DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
Methodological Priority List (MPL) for Unit
Commitment Problem
Yang Tingfang T. O. Ting and Su Sheng
Abstract—In the modern competitive electricity supply
industry, there is a renewed interest in algorithms that can
provide fast and optimal solutions for savings in operation costs.
A novel methodological strategy incorporating the priority list is
proposed to provide efficient solutions. Thus, we call the
proposed method as Methodological Priority List (MPL) method.
The MPL is simpler and more efficient than conventional
priority list method. Problem formulation of the Unit
Commitment (UC) takes into consideration the minimum up
(MU) and minimum down (MD) time constraints, start up cost
and spinning reserve, and is defined as the minimization of the
total objective function while satisfying all the associated
constraints. The Economic Dispatch (ED) is solved using the
lambda iteration method. The simplicity of the MPL and fast
calculation of ED leads to a methodological and competent
method in comparison with conventional method. MPL provides
deterministic solution, a criterion preferred for industrial
applications. Also, it does not encounter premature convergence
and is more reliable.
Index Terms—Methodological Priority List (MPL), Unit
Commitment.
I. INTRODUCTION
U NIT commitment (UC) plays an important role in daily
operation planning of power systems. The objective of
the UC problem is the minimization of the total operating cost
of the generating units subject to some system and unit
constraints. The solution of the UC problem involves a
complex procedure as it implies the simultaneous solution of
two sub-problems; the mixed integer nonlinear programming
of determining the on/off state of the generating units for each
hour of the dispatch period and the quadratic programming
problem of dispatching the forecasted load among them,
which is also known as Economic Dispatch (ED).
Meanwhile, restructuring has encouraged the generation
companies for more efficient operation instead of accepting
technically suboptimal solutions. In future restructured
deregulations, small improvements in solutions can result in
significant changes in payments to bidders. Unit commitment
optimization models thus have a more important role in
This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation
of China 50577001, Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University
NECT-04-0781, and Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation for Young
Teachers in the Higher Education Institutions of China 101058.
Yang Tingfang is with the School of Electrical & Information Engineering,
Changsha University of Science and Technology, Hunan Province, 410076, P.
R. China (e-mail: yangtingfangdrpt@126.com).
Su Sheng and T.O. Ting are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
978-7-900714-13-8/08/ ©2008 DRPT
determining which generators should be operated for optimal
revenue. Therefore, there is a demand for a fast and stable
method to solve the UC problem providing the optimal cost to
customers and optimal revenue to generating companies
(GenCo).
Dynamic Programming (DP) [1] and Lagrangian Relaxation
(LR) [2] have been used to solve the UC problem. The main
drawback of DP method is that when the system increases, the
computational requirements grow rapidly, a condition which is
often known as “curse of dimensionality”. The LR method
can provide fast computation of solution for large scale
system. However, the dual nature of the method often distorts
the feasibility of the solution obtained. The priority list (PL)
method has been applied in many existing probabilistic
methods to solve the UC problem. The PL method is simple
and fast, but it results in suboptimal solutions.
A survey of literature on priority list methods reveals that
various new strategies have been employed to address the UC
problems. Recently the realm of evolutionary algorithms has
attracted much interest. The evolutionary programming-based
Tabu search is proposed in [3] to solve UC problem. Further,
an effective hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization (HPSO) is
proposed in [4]. Although these methods can extract the
underlying intelligence of the evolutionary algorithms, the
computational time is unrealistic for a practical application.
To overcome this drawback, a new trend is emerging by
incorporating heuristic rules to save the computational cost.
One of the popular methods is the priority list method.
The unique features of priority list method have attracted
continuous development and improvement of the method. The
priority list method is embedded in Tabu search [5] for faster
speed. The same strategy is done in [6] by incorporating the
priority list in Evolutionary Algorithm (PL EA) to solve large
scale unit commitment problem. The Extended Priority List
(EPL) in [7] is one of the most significant works in dealing
with priority list method. The main drawback in the above
methods is that the final solution obtained is somehow non-
deterministic. Owing to this drawback, a more efficient
technique has been developed in this work by incorporating
some highly efficient methodological procedures based on
priority list method to solve UC problem. Henceforth, the
proposed methodology is called the Methodological Priority
List (MPL). MPL does not encounter the said disadvantage;
the solutions obtained are deterministic. To be certain of the
proposed methodology, a numerical comparison is done with
the existing methods, showing the improvements in total cost
in comparison with many existing methods. Besides, the
proposed MPL has a record of fastest method in computational
speed. The deterministic characteristic of MPL adds extra
 DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
2

advantage to the proposed algorithm, an entity preferred in Dh : Load demand at the hth hour (set to 10% of Dh),
many industrial applications. Rh : Spinning reserve at the hth hour,
Pi (min) : Minimum generation limit of ith unit,
II. UNIT COMMITMENT PROBLEM Pi (max) : Maximum generation limit of ith unit,
A. Problem Formulation MUi : Minimum up-time of ith unit,
MDi : Minimum down-time of ith unit.
In this section, we first formulate the UC problem. The
Xi on(t) : Duration during which ith unit is continuously on.
objective of the UC problem is the minimization of the total
production costs over the scheduling horizon. Therefore, the Xi off(t) : Duration during which ith unit is continuously off.
objective function is expressed as the sum of fuel and start-up
costs of the generating units. For N generators, the operation B. Data Specifications
cost is defined mathematically as shown in eqn. (1). A benchmark system comprising of 10 generators is adopted
N
TPC N = ∑ [F ( P
i =1
i ih ) + ]
STi (1 − U i ( h−1) ) U ih (1) as the test bed in this work. The data specifications are given
in Table I with the demand over 24-hour period available in
The operating cost accumulates over the total number of Table II. The same set of data was used in [3-9].
operating hours, H, where H = 24 which represents 24 hours TABLE I
GENERATOR SYSTEM OPERATOR DATA
of operation for each unit of generator. Therefore eqn. (1) is
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
rewritten as: Pmax (MW) 455 455 130 130 162
H N Pmin (MW) 150 150 20 20 25
TPC HN = ∑ ∑ [F ( P
h =1 i =1
i ih ) + ]
STi (1 − U i ( h −1) ) U ih (2)
α ($/h) 1000 970 700 680 450
β ($/MWh) 16.19 17.26 16.60 16.50 19.70
In eqn. (1), TPCN is the total production cost for N units of γ ($/MWh2) 0.00048 0.00031 0.002 0.00211 0.00398
Min Up (h) 8 8 5 5 6
generators whereas TPCHN in eqn. (2) denotes the total Min Down (h) 8 8 5 5 6
production cost for N units of generators over H number of Hot start cost ($) 4500 5000 550 560 900
operating hours. Owing to the operational requirements, the Cold start cost ($) 9000 10000 1100 1120 1800
Cold start hrs (h) 5 5 4 4 4
minimization of the objective function is subject to the Initial status (h) 8 8 -5 -5 -6
following constraints: Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10
Pmax (MW) 80 85 55 55 55
(a) Power balance constraint Pmin (MW) 20 25 10 10 10
α ($/h) 370 480 660 665 670
N
β ($/MWh) 22.26 27.74 25.92 27.27 27.79
∑P U
i =1
ih ih = Dh (3)
γ ($/MWh2) 0.00712 0.0079 0.00413 0.00222 0.00173
Min Up (h) 3 3 1 1 1
(b) Spinning reserve constraint Min Down (h) 3 3 1 1 1
N Hot start cost ($) 170 260 30 30 30
(4)
∑P
i =1
i (max)U ih ≥ Dh + R h Cold start cost ($)
Cold start hrs (h)
340
2
520
2
60
0
60
0
60
0
Initial status (h) -3 -3 -1 -1 -1
(c) Generation limit constraint
Pi (min) ≤ Pih ≤ Pi (max) (5)
TABLE II
(d) Minimum up-time constraint (MU) LOAD DEMANDS FOR 24 HOURS
Hour Dh Hour Dh
X i on (t ) ≥ MU i (6)
1 700 13 1400
(e) Minimum down-time constraint (MD) 2 750 14 1300
3 850 15 1200
Xi
off
(t ) ≥ MDi (7) 4 950 16 1050
where the notations used are as follows: 5 1000 17 1000
6 1100 18 1100
7 1150 19 1200
TPC : Total production cost of the power generation, 8 1200 20 1400
Fi (Pih) : Fuel cost function of the ith unit with generation 9 1300 21 1300
10 1400 22 1100
output, Pih, at the hth hour. Usually, it is a quadratic 11 1450 23 900
polynomial with coefficients αi, βi and γi as follows: 12 1500 24 800
Fi ( Pih ) = α i + β i Pih + γ i Pih 2 (8)
N : Number of generators, C. Error Calculation
H : Number of hours, The error can be a good measure to determine the robustness
Pih : The generation output of the ith unit at the hth hour, of an algorithm. The error can give an idea of the degree of
STi : Start-up cost of the ith unit, constraint violations. In this work, the error is calculated
Uih : The on/off status of the ith unit at the hth hour, and based on the following formula:
Uih = 0 when off, Uih = 1 when on,
 DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
3

N N the load plus spinning reserve requirements. If

Err = C1 × Dh − ∑ PihU ih + C2 × (1 + sr ) × Dh − ∑ Pi (max)U ih (9) not, continue operating as is; if yes, go on to
i =1 i =1
the next step.
2. Determine the number of hours, H, before the
where C1 and C2 are set to 1 whenever detecting violation of generator will be needed again. That is,
assuming that the load is dropping and will then
(3) and (4) respectively. The spinning reserve, sr is set to 10% go back up some hours later.
therefore sr = 0.1 in the calculation. 3. If H is less than the minimum shut-down time for
the generator, keep commitment as is and go to
III. PRIORITY LIST METHOD IN SOLVING UNIT COMMITMENT step 5; if not, go to next step.
4. Calculate two costs. The first is the sum of
PROBLEM the hourly production costs for the next H hours
The generation of initial solution is important, particularly, with the generator up. Then recalculate the
for the UC problem. The initial solution is usually generated same sum for the generator down and add in the
start-up cost for either cooling the generator
at random. However this technique is difficult to get a or banking it, whichever is less expensive. If
feasible solution for the UC problem with many constraints, there is sufficient savings from shutting down
resulting in the quality of solution obtained being the generator, it should be shut down, otherwise
unsatisfactory. The priority list method is an efficient method keep it on.
5. Repeat this entire procedure for the next
to overcome this problem. generator on the priority list. If it is also
dropped, go to the next and so forth.
A. Calculation of priority list
The priority order shown in Table III is created based on The procedures above are adopted to obtain the results of
each unit parameters. Generators with higher capacity will be conventional priority list method, presented in the following
at higher priority. If generators have the same capacity (same sub-section.
Pmax value), the one with lower heat rate (HR) will be of higher
priority. The calculation for HR is given in (10). The C. Results of conventional priority list method
calculated priority list and HR are shown in Table III. The The result of priority list method is shown in Table IV. The
priority list in this table can be checked by examining the Pmax on state units are shaded in black with the dispatch given per
and HR values on the left. unit. This result is an illustration of suboptimal solution which
is the drawback in priority list method. The problem in this
Fi ( Pi max (t )) (10) solution occurs when the generator 3 at hour 16 is not on.
HRi =
Pi max (t ) Hence, the generator has to be off for the following hours
meeting a MD constraint of 5 hours for unit 3. Consequently,
Costi = HRi × Fi Pih (11) when the generator 3 is turned on again in hour 21, it involves
startup cost and needs to be on unnecessarily for 23th and 24th
hour for the following hours to meet the MU constraint. The
Using the priority list in Table III, the units are committed reason that it is not necessary for the generator to be turned up
based on their priority with the highest priority (lowest cost) at 23th and 24th hour is that the first two generators are able to
being on first followed by other units in the list accordingly. meet the relevant reserve constraint. This is an illustration of
Units are committed one after the other until the load demand the drawback of the priority list method. Further, the
plus the spinning reserve requirements represented by (4) are satisfaction of MD causes a violation to the reserve constraint
fulfilled in the priority list order during every time interval. at 20th hour, observing an error with a value of 64 calculated
The similar description of HR is given in [7, 10]. The full- from eqn. (9). This reserve constraint cannot be avoided even
load average production cost is simply the HR multiplied by when the remaining generators are all turned on. Note that
fuel cost, shown in eqn. (11). The fuel cost equation has been turning on the right sided generators are expensive as they are
given in eqn. (8). of low priority and also it will involve startup cost, which
further increases the total operating cost.
TABLE III
HEAT RATE (AT MAXIMUM POWER)
Unit HR Priority Unit HR Priority
P P
Group max ($/MW) Order Group max ($/MW) Order
1 455 18.6 1 6 80 27.5 7
2 455 19.5 2 7 85 33.5 6
3 130 22.2 5 8 55 38.1 8
4 130 22.0 4 9 55 39.5 9
5 162 23.1 3 10 55 40.1 10

B. Unit commitment based on priority list

Based on the famous book from reference [11], the priority
list schemes are built around a simple shut-down algorithm
that might operate as follows.

1. At each hour when load is dropping, determine

whether dropping the next unit on the priority
list will leave sufficient generation to supply
 DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
4

3. The violation of the MD occurs on unit 3, at 16th

TABLE IV
and 17th hour.
CONVENTIONAL PRIORITY LIST SOLUTION, TOTAL COST=$566513.3
4. The violation of the MU occurs on units 6 and 7
Unit Start Hourly Power at 22nd hour.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Err
h Cost Cost (MW)
1 455 245 0 13683.13 0 700
2 455 295 0 14554.50 0 750 Based on the observation above, it is an efficient method to
3 455 370 25 900 17709.45 0 850 turn on all units without considering the MU and MD
4 455 455 40 0 18597.67 0 950 constraints in the first place. To solve the violation problems
5 455 390 130 25 560 20580.02 0 1000 in 3 and 4, it is a wise idea to just turn on the unit 3 at hours 16
6 455 360 130 130 25 1100 23487.04 0 1100 and 17 to satisfy the MD demand. This is different from the
7 455 410 130 130 25 0 23261.98 0 1150
8 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200
conventional priority list which will consider turning off the
9 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 860 28111.06 0 1300 next hours until MD is satisfied. This is shown in the off
10 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 60 30117.55 0 1400 duration of 5 hours on unit 3 at 16th to 20th hours. Hence, the
11 455 455 130 130 162 73 25 10 10 60 31976.06 0 1450 conventional priority list has inefficient strategy.
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 43 10 10 60 33950.17 0 1500 To overcome the MU violation of remark 4 above, the
13 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 30057.55 0 1400
14 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27251.06 0 1300
relevant unit is turned on continuously until the on state
15 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200 duration is equal to MU. This means that generators 6 and 7
16 455 440 130 25 0 20895.88 0 1050 must be turned on at 22nd hour as the MU=3 for both
17 455 390 130 25 0 20020.02 0 1000 generators. The relevant results are discussed in the next
18 455 455 130 35 25 0 22792.33 0 1100 section.
19 455 455 130 115 20 25 0 25144.14 0 1200
20 455 455 130 162 80 25 55 28 10 490 31986.64 64 1400 TABLE V
21 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27801.06 0 1300 CONVENTIONAL PRIORITY LIST WITHOUT CONSIDERING MU AND MD,
TOTAL COST=$562939
22 455 360 130 130 25 0 22387.04 0 1100
23 455 315 130 0 17795.28 0 900 Unit Start Hourly Power
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Err
h Cost Cost (MW)
24 455 215 130 0 16052.85 0 800
Total 4090 566513.3 64 27.1 K 1 455 245 0 13683.13 0 700
2 455 295 0 14554.50 0 750
3 455 370 25 900 17709.45 0 850
4 455 455 40 0 18597.67 0 950
IV. PROPOSED METHODOLOGICAL PRIORITY LIST 5 455 390 130 25 560 20580.02 0 1000
6 455 360 130 130 25 1100 23487.04 0 1100
To improve the solution we now investigate the solution 7 455 410 130 130 25 0 23261.98 0 1150
without considering the MU and MD constraints when turning 8 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200
on the generator based on the priority order. The MU and MD 9 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 860 28111.06 0 1300
constraints are considered in calculation of startup cost to 10 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 60 30117.55 0 1400
avoid the cold start cost when a generator is turned off for 11 455 455 130 130 162 73 25 10 10 60 31976.06 0 1450
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 43 10 10 60 33950.17 0 1500
more than the summation of MD and cold start hour. The 13 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 30057.55 0 1400
following are the core procedures in MPL: 14 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27251.06 0 1300
15 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200
1. Turn on the generator in the order of priority 16 455 440 130 25 0 20895.88 0 1050
without considering the MU and MD constraints. 17 455 390 130 25 0 20020.02 0 1000
2. Check the MD from 1st to 24th hour in the order or 18 455 360 130 130 25 550 22937.04 0 1100
priority of the generators. If the generator is 19 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200
off between two on states and the off duration 20 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 490 30547.55 0 1400
is less than the MD, turn on the generator at
21 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27251.06 0 1300
those hours. To compensate the extra generated
power, consider turning off generator from the 22 455 360 130 130 25 0 22387.04 0 1100
most expensive one if this does not violate the 23 455 420 25 0 17684.70 0 900
spinning reserve, MU and MD constraints. 24 455 345 0 15427.42 0 800
3. Check MU from 1st to 24th hour in the order of Total 4640 562939.0 0 27.1 K
priority of the generators. Turn on the
generator for the next hour until MU is
satisfied. Once again, to compensate the extra
generated power, consider turning off generator V. RESULTS
from the most expensive one if this does not The results of MPL based on the above strategies are
violate the spinning reserve, MU and MD
constraints. presented in Table VI. The total cost recorded in Table VI is
$563977.1, a significant improvement over the conventional
Without considering the MU and MD in the unit method. There are only a few changes compared to the
commitment, the total operating cost is $562939, shown in schedule in Table V. Firstly, unit 3 is turned on continuously
Table V. The start cost, hourly cost, error and total hourly at 16th and 17th hours. Secondly, both units 6 and 7 are turned
power are included in this table. By observing Table V, some on at 22nd hour.
important remarks are derived:

1. All the power demands are met.

2. No violation of the spinning reserve occurs,
shown by Err=0 for all 24 hours.
 DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
5

TABLE VI [13, 14]. Some of them are based on penalty functions. They
METHODOLOGICAL PRIORITY LIST SOLUTION, TOTAL COST=$563977.1 differ, however, in how the penalty function is designed and
Unit
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Start Hourly
Err
Power applied to infeasible solutions. As scheduling of generators is
h Cost Cost (MW) a very risky task, we generate feasible solution which meets
1 455 245 0 13683.13 0 700
the (3) – (7) constraints.
2 455 295 0 14554.50 0 750
3 455 370 25 900 17709.45 0 850
4 455 455 40 0 18597.67 0 950
A. Satisfying Power Demand via Lambda iteration
5 455 390 130 25 560 20580.02 0 1000
6 455 360 130 130 25 1100 23487.04 0 1100
7 455 410 130 130 25 0 23261.98 0 1150
In this paper, the calculation for economic load dispatch
8 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200 (ELD) is done using the lambda-iteration method. Therefore,
9 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 860 28111.06 0 1300 the power demand is automatically satisfied using this method.
10 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 60 30117.55 0 1400 The ELD calculation is stopped when the allowable error,
11 455 455 130 130 162 73 25 10 10 60 31976.06 0 1450 which indicates that the total power generated minus the
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 43 10 10 60 33950.17 0 1500
13 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 30057.55 0 1400
power demand is less than the number of participating
14 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27251.06 0 1300 generators divided by ten. In mathematical form, the lambda
15 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200 iteration is stopped when the following criteria is satisfied
16 455 310 130 130 25 0 21513.66 0 1050
17 455 260 130 130 25 0 20641.83 0 1000 N (13)
18 455 360 130 130 25 0 22387.04 0 1100
TPowh − Dh <
1000
19 455 455 130 130 30 0 24150.34 0 1200
20 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 490 30547.55 0 1400 where TPowh is the total power generated at hour h whereas
21 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 27251.06 0 1300
22 455 455 145 20 25 0 22735.52 0 1100
Dh is the demand at hour h. Note that the lambda-iteration is
23 455 420 25 0 17684.70 0 900 carried out per hour basis. The main advantage of this method
24 455 345 0 15427.42 0 800 is the very fast speed in calculating the optimal scheduling of
Total 4090 563977.1 0 27.1 K generators.

B. Spinning reserve constraint

A. Numerical Improvement The evaluation of the system spinning reserve usually
Results of simulation on systems with 10-, 20-, 40-, 60-, 80- depends upon deterministic criteria. According to the most
and 100-unit generators are given in Table VII. From this common criteria, the reserve should be at least equal to the
table, the percentage of improvement and total cost savings capacity of the largest unit, or to a specific percentage of the
are done for MPL over the conventional PL method. Further, hourly system load. The spinning reserve is vital to maintain
comparison of numerical results is done in Section VII. The the system as securely as possible. The available total power
time recorded in second is an average of 50 continuous run on considering 10% spinning reserve (sr=0.1) is available in
Intel Pentium4 CPU (1.5 GHz). Table VIII. Based on this Table, should the demand be 1300
TABLE VII MW, 7 generators need to be turned on in the order of
RESULTS WITH D IFFERENT N UMBER OF UNITS generating unit 1, 2, 5, 4, 3 7 and 6. Also, the total power
No of PL MPL MPL Exe Total Cost Improvement available for the whole system when spinning reserve is taken
unit (error) (error) Time [s] Saving ($) (%)
into account is 1510 MW.
10 566513.3 563977.1 0.037 2536.2 0.4477
(8) (0) TABLE VIII
20 1130325 1125171 0.040 5154.0 0.4560 OPTIMAL CAPACITY
(146) (0) Priority Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
40 2273184 2248803 0.046 24381.0 1.0725 Generating Unit 1 2 5 4 3 7 6 8 9 10
(422) (0) Pmax 455 455 162 130 130 85 80 55 55 55
60 3396356 3368468 0.052 27888.0 0.8211 Max Capacity
(568) (0) without spinning 455 910 1072 1202 1332 1417 1497 1552 1607 1662
80 4539669 4492850 0.064 46819.0 1.0313 reserve, Cmax
(844) (0) Max Capacity
100 5681727 5613107 0.073 68620.0 1.2077 considering
(990) (0) spinning reserve, 413 827 974 1092 1210 1288 1360 1410 1460 1510
C
Cmax( sr ) = max
(1+ sr )
From the results in Table VII, it is obvious that the proposed
method is very fast and does not violate any constraints. The
C. Satisfying the Generation Limit Constraints
improvement in % increases when larger systems are
considered. In other words, a larger amount of total cost Since lambda iteration is used to obtain the scheduling of
saving is benefited. generators by solving the economic dispatch, the generation
limit constraints are always satisfied.
VI. CONSTRAINTS SATISFACTION IN MPL
D. Satisfying the MU and MD Constraints
Recently, several methods for handling infeasible solutions Based on the procedures in Section IV, before applying the
for continuous numerical optimization problems have emerged MU and MD checking, all the units are committed based on
 DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China
6

the load demand without considering MU and MD constraints. convergence and is more reliable. As for now, MPL is the
Then, the MD constraint checking is done. After finishing, the most effective deterministic method in comparison to the one
MU constraint checking follows, based on the priority list, existing in solving UC problem.
starting from the cheapest generator. This is rather simple yet
efficient constraint satisfaction techniques for MU and MD IX. REFERENCES
constraints proposed in this work. [1] C. K. Pang, G. B. Sheble, and F. Albuyeh, “Evaluation of Dynamic
Programming Based Methods and Multiple Area Representation for
VII. NUMERICAL COMPARISONS Thermal Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-
100, no.3, pp. 1212-1218, 1981.
The results of MPL are compared to other existing methods [2] F. Zhuang and F. D. Galiana, “Toward a more Rigorous and Practical
both in numerical values and time recorded as shown in Table Unit Commitment by Lagrangian Relaxation,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 763-772, 1988.
IX. The characteristic of the methods are given in the second [3] C.C.A. Rajan and M.R. Mohan “An evolutionary programming-based
column under “Char”. For the deterministic methods, denoted tabu search method for solving the unit commitment problem,” IEEE
by D in the table, the solutions for best, average and worst are Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 577-585, Feb 2004.
the same as the total cost recorded is the same for each run. [4] T.O. Ting, M.V.C. Rao and C.K. Loo, “A Novel Approach for Unit
Commitment Problem via an Effective Hybrid Particle Swarm
From this comparison, MPL records the best total cost
Optimization”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol 21, no. 1, pp. 1-8, Feb
($563977) compared to other deterministic methods such as 2006.
DP, LR and LRGA. The total cost is competent to the one [5] H. Mori and O. Matsuzaki, “Application of priority-list-embedded Tabu
obtained by HPSO, PL EA and EPL. HPSO in [4] records a search to unit commitment in power systems,” Inst. Elect. Eng. Japan,
vol. 121-B, no. 4, pp. 535-541, 2001.
slightly lower total cost, $563942.3, due to the reason that the [6] D. Srinivasan and J. Chazelas, “A priority list-based evolutionary
variable for power are encoded in floating point rather than algorithm to solve large scale unit commitment problem,” in Proc of Intl
integer as considered in this case. However, HPSO has Conf on Power System Technology, vol 2, pp. 1746-1751, 2004.
expensive computational requirements. [7] T. Senjyu, K. Shimabukuro, K. Uezato and T. Funabashi, “A Fast
Technique for Unit Commitment Problem by Extended Priority List,”
The time recorded for MPL is exactly 0.037s and is the
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 882 – 888, May 2003.
same for each run. This is indeed a very fast method, which is [8] S. A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis, “A Genetic Algorithm
the best compared to technique such as EPL, recording a solution to the unit commitment problem,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
duration of 0.72s. This comparison is valid as the computer vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83 – 92, Feb. 1996.
[9] K. A. Juste, H. Kita, E. Tanaka and J. Hasegawa, “An Evolutionary
with the same speed, Intel Pentium4 CPU (1.5 GHz) is used Programming to the Unit Commitment Problem”, IEEE Trans. Power
for simulation, similar to the one in [7]. Syst., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1452-1459, 1999.
[10] A. J. Wood and B. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and
Control, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1996.
TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF RESULTS ON 10-UNIT SYSTEM
Total cost [$] X. BIOGRAPHIES
Method Char Time [s]
Best Average Worst Yang Tingfang was born in Luxi, Hunan, P.R.China
DP [8] D — 565825 same same on August 9, 1975. He received his B.S degree and
LR [8] D — 565825 same same M.Sc. degree both from from Huazhong University of
LRGA [15] D — 564800 same same Science & Technology. His interests including power
GA [8] ND 221 565825 — 570032 quality and fault location. He is presently with the
EP [9] ND 100 564551 565352 566231 School of Electrical & Information Engineering,
HPSO [4] ND 62 563942.3 564772.3 565785.3 Changsha University of Science and Technology,
PL EA [6] ND — 563977 — 565451 Hunan Province, 410076, P. R. China.
EPL [7] ND 0.72 563977 — —
ACSA [16] ND — 564049 — — T. O. Ting obtained his B. S. degree from University
MPL D 0.037 563977 same same Sarawak Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia, M.E. degree from Multimedia
D = Deterministic University, Malacca, Malaysia and Ph.D. degree from The Hong Kong
ND = Non Deterministic Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong. His research interests include
optimization techniques, evolutionary computation and power system
applications.
VIII. CONCLUSION Su Sheng received the B.S degree from Wuhan University of Hydraulic and
Application of MPL is a new approach in solving Unit Electrical Engineering, China in 1998 and M.S degree from Wuhan
Commitment problem. MPL incorporates more intelligent University, China in 2002. He is currently working as a Research Assistant in
strategy with priority list as the backbone. The MPL is simple The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests include load
and more efficient than conventional priority list method. All modeling and Artificial Intelligence.
the associated constraints are met in the simulation results.
The simple and efficient technique to satisfy the MD
constraint is new in this work. The Economic Dispatch (ED) is
solved using the lambda iteration method. The simplicity of
the MPL and fast calculation of ED leads to a methodological
and competent method in comparison with conventional
method. Application to large scale system proves the
superiority of MPL in terms of computational speed. MPL
provides deterministic solution, a criterion preferred for
industrial applications. Also, it does not encounter premature