.75
2842369.46
3427458.45
2767919.05
3754270.65
291 7258.50
3500956.55
2927772.90
3977202.45
3055495.95

Table 2. Generating Unit Data

Nuclear
Coal
Coal
Hydro

# of

Size

Unit

(MW

2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2

1200
1000
800
1000
800
600
800
1200

The performance of the VPI model is compared to several

available models. For this purpose one needs to represent the
equivalent load duration curve (ELDC) which is the result of
convolution of LDC and generator failure rates. The equation for
ELDC is given in equation (3), and the inverted LDCs (ILDC) for
VPI, WASP and Snyder models are given in equations (1),(4) and
(5) respectively.

The ILDC representation for the WASP model is as follows.

Availability

.....(4)
0.71 1613
0.71 1613
0.71 1613
0.661192
0.676184
0.700571
0.704106
0.947025

where : ak = the coefficients for the kth harmonic of the Fourier

series, k = 0,1,2, ......... ,100 (max.) ;
T = the period of the Fourier series.
The ILDC representation for the Snyder model is as follows.
f(Xi) = A ~ ( ~ - l ) + A ~ ( ~ - l ) ~ + A 3 ( ~ - l ) ~ + A q ( x - 1 ) ~ +.....(
A g5)( ~ - l ) ~

where : Ai = the coefficients of the polynomial.

Total unit = 13
Using eqn. ( l ) , the model of ILDC is found as shown below :

Four ILDCs, generated by inverted Snyder model, WASP, VPI

model (equation (2)) and the actual, are plotted in figure 1. The
close match between these curves show that the VPI model can be
used to express the ILDC as a function of the peak load, base load,
and total energy demand. The next step is to check how well the
VPI model represents the total energy content, the system loss-ofload probability (LOLP) and energy not served (ENS).

For conciseness, the analytical expression for ELDC is

derived for three units only. However, the data for all 13
generating units are used for the results in Table 3, as well as the
plots in figure 2.
I

JULY 195
I

JULY 199

Figure 2. ELDC Comparison

Figure 1. ILDC Comparison

From Table 3, one can see that total energy under the VPI
model is closer to the actual data than total energy of WASP,
which is widely used as a reference. In Table 4, the LOLP values
computed using four different models are shown. These include
the cumulant method which provides a direct representation of
LOLP without the convolution process. The cumulant method is

1222

Table 3. Energy Comparison (MWh)

No
-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
IO
I1
I2

Actual
Data

vpI
Model

VPI

WASP
Model

clif.fron
actual
-

3720901.23 3720901.23
2571077.60 2571077.40
3735032.75 3735032.02
2042369.46 2042369.00
3427450.45 3427450.64
2767919.05 2767919.14
3754270.65 3754270.78
2917250.50 2917250.00
3500956.55 3500956.51
2927772.90 2927772.02
3977202.45 3977202.52
3055495.95 3055495.29

0.00
0.12
0.07
0.42
0.19
0.09
0.1 3
0.30
0.04
0.00
0.07
0.66

WASP

df.from
actual

3729130.63
237.40
2574772.60 3695.00
100.40
3735933.15
106.16
2042555.62
64.40
3427393.97
2771002.74
3003.69
3754270.36
7.71
2917091.51
166.99
3512053.70 11097.15
2931254.00
3401.90
7715.91
3904910.36
3090251.89 34755.94

4059044.04
2601607.57
41 91170.91
2069025.10
3515974.36
2044440.51
3949121.60
2053952.19
3696153.00
3037922.15
421 9040.03
2415900.97

330942.01
110609.97
455330.16
773344.36
00515.91
76521.46
194051.03
63306.31
195197.33
110149.25
242646.30
639506.90

Table 5. Energy Not Served

Table 4. LOLP Comparison

Model

No.
VPI

Snyder

WASP

1
2

0.01 1915
0.000527

0.010105
0.000380

0.009010
0.004405

3
4

0.016000

0.014366

0.01 1004

5
6
7

0.001001
0.005546
0.001107

0.001322

0.005010

0.003775
0.000757

0.006499
0.005077

0.012924
0.000039

0.013724
0.006734
0.011203

0.020106
0.001 296
0.006425

10

0.001677

11

0.025052

0.004060
0.001209
0.010423

12

0.003399

0.0027 67

0.007630
0.021446
0.008750

Cumulant
-0.010772
0.000897
0.004433

No.

WASP

VPI

(GW

(GWh)

2.91

5.60

4.92

1.16

0.10

0.14

1.42

0.70

7.29

1.55

0.79

0.61

-0.001433

2.33

2.46

1.72

-0.002637
-0.000645
0.010663
0.004295

1.49

0.40

0.29

5.69

10.06

6.96

2.26

0.49

0.34

4.05

2.07

2.22

10

2.54

0.63

0.47

11

0.01

14.22

10.01

12

3.15

I .51

1.04

0.001206
0.039479

0.069394
0.000072

discussed in references [13,14,15,16]. There are no "actual

values" for LOLP for use as reference. However, the Snyder
model is known to provide the best LOLP, because it models the
tip of ILDC most accurately (see figure 1). Results show that the
VPI model comes the closest to the Snyder model in terms of
LOLP.
The cumulant method [13] is also an efficient method to
calculate the LOLP. This method is used in the EPRI generation
expansion model, EGEAS [5]. However, it demonstrates some
instability when the largest unit in the system represents a
significant percentage of the total load. As this is the case with the
example presented in this paper, several of the cumulant generated
LOLP values came out to be negative.
Table 5 provides a comparison of energy not served as
computed by WASP, Snyder and VPI models. Again 'we do not
have a reference. However, the Snyder model, because of its more
accurate LOLP representation, is also expected to give the best
estimate for energy not served. Results of the VPI model come
close to that of the Snyder model for this parameter as well. Since
some of the LOLP values from the cumulant method came out to
be negative, it may not be very meaningful to compute energy not
served (ENS) under these conditions. ENS readings from the
cumulant method are, therefore, not shown in Table 5.

3.0 Application of the VPI Model in DSM Activity

Now that the accuracy of the VPI model in comparison to
the other well established models has been demonstrated, it can be
shown how convenient it is to study different load shape impacts,
and compare the resulting LOLP and ENS indices. In order to
demonstrate the flexibility and the fast response time of the VPI
model, a reference and three test cases are set up. These are shown
in Table 6. The reference case shows no DSM activity. The three
indices needed to define the load curve are shown; B1,Pl and E l
represent the reference case values. In case 2 (peak clipping), the
peak is reduced by 10% and energy by 5%. The resulting LOLP
and ENS show significant improvement. In case 3 (load shifting),
the energy use is kept constant, but the base load is increased by
5% and peak load is decreased by 10%. Improvements from the
base case are apparent. Finally in case 4 (valley filling), the peak
load is kept constant, but the base and energy use are increased by
5% each. Resulting increases in the LOLP and ENS indices are as
expected.
The convenience of easily demonstrating the reliability
impacts of various DSM actions is thus established. Furthermore,
the speed at which these results are obtained is significant. The
VPI model was run on an IBM-PC Model 90 with a 80486
processor. The solution time for each case study was mere 18
seconds.

1223

Table 6. Comparative Analysis of LOLP and

ENS under Different Scenarios
Base Load Peak Load

Energy

DSM
Activity
No

3209.70 7873.45 3977202.45

LOLP

5. W.D. Fleck, et al., "Electric Generation Expansion Analysis

System", EPRIReport, RPI 1529-2, April 1989.

0.02585 14.22

Peak
CIipping 0.01291

6. C.W. Gellings and W.M. Smith, "Integrating Demand Side

Management into Utility Planning", Proceedings of IEEE,
Vo1.77, No.6, June 1989.

6.19
~

Load
Shifting 0.01622 7.89

Valley
Filling

4. M.J. Edvinsson, and M.O. Nilsson, "Integrating Load

Management with Supply-side Operation", IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems, V01.2, No.3, August 1987.

0.03186 17.60

4.0. Summary and Conclusions

The VPI model, as a function of peak load, base load and
total energy demand, provides a straight forward means to study
the effects of demand side management. This model can now be
used in capacity expansion planning models to study the effects of
DSM under different conditions of weather, load, and program
penetrations. It can also be used to help the operator in the control
center to study the effects of energy sale/purchase on system
reliability. The VPI model is more convenient and equally
accurate (if not more) for expressing the system load curve. This
is because:
One does not have to deal with the hourly load data
every time a change is effected in the load shape.

The model is already in the form of ILDC. This means

that the ILDC does not have to be calculated by inverting
the LDC, which could create errors.

This model is not only related to the peak load, but also
to the base load and the energy. This results in a more
realistic as well as comprehensive reflection of DSM
impacts.
This model also provides a direct method to study the
load factor impacts.

5.0. References
1. J.H. Broehl, et al., "Demand Side Management", V01.1,2 and
3, EPRI EA/EM-3597, August 1984, EPRI/EA/EM-3597,
December, 1984.
2. W.H. Beyer, "Handbook of Mathematical Sciences", CRC
Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1988.

3. M.L. Chan, et al., "Practical Methods to Integrate Load

Management into Noma1 Operations of Power System
Control Centers", Vol.1 and 2, EPRI EL-4927, November
1986.

7. E. Hirst, and C. Goldman, "Key issues in Integrated Resource

Planning for Electric Utilities", IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vo1.5, No.4, November 1990.

8. P.S. Hill and R.T. Jenkins, "Compensation for Cumulant Load

Fit Discrepancies-A
Computer Graphics Approach",
Proceedings of Electric Generating System Expansion Analysis
Conference, March 5-6, 1981.
9. R.T. Jenkins and D.S. Joy, "Wien Automatic System Planning
Package (WASP) - an Electric Utility Optimal Generation
Expansion Planning Computer Code", Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, July 1974.
10. R.T. Jenkins and T.C. Vorce, "Use of Fourier Series in Power
System Probabilistic Simulation", Proceeding of 2nd WASP
Conference, 1977.
11. T.W. Keelin and C.W. Gellings, "Impact of Demand Side
Management on Future Customer Electric Demand", EPRI
EM-4815-SR, Research Project 2381-4, October 1986 and an
Update September 1990.
12. A.J. Snyder, "Load Duration Curve", Nuclear Technology,
Vo1.24, November 1974.

13. J.P. Stremel and N.S. Rau, "The Cumulant Method of

Calculating LOLP", IEEE PES Summer Meeting, July 15-20,
1979.
14. J.P. Stremel, "Sensitivity of Cumulant Method of Calculating
Generation System Reliability", IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Feb. 1981.
15. K.F. Schenk, and S. Chan, "The Application of the Methods
of Moments in WASP-11", Proceedings of EGEAS conference,
March 5-6, 1981.
16. K.F. Schenk, et al., "Method of Moments Applied to Evaluation of Expected Energy Generation and LOLP for
Generation Expansion Planning", Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Simulation, Modelling and
Decision in Energy Systems, ACTA PRESS, Publishers, June
1979.
17. J. Vardi and B. Avi-Itzhak, "Electric Energy Generation:
Economics, Reliability and Rates", The MZT Press Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1981.
18. G. Wacker, et al., "Determine of Reliability Worth for Power
System Design Application", Proceedings of The Tenth Power
Systems Computation Conference, Austria, 19-24 August,
1990.

1224

Appendix A
so, referring to eqn.(A.l.a), we get:

The shape of the ILDC curve generated by the VPI model

is as shown in figure Al. The mathematical expression of the
model is shown in eqn.(A.l).

f(x) dx = exp(- ~CB

) [ ( 1 + =B) 1 fl(x) dx -

fZ(x) dx]

..... (A.5)

where,
where: B = base load;
P = peak load; and
C = a variable as a function of energy.

P-B

The next step is to derive a formula for variable 'C' and find the
relationship of 'C' to peak load, base load and energy.
Derivation of a n expression for the variable C
Referring to equation (A. I), we have:

and,

Referring to figure A l , area under the curve f(x), A(r), is:

P

A(r) =

..... (A.2)

f(x) dx
B

Let us define:

By substituting eqns.(A.6) and (A.7) into eqn.(A.S), we get:

Load

Figure A l . The VPI Model

1225
= (P-B)f(

C+1) + ex

where :

.....(AB)

Ab(r)
A(r)
B

=
=
=

area at base load = 1 x B;

area under the curve; and
baseload.

Substituting eqn.(A.16) into eqm(A.14) and let n = m, we find:

From eqm(A.8) we can see that

$$is the function of C, Such;

.....(A.17)

..... (A.9)
2! ,
The next step is to find out that C as a function of %
P-B
such as :

.....(A.lO)

c = f($)
We know that

where:

E=
h=
P=
B=

energy;
total hour;
peak load; and
base load.

From equation (A.17) we can see that variable 'C' is a

function of peak load (P), base load (B), and energy (E).
Substituting eqn.(A.17) in to the eqn.(A.l), we get :
7

exp(C)

...+x).....(A.ll)

c2 c3
C"
( l + C + z + ~ +

n=l
Substituting eqn (A.11) into eqn.(A.8), we find :

Suifur Rahman (IEEE S-75, M-78, SM-83) graduated from the

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology in 1973
with a B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering. He obtained his
- 1 L+L+-+(-+-+-+...+-$
1 1 C C 2
CO-2
M.S. degree in Electrical Science from the State University of
- - c - c 2 c2 c
2 ! - 3! 4!
New York at Stony Brook in 1975. His Ph.D. degree (1978) is in
Electrical Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
1 c c2
CO-2
State University.
= -+-+-+...+2! 3! 4!
n!
Saifur Rahman has taught in the Department of Electrical
=
CO-2
Engineering, the Bangladesh University of Engineering and
.....(A.12)
Technology, the Texas A&M University and the Virginia
P-B 2!
3! 4!
n!
Polytechnic Institute and State University where he is a full
Professor. He also directs the Energy System Research Laboratory
Let m = n - 2. We shall use a limit of 7 form, because beyond
at VPI. His industrial experience includes work at the Brookhaven
that the incremental changes are insignificant, Beyer (2):
National Laboratory, New York and the Carolina Power and
Computer Societies. He serves on the System Planning and
Demand Side Management subcommittees, and the Long Range
0.5) =
a, Cm
..... (A.13)
System Planning, the Load Forecasting and the Photovoltaics
E l
working groups of the IEEE Power Engineering Society. His
areas of interest are demdnd side management, power system
where:
a m = (m+2)! , m= 1,2,3,....,7
planning, alternative energy system and expert system. He has
authored more than 150 technical papers and reports in these areas.
Now, if we use series reversion for eqn.(A. 13), we get:

632) c+c'+...+-

e$-

..... (A.14)
where: A1,A2,

............. ,A7 are expressed in eqn.1.

The total energy is the area under the curve multiplied by

total hour, such as:
Energy = [Ab(')

+ A(r)] x hour

..... (A.15)

..... (A.16)

Rinaldy (S-91) graduate8 from Univetsity of Indonesia in 1981

with a BSc. degree in Electrical Engineering. He obtained his MS
degree in Electrical Engineering from Michigan State University
in 1988. Since January 1990 he has been a Ph.D. student at
Virginia Tech.

Rinaldy was with the Cement and Oil industries in

Indonesia from 1981 to 1984 and was involved with various
design aspects of substation, transmission and distribution
engineering. Since 1985 he has been a lecturer of electrical
engineering at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta. His principal
areas of interest are; demand side management and environmental
aspects in electrical industry.

1226
Discussion
R . Noyes ( P h i l a d e l p h i a E l e c t r i c Company,
P h i l a d e l p h i a , P A ) : The a u t h o r s have p r e s e n t e d ,
i n e q u a t i o n 1, a g e n e r a l i z e d i n v e r t e d l o a d
d u r a t i o n c u r v e (ILDC) w h i c h i s a f u n c t i o n o f
o n l y t h r e e p a r a m e t e r s : peak l o a d , m i n i m u m l o a d
and a v e r a g e l o a d ( i . e .
e n e r g y d i v i d e d by
period
hours )
However,
these
three
parameters do n o t t o t a l l y d e f i n e t h e curve;
t h e shape o f t h e p r o p o s e d ILDC model has b e e n
a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d by a d o p t i n g t h e f o r m o f
T h i s i s o n l y one o f many
equation A . l .
m a t h e m a t i c a l forms w h i c h c o u l d have been
selected.
F o r example, t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m
c o r r e c t l y u s e s t h e same p a r a m e t e r s , i n a l e s s
c o m p l i c a t e d manner t h a n t h a t o f e q u a t i o n 1:
L.

UGY

~- -

Jan 89

1
Alabama

4688785

Oct 89

5039859

5039893

5039329

Jan 89

j 10875882

10875881

10873910

Apr 89

10394917

10394919

10393570

(P-(E/h))/((E/h)-B)
f(X) = ((P-X)/(P-B))
W h i l e t h e a u t h o r s ' c h o i c e o f shape happened t o
h a v e r o u g h l y f i t t h a t o f one V i r g i n i a u t i l i t y ,
t h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r assuming t h a t
t h e p r o p o s e d model c a n a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t a
wide range o f u t i l i t i e s w i t h d i v e r s e l o a d
shapes. A l t h o u g h i t may b e a p p r o p r i a t e t o u s e
the
proposed
ILDC
to
demonstrate
basic
r e l i a b i l i t y relationships f o r generic load
m o d i f i c a t i o n s , i n my o p i n i o n , t h e u s e o f s u c h
a
s i m p l i f i e d method o f
analysis
i n the
detailed
study
of
specific
demand-side
management (DSM) programs o n s p e c i f i c u t i l i t y
systems w o u l d b e i n a p p r o p r i a t e and p r o n e t o
significant errors.
Today's e f f i c i e n t i n t e g r a t e d r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g
models
allow
analysts
to
rapidly,
systematically
evaluate
individual
DSM
programs u s i n g a l g o r i t h m s w h i c h f i r s t m o d i f y
the
chronological
system
loads
and t h e n
d e v e l o p ILDC r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s f r o m t h e a d j u s t e d
c h r o n o l o g i c a l loads.
I n comparison t o t h e
p r o p o s e d model, t h e s e p l a n n i n g models a c h i e v e
s u p e r i o r accuracy w i t h l i t t l e increase i n
c o m p u t a t i o n a l burden.
M a n u s c r i p t r e c e i v e d J u l y 29, 1992.

Figure A. Flomhart for LOLP Calculation

~

with Conventional Model

with VPI Model

Saiiur Rahman and Rinaldy (Electrical Engineering, 340 Whittemore

Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-01 11) The authors thank
Mr. Noyes for his discussion of the paper. The fundamental point
made in the paper is, if the inverted load duration curve (ILDC)
representation of the load is needed, it is better to use a direct
mathematicalmodel of ILDC than to get it from the load duration
Curve (LDC). Now the question is, how well does the VPI model
represent the ILDC, and whether it is case specific to the location
used in the paper. And why not use the model given by the
discusser. Here are the resDonses.
First of all. ILDC is used for convenience and speed, and by
design, it looses the chronological time information of the load.
Once the chronological information is lost, the remaining variables
of interest are base and peak loads, and energy. The cumulative
amount of energy utilized over a given period of time can still vary
under this threevariable representation, though the total amount
of energy will remain the same.
The equation given in the discussion is a simplified version of the
VPI model (eqn. 1) given in the paper. Thus it is expected that the
simplified model will closely, but not precisely, represent the
actual base and peak loads, and energy. This is shown in Table
A. Chronological load data from six utilities in seven states are
used to compare the capability of the VPI and PECO (given in the

discussion) models in representingthe total energy under the load

duration curve. While the total actual energy readings vary from
1 to 11 million MWhrs, the results from the VPI model are exactly
the same, or within a few MWhrs. Results from the PECO model
are measurably different. Of course, the base and peak loads will
be represented exactly in both VPI and PECO models, because
these variables are used directly in these models. This extremely
accurate representation provided by the VPI model for six
different utility systems around the country establishes the fact
that this model is generic, and it can represent a diverse set of
load Curves from different climatological zones in the United
States. Thus If DSM studies are to be done using base and peak
loads, and total energy, the VPI model will provide adequate
accuracy for screening purposes.
The functional difference between reliability evaluation using
conventional practices and the VPI model are shown in the figure
A. If the impacts of DSM on peak load, base load and total
energy are to be examined, this model will provide a more direct,
and therefore time saving approach of evaluation. This is
because, by using the direct method (the VPI model), the
additonal step of generating ILDC from adjusted LDC can be
avoided.
M a n u s c r i p t r e c e i v e d S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 1992.