energies
Article
Optimizing Generation Maintenance Scheduling Considering
Emission Factors
Panit Prukpanit, Phisan Kaewprapha and Nopbhorn Leeprechanon *
Citation: Prukpanit, P.; Kaewprapha,
P.; Leeprechanon, N. Optimizing
Generation Maintenance Scheduling
Considering Emission Factors.
Energies 2023, 16, 7775. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en16237775
Academic Editor: David Borge-Diez
Received: 5 October 2023
Revised: 10 November 2023
Accepted: 14 November 2023
Published: 25 November 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 7775. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16237775
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Klong
Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand; prukpanit@gmail.com (P.P.); kphisan@engr.tu.ac.th (P.K.)
* Correspondence: nopbhorn@engr.tu.ac.th
Abstract: Conventional generation maintenance scheduling (GMS) is a solution to increase the re-
liability of power systems and minimize the operation and maintenance costs paid by generation
companies (GenCos). Nonetheless, environmental aspects, such as zero carbon emissions, have
attracted global attention, leading to emission costs being paid by electricity generators. Therefore, to
obtain GMS plans that consider these factors, this paper proposes multi-objective GMS models to
minimize operation, maintenance, and emission costs by using lexicographic optimization as a math-
ematical tool. A demand response program (DRP) is also adapted to decrease emission generation
and operational expenditures. The probability that no generation unit (GU) fails unexpectedly and
the average net reserve value, comprising the system reliability with and without considering the GU
failure rate, are demonstrated. Numerical examples are implemented for the IEEE 24-bus reliability
test system. A GMS algorithm presented in a published work is run and compared to verify the
robustness of the proposed GMS models. Our results indicate that this paper provides comprehen-
sive approaches to the multi-objective GMS problem focusing on operation, maintenance, carbon,
and DRP costs in consideration of technical and environmental aspects. The use of lexicographic
optimization allows for the systematic and hierarchical consideration of these objectives, leading to
significant benefits for GenCos.
Keywords: generation maintenance scheduling; emission cost; maintenance cost; demand response
program; lexicographic method
1. Introduction
In power systems, generation maintenance scheduling (GMS) is a solution that can
prolong the lifespan of a system and prevent the unexpected failure of the generationunit
(GU) with the aim of increasing the system reliability and decreasing outage costs [1,2].
However, improper GMS has the following issues: (i) When a GU that has low operation
costs and a high generation capacity is maintained during high-demand periods, a gener-
ation company (GenCo) will incur additional costs due to the need to have the capacity
for backup generation or the need to purchase electricity from other sources to support
the customer, which could result in higher financial expenditures and lower profits for
the GenCo; (ii) When a GU that has a high failure rate (FR) is not optimally closed, the
generation capacity may be lower than the load demand, caused by an unexpected outage
of the GU, leading to high outage costs for the GenCo; (iii) If GMS problems are based
solely on the optimization of financial costs, GMS plans may prioritize GUs with lower
operational costs without focusing on the high emission generation coefficients, leading
to higher overall emissions, despite the cost savings achieved. The environmental impact
of GMS can be a significant concern if aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
address climate change [3–14].
Therefore, to address the GMS problem by considering multiple issues, a multi-
optimization approach would be beneficial. The GMS problem should be formulated to
optimize multiple conflicting objectives.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 2 of 22

Recently, several works have proposed GMS models that consider objective functions
and use mathematical tools, which can be described briefly as follows. The GMS models
in [15] were based on long- and short-term plans. The long-term plan was implemented
by considering the power exchanged with the main grid, whereas a wind power plant,
energy system storage, a photovoltaic generator, and the demand response program (DRP)
were included in the short-term GMS model. A risk analysis method was adapted to
implement several GMS solutions under the uncertainty of market prices. In [16], the
uncertainties of weekly and hourly loads were considered in a multi-scale multi-resolution
GMS model, with the probability distribution function and polyhedral uncertainty used to
run the weekly and hourly demands, respectively. The affinely adjustable robust technique
was adapted to obtain the results. In [17], the costs of risks, transmission lines, and
generation maintenance were modeled. The risk costs were based on the punishment
coefficient of the line’s overflow, while the problem was solved by Lagrangian relaxation
and Benders decomposition. In [18], thermal and hydrothermal units were maintained
based on minimizing their operational, start-up, and maintenance costs. The improved
objective scaling ensemble approach technique was adapted as a mathematical tool.
To maximize GenCos’ profit, the GMS plans were based on several GenCos in an
oligopolistic market. The system reserve constraint, which was correlated by the GU’s
FR, was satisfied. Game theory was adapted to coordinate the GMS plans, whereas a
risk analysis was used to handle the uncertainties of market prices and the behaviors of
GenCos [19]. The GMS problem was based on the Nash equilibrium and non-corporative
game theory to satisfy the objectives of GenCos. The energy not supplied was considered
as one of the constraints; the loss of load probability and loss of load expectation were
also demonstrated [20]. The GMS was based on satisfying the reliability of the power
system inspected by the transmission system operator. The results were achieved using a
negotiation algorithm with an incentive signal [21].
To maximize the probability that no GU failed unexpectedly (PnF), the GMS problem
was correlated with the reliability theory. The objective function was primarily calculated
by maintenance intervals, FR, and the weighted capacity of GUs [22]. To formulate the
GMS problem for minimizing emissions, costs for GenCos, and the average net reserve
value (ANRV), the GMS model was based on a lexicographic technique. The DRP was
also included in the problem [23]. The trade-off between cost minimization and system
reliability maximization was demonstrated using a dominance-based multi-objective sim-
ulated annealing technique [24]. To maximize returns and system reserves for GenCos,
the global criterion method was adapted to form a compromise between the values of the
two objectives [25]. Based on the multi-agent system, the incentive signal was utilized for
a bi-level negotiation algorithm to coordinate the actions of the central operator and de-
centralized agents. The objectives were to minimize costs and maximize system reliability
for GenCos. The penalty cost function was proposed based on the financial revenue and
expected deterioration costs for GenCos [26]. The GMS model was based on minimizing
the costs of production and loss of load probability using the non-sequential Monte Carlo
simulation and cross-entropy methods. A wind turbine with intermittent output was
considered, and a loss of load expectation was also depicted [27]. The generation and
transmission maintenance scheduling was formulated as a multi-objective optimization
model to maximize the system adequacy index, minimize the production costs for electric-
ity generation, and maximize the profit for several GenCos. The problem was solved by
the hybrid NSGA III/dual simplex approach [28]. GMS with the uncertainty output of a
wind farm was proposed with the objectives of minimizing operation and maintenance
costs, minimizing the reserve margin, and maximizing the system flexibility index. The
DRP was implemented in the model and the augmented Epsilon constraint method was
used to solve the GMS algorithm [29]. The GMS problem was proposed to maximize the
profit and social welfare of GenCos and independent system operator (ISO), respectively,
in oligopolistic markets. The withholding capacity based on the wealth transfer index
and relative welfare loss index was adapted to solve the model [30]. Several GenCos
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 3 of 22

use GMS to maximize their revenue, whereas an ISO runs the market with the minimum
electricity price. The two-stage problem was solved using the deterministic policy gradient,
reinforcement learning algorithms, and the Nash equilibrium [31].
To the best of our knowledge, based on the literature review and Table 1, there is a
research gap: no published article has solved the GMS problem by considering operation,
maintenance, and emission costs as multi-objective GMS models. Furthermore, the DRP has
not been adapted when the emission costs are defined as an objective function, and factors
such as emission generation, the PnF, and the ANRV have not been demonstrated to support
the decision making of GenCos, simultaneously. These gaps could have implications for the
results of the GMS problem due to the following reasons: (i) There is a global concern for
environmental aspects, and one solution for this would be the implementation of carbon
taxation policies [3–14] that are enforced by governments, which would directly impact
the expenditure of GenCos. The existing GMS models do not consider emission costs or
operation and maintenance costs simultaneously. This can be problematic because carbon
taxation may be high while the other costs are at the minimum values; (ii) If carbon taxation
is enforced, GenCos need to reduce their generation of carbon. Additionally, there is a
growing focus on electricity user participation in the electricity market to reduce peak loads.
These two issues can be achieved through DRP implementation; (iii) If a GenCo has no
information about the PnF and the ANRV, which represent the system reliability with and
without considering the GU’s FR, respectively, the GenCo may not efficiently negotiate
with its customers or back up its capacity reserve.

Table 1. Summaries of some studies and this work.

Other Solution
Ref. Objective Function and Model Emission DRP
Indices Method
- To maximize GenCo’s
[15] × X × MINLP using GAMS
profits
- Expected energy not
- To maximize GenCo’s supplied
[20] × × MINLP using CPLEX
profits - Loss of load expectation
- Loss of load probability
- To independently maximize
[22] the PnF and minimize the × × × MINLP using CPLEX
sum of squared reserves
- To minimize emissions,
minimize operation and
[23] maintenance costs, and X X × Lexicographic method
maximize the ANRV
consecutively
- To minimize system reserve
[25] and maximize GenCo’s × × × Global criterion
profits simultaneously
- To consecutively minimize
the reserve margin,
[26] X × × Nash equilibrium
minimize emissions, and
maximize GenCos’ profits
- To simultaneously minimize Non-sequential Monte
[27] operation, maintenance, and × × - Loss of load expectation Carlo simulation and
loss of load costs cross-entropy methods
- To consecutively maximize
the system adequacy index,
Hybrid NSGA III/DS
[28] minimize total operation × × ×
model
costs, and maximize
GenCo’s profits
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 4 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Other Solution
Ref. Objective Function and Model Emission DRP
Indices Method
- To consecutively minimize
operation and maintenance
costs, minimize the sum of Augmented Epsilon
[29] × X ×
squared reserves, and constraint method
maximize the system
flexibility index
- To simultaneously minimize
operation, maintenance, and
[32] X X × Entropy method
DRP costs and minimize
emission generation
- To consecutively minimize
operation, DRP, gas storage,
and maintenance costs,
minimize emission Augmented Epsilon
[33] X X ×
generation, minimize the constraint method
sum of squared reserves,
and maximize the system
flexibility index
- To simultaneously
Global criterion
[34] maximize GenCo’s profit × × ×
method
and the PnF
- To simultaneously minimize
operation, maintenance, and
emission costs
- To minimize operation and
maintenance costs and - Emission generation
This
minimize emission cost X X - ANRV Lexicographic method
work
consecutively - PnF
- To minimize emission cost
and minimize operation,
maintenance, and DRP costs
consecutively

To address these issues and the research gaps, the main contributions of this paper,
compared to those of previous works, are as follows:
i. While recent works have formulated the GMS model by considering the emission
output, operation and maintenance costs, and the ANRV, this paper, based on
carbon taxation policies forced on GenCos, proposes GMS models focusing on
operation, maintenance, and emission costs. These models aim to minimize the
sum of operation, maintenance, and emission costs simultaneously and to minimize
operation, maintenance, and emission costs at each stage by adapting the lexico-
graphic method. This work aims to support GenCos by lowering their total costs,
reducing emissions, and increasing the reliability of the system.
ii. From the DRP that was used in the GMS problems without consideration of emission
costs, the authors adapt the DRP to the GMS model mentioned above (i).
iii. While the PnF and ANRV are separately shown in previous works, this paper
demonstrates both the PnF and ANRV simultaneously to support the decision mak-
ing of GenCos in terms of system reliability, with and without considering the GU’s
FR. The emission output is also depicted to demonstrate the correlation between
the total costs, system reliability, and environmental concerns. The emissions cost
coefficients are varied to increase the robustness of the results.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The GMS indices, which are
the costs, emission output, PnF, and ANVR, are mathematically expressed in Section 2.
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 5 of 22

The lexicographic method is depicted in Section 3, with an illustration of the proposed

GMS models in Section 4. Finally, the numerical results are analyzed and summarized in
Section 5 and our concluding remarks are in Section 6.

2. GMS Indices and Constraints

This section describes the operation, maintenance, emission, and DRP costs. Also, the
PnF, ANRV, and related constraints are demonstrated.

2.1. GMS Indices

The operation and maintenance costs (OMC) expressed in Equation (1) are the main
costs included in the GMS problem. They can be divided into two groups. The first depends
on the GU’s variable power output (Pi,t ) and variable cost coefficient (VCi ), whereas the
second is correlated with the maintenance cost coefficient (MCi ). The emission cost (EC)
depicted in Equation (2) is based on the emission cost factor (ECC) and emission output
(EOi,t ) [35].
T I
OMC = ∑ ∑ [ Pi,t VCi H (1 − msi,t ) + MCi (msi,t )] (1)
t =1 i =1

T I
EC = ECC ∑ ∑ EOi,t (2)
t =1 i =1

In Equation (3), the EOi,t can be calculated by the emission output coefficient (EOCi ) [35].

EOi,t = Pi,t EOCi (1 − msi,t ) H (3)

The average net reserve value (ANRV) shown in Equation (4) is the weekly average
capacity reserve depending on the reserve margin value (RMVt ), the maximum capacity
of the GU (PiMax ), and the load demand (Db,t ). The RMVt expressed in Equation (5) is the
ratio between the demand and reserve capacity [23].
" #
1 T I B
ANRV = ∑ RMVt ∑ Pi Max
(1 − msi,t ) − ∑ Db,t (4)
T t =1 i =1 b =1
!
B I B
RMVt = ∑ Db,t / ∑ PiMax − ∑ Db,t (5)
b =1 i =1 b =1

The demand response program (DRP) [23,36] has two main categories: (i) the time-
based rate program (TBR) with no incentives or penalties for electricity customers; and
(ii) the incentive-based rate program (IBR) divided into voluntary, mandatory, and market-
based algorithms. This study focuses on the voluntary IBR, providing incentives to cus-
tomers for reducing their MWh without penalties. The power system is assumed to
operate in a smart environment capable of responding to the direct load control and
emergency DRP.
The cost of the DRP (DRPC) in Equations (6) and (7) is determined by factors such as
the demand ratio (drt ), incentive for reducing energy consumption by 1 MWh (incb ), and
the demand before and after implementing the DRP. The demand ratio in Equation (8) relies
on the demand at interval t and the maximum demand across all intervals. In Equation
DRP is influenced by the market price of electricity, the nominal potential of the
(9), the Db,t
responsive load, and the price elasticity of demand [23,32,36].

T B
DRPC = ∑ ∑ DRPCb,t (6)
t =1 b =1
 
DRP
DRPCb,t = drt incb Db,t − Db,t (7)
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 6 of 22

Db,t
drt = (8)
Dbmax
DR − mp + dr inc
!
T mpb,j b,j j b
DRP
Db,t = (1 − nd) Db,t + ndDb,t 1 + ∑ E(t, j) × (9)
j =1
mpb,j

where E(t,j) represents the price elasticity between the the price elasticity between the t-th
and j-th periods [23,32,36].
The probability that no generation unit fails unexpectedly (PnF), which is described in
detail in [22], is based on Equations (10)–(14). In Equation (10), the PnF is influenced by
four factors: (i) the GU’s capacity (PiMax ), (ii) the GU’s failure rate (FRi ), (iii) the duration
between the GU’s previous and present maintenance (m ps,i − m pv,i ), and (iv) the generation
capacity of the largest GU in the system (PLargest ). The PnF is converted to Z in Equation
(11), indicating that Z should have a low value to reflect the original PnF. To efficiently
obtain the results, as shown in Equations (12)–(14), the natural logarithm is used to linearize
the model. The linearized Z is represented by PnF’, which should also have a low value,
similar to that for Z [22,34].
P Max
" # i
PLargest
1
PnF = ∏ exp − FRi m ps,i − m pv,i − 1


(10)
i

Max


− PPi
∏

Z= exp − FRi m ps,i − m pv,i − 1 Largest (11)
i

PnF 0 = ln( Z ) (12)

I P Max
PnF 0 = ∑ − PLargest
i



ln exp − FRi m ps,i − m pv,i − 1 (13)
i =1

I P Max 
PnF 0 = ∑ PLargest
i


FRi m ps,i − m pv,i − 1 (14)
i =1

2.2. Constraints of GMS

To efficiently maintain the GU and secure the power system, the operation, mainte-
nance, and power generation constraints must be satisfied [22,23,25,34].

T
∑ msi,t = di (15)
t =1

msi,t − msi,t−1 ≤ msi,t+di −1 (16)

T
∑ imsi,t = 1 (17)
t =1

msi,t + psi,t ≤ 1 (18)

(1 − msi,t ) PiMin ≤ Pi,t ≤ (1 − msi,t ) PiMax (19)

I B
∑ Pi,t ≥ ∑ Db,t (20)
i =1 b =1
 ity is determined by Equation (16), while Equations (17) and (18) guarantee that the GU
will be maintained once a horizon and satisfy the relationship between the GU’s mainte-
nance and production states, respectively. The GU’s output limitation is defined in Equa-
tion (19). The total power output, without considering the power loss, must be higher than
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 7 of 22
or equal to the load demand to preserve the system’s security, as demonstrated in Equa-
tion (20).
The maintenance duration is denoted by Equation (15), whereas the outage continuity
3. The Multi-Objective is
Optimization
determined by Method
Equation (16), while Equations (17) and (18) guarantee that the GU will
be maintained once a horizon and satisfy the relationship between the GU’s maintenance
The lexicographic method is used to track the multi-objective optimization problem
and production states, respectively. The GU’s output limitation is defined in Equation (19).
with all objectives hierarchically solved
The total power in their
output, own
without stage depending
considering on must
the power loss, the adjustable
be higher than or equal
coefficient. The advantage is load
to the thatdemand
each objective
to preservecan be focused
the system’s on asand
security, analyzedininde-
demonstrated Equation (20).
pendently. Nonetheless, a suitable coefficient is difficult to find.
3. The Multi-Objective Optimization Method
For the mathematical model, if the first objective is to minimize the value, the func-
The lexicographic method is used to track the multi-objective optimization problem
tion is shown in Equation (21).
with In the second
all objectives stage,solved
hierarchically as depicted in Equation
in their own (22), the
stage depending mod-
on the adjustable coef-
els can be maximizationficient.
or minimization
The advantageproblems, with thecan
is that each objective constraint
be focused defined in Equa-
on and analyzed independently.
tion (23) [23,37]. Nonetheless, a suitable coefficient is difficult to find.
For the mathematical model, if the first objective is to minimize the value, the func-
∗
𝑂𝑉in
tion is shown =Equation
Min 𝐹 (𝑥 ) second stage, as depicted in Equation
(21). In the (21) (22), the
models can be maximization or minimization problems, with the constraint defined in
𝑂𝑉 ∗ (23)
Equation = [23,37].
Min or Max 𝐹 (𝑥 )   (22)
OVf∗ = MinFf xstage f (21)
Subject to
 
∗ ∗ MaxFf +1 xstage f +1
𝐹 (𝑥 ) ( f + 1 )
≤ 1 + 𝛿 × 𝑂𝑉
OV = Min or
(23) (22)

Subject to
where 𝑥 and 𝑥 are sets of variables used  to obtain
 the results in the first and
Ff xstage f +1 ≤ (1 + δ) × OVf∗ (23)
second stages, respectively. From Equation (23), the 𝛿 is used to relax the search space for
the second optimizationwhere xstagewith
problem f andaxvalue are sets of0variables
stage f +1between and 1. used to obtain the results in the first and
second stages, respectively. From Equation (23), the δ is used to relax the search space for
𝑂𝑉 ∗ = Max problem
the second optimization 𝐹 (𝑥 with) a value between 0 and 1. (24)
 
Subject to OVf∗ = MaxFf xstage f (24)

𝐹 (𝑥 to
Subject ) ≥ (1 − 𝛿 ) × 𝑂𝑉 ∗ (25)
 
∗
Ff xstage f +1 ≥ (1 − δ) × OVf (25)
On the other hand, if the maximization model is run first, as shown in Equation (24),
the function and constraint On of the
theother
second
hand,stage
if the can be expressed
maximization asrun
model is Equations (22) in
first, as shown and
Equation (24),
(25), respectively. the function and constraint of the second stage can be expressed as Equations (22) and (25),
respectively.
The lexicographic method can also be illustrated as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
The lexicographic method can also be illustrated as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Description of minimization problem

Figure 1. Description in the lexicographic
of minimization problem inmethod.
the lexicographic method.
 Energies2023,
Energies 2023,16,
16,7775
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 22
22

Figure2.2.Description
Figure Descriptionof
ofmaximization
maximizationproblem
problemininthe
thelexicographic
lexicographicmethod.
method.

4.4.The
TheHierarchy
Hierarchyofofthe
theProposed
ProposedGMS GMSModels
Models
To obtain the costs of the GMS, emission output,PnF’,
To obtain the costs of the GMS, emissionoutput, andANRV,
PnF’,and ANRV,the theGMS
GMSmodels
models
are
areproposed
proposedandandillustrated
illustratedininthis
thissection.
section.
Model
ModelA:
A:The
Theobjective
objectivefunction
functionisistotominimize theOMC
minimizethe OMCand andEC
ECsimultaneously.
simultaneously.The
The
OMC
OMCand andEC
ECcan
canbe
betracked
trackedbybyusing
usingthe
theequations
equationsdefined
definedininSection
Section2.2.
Min
Min (𝑂𝑀𝐶++EC
(OMC 𝐸𝐶)
) (26)
(26)
Subject to
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20)
Constraints (15)–(20)
Model B: The OMC is first minimized, and the EC is solved in the second stage using
Model B: The OMC is first minimized, and the EC is solved in the second stage using
thedefinition
the definitionofofthe
thelexicographic
lexicographicmethod
methoddepicted
depictedininSection
Section3.3.In
InEquation
Equation(29),
(29),the
theOMC
OMC
based on the GMS plan in the second stage must be less than or equal to the
based on the GMS plan in the second stage must be less than or equal to the previous OMC previous
OMC multiplied
multiplied by the by the lexicographic
lexicographic coefficient.
coefficient.
Stage
Stage 1:1:
MinMin(OMC )
(𝑂𝑀𝐶) (27)
(27)
Subject
Subjectto to
Constraints
Constraints(15)–(20)
(15)–(20)
Stage
Stage2:2:
Min ( EC ) (28)
Min (𝐸𝐶) (28)
Subject to
Subject to (15)–(20)
Constraints
Constraints (15)–(20)
OMC ( x EC ) ≤ OMC ( xOMC ) × (1 + δ) (29)
𝑂𝑀𝐶(𝑥 ) ≤ 𝑂𝑀𝐶(𝑥 ) × (1 + 𝛿) (29)
Model
ModelC: C:This
Thismodel
modelruns
runsthe
theGMS
GMSproblems
problems considering ECEC
thethe
considering and OMC
and minimiza-
OMC minimi-
tion consecutively.
zation consecutively.
Stage
Stage1:1:
Min ( EC ) (30)
Min (𝐸𝐶) (30)
Subject to
Subject to (15)–(20)
Constraints
Constraints
Stage 2: (15)–(20)
Stage 2: Min (OMC ) (31)
Subject to Min (𝑂𝑀𝐶) (31)
Constraints (15)–(20)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20) EC x
( OMC ) ≤ EC ( x EC ) × (1 + δ) (32)
𝐸𝐶(𝑥 ) ≤ 𝐸𝐶(𝑥 ) × (1 + 𝛿) (32)
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 9 of 22

Model D: To validate the advantage of the proposed GMS models, the GMS problem
presented in [23] is also adapted and solved. The mathematical equations are as follows:
Stage 1:
Min ( EO) (33)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20)
Stage 2:
Min (OMC ) (34)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20)

EO( xOMC ) ≤ EO( x EO ) × (1 + δ) (35)

Stage 3:
Max ( ANRV ) (36)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20)

EO( x ANRV ) ≤ EO( xOMC ) × (1 + δ) (37)

OMC ( x ANRV ) ≤ OMC ( xOMC ) × (1 + δ) (38)

where Equations (37) and (38) are the constraints obtained from stage 2.
Model E: In this model, the DRP is adapted to the GMS problem to identify the benefits
of the financial costs, emission generation, and system reliability. The mathematical model
is proposed as follows:
Stage 1:
Min ( EC ) (39)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(20)
Stage 2:
Min (OMC + DRPC ) (40)
Subject to
Constraints (15)–(19)
I B
∑ Pi,t ≥ ∑ Db,t
DRP
(41)
i =1 b =1

EC ( xOMC,DRP ) ≤ EC ( x EC ) × (1 + δ) (42)
where xOMC,DRP is the GMS plan obtained by adapting the DRP to the GMS model.
Figures 3–7 illustrate all the GMS models. Only model A is run in a single stage
calculation, whereas models B and C are solved as two-stage problems. In model D, the
results are obtained by minimizing the emission output, minimizing the total cost, and
maximizing the ANRV consecutively. Model E is the same as depicted in model C, but the
DRP is adapted in the second stage. With these GMS algorithms, the numerical results are
shown in Section 5.
OR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
OR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
s 2023, 16, xEnergies
FOR PEER 16, 7775
2023,REVIEW 10 of 22 10 of 22

Figure 3. The description of model A.

Figureof
Figure 3. The description The description
3. model A. of model A.
Figure 3. The description of model A.

Figure 4. The description of model B.

Figure 4. The description of4. model

Figureof B.
The description of model B.
Figure 4. The description model B.

Figure 5. The description of model C.

Figure 5. The description of model C.

Figure 5. The description
Figureof
5. model C.
The description of model C.
16, x FOR Energies
PEER REVIEW
2023, 16, 7775 11 of 22 11 of 22
6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

Figure 6. The description of model D.

ofThe
Figure 6.
Figure 6. The description description
model D. of model D.

Figure 7. The description of model E.

Figure 7. The description ofThe
Figure 7. model E.
description of model E.
5. Numerical Results5. Numerical Results
5. Numerical Results
The IEEE 24-busThe reliability
IEEE 24-bus test system
reliability [38]
testissystem
used to [38]numerically demonstrate
is used to numerically the
demonstrate the
The IEEE 24-bus reliability test system [38] is used to numerically demonstrate the
results of the proposed GMS models. For the characteristics of GUs, their generation ca-
results of the proposed GMS models. For the characteristics of GUs, their generation
results of the proposed
capacityGMS models. Forduration the characteristics of GUs, fromtheir generation ca-, VC , and
pacity and maintenance and maintenance
duration can be obtained canfrom
be obtained
[22,35,39]. The 𝑀𝐶 , 𝑉𝐶
[22,35,39]. The, MC and i i
pacity and maintenance
EOC are durationbycan
denoted [35]. be
The obtained
GU’s FR from
and m [22,35,39].
are shown Thein 𝑀𝐶 , 𝑉𝐶
[22,39]. The, and
mp and Db,t
𝐸𝑂𝐶 are denoted by [35]. The GU’s 𝐹𝑅 and 𝑚 , are shown in [22,39]. T h e 𝑚𝑝 , and
i i pv,i b,j
𝐸𝑂𝐶 are denotedare byextracted
[35]. The GU’s
from [25]𝐹𝑅 and and 𝑚 respectively.
[20,38], , are shown To infind[22,39]. 𝑚𝑝 is, an
T h ethere
the results, andassumption
𝐷 are extracted from [25] and [20,38], respectively. To find the results, there is an as-
𝐷 ,, are extractedthat
fromthe[25]
load anddemand[20,38], respectively
and electricity price. To
are find
certain the results, therewhile
[20,22,23,25,34], is anthe as-power loss
sumption that theis load
not demand and
considered. The electricity
T is divided price
into areweeks,
52 certain [20,22,23,25,34],
based on yearly while the
maintenance scheduling,
sumption that the load demand and electricity price are certain [20,22,23,25,34], while the
power loss is not whereas
considered .HThe T is×divided into 52 weeks, basedto onbeyearly maintenance
power loss is not considered. The T is divided into 52 weeks, based on yearly maintenance nominal
the is 24 7 = 168 h. The δ is assumed 0.1 (10%) [23]. The
scheduling, whereas the H
potential is 24 × 7 = 168
of DRPs h. Theload,δ is assumed to be 0.1 (elasticity
10%) [23] of .the
The
scheduling, whereas the H is 24 ×is 710% of the
= 168 h. total
The δ is and the weekly
assumed to beprice
0.1 (10%) [23] . The load can be
nominal potentialextracted
of DRPs is 10%
from [36]. of the total load, and the weekly price elasticity of the
nominal potential of DRPs is 10% of the total load, and the weekly price elasticity of the
load can be extractedTo increase
from [36]. the robustness and demonstrate the tendency of the results, all the GMS
load can be extracted
models from
are [36].
run for thirteen cases, inthewhich the emission
To increase the robustness and demonstrate tendency of thecost coefficients
results, all the vary
GMSfrom 28 to
To increase the robustness and demonstrate the tendency of the results, all the GMS
models are run for thirteen cases, in which the emission cost coefficients vary from 28 to
models are run for thirteen cases, in which the emission cost coefficients vary from 28 to
40 USD/ton. The values of 28, 35, and 40 USD/ton are from [3–5], respectively. The values
40 USD/ton. The values of 28, 35, and 40 USD/ton are from [3–5], respectively. The values
of 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39 USD/ton are specifically chosen by the authors. It
of 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39 USD/ton are specifically chosen by the authors. It
is expected that the models can still benefit GenCos when the emission cost coefficient is
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 12 of 22

40 USD/ton. The values of 28, 35, and 40 USD/ton are from [3–5], respectively. The values
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
of 29,
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39 USD/ton are specifically chosen by the 12
authors.
of 22 It
is expected that the models can still benefit GenCos when the emission cost coefficient is
not constant. The GMS problems are investigated using the optimization function in the
MATLAB program, running
MATLAB on
onaaacomputer
computer with an AMD Ryzen 7 3750H Gfx 2.302.30
GHz
MATLAB program, runningon
program, running computerwith
withanan AMD
AMD Ryzen
Ryzen 7 3750H
7 3750H GfxGfx
2.30 GHzGHz
processor and
processor and 16.0
16.0 GB
GB of
of RAM.
RAM.
processor and 16.0 GB of RAM.
5.1. Preliminary Verification
5.1. ofofthe Results
5.1. Preliminary Verificationof
Preliminary Verification theResults
the Results
Based
Based on the previous results [22–25,40] and issues mentioned in Section 1, the GUs
Based on the previous
on the previousresults
results[22–25,40]
[22–25,40]and and issues
issues mentioned
mentioned in Section
in Section 1, the
1, the GUsGUs
should
should be maintained in low-demand intervals. This is because the GenCo has a high dif-
should be maintainedininlow-demand
be maintained low-demand intervals.
intervals. ThisThis is because
is because the GenCo the GenCo has dif-
has a high a high
ference
difference between its maximum and used generation capacities., This has led to high system
ference between its maximum and used generation capacities., This has led to high systemhigh
between its maximum and used generation capacities., This has led to
reliability
system and low maintenance
reliability costs. On the other hand, the GenCo may have to pur-
reliability and lowand low maintenance
maintenance costs. On costs. On the
the other other
hand, thehand,
GenCo themay
GenCo havemay have to
to pur-
chase
purchaseelectricity
electricityfromfromother sources
other sourcesto supply
to its
supply load
its and
load its
and reserve
its reservegeneration
generation capacity
capacity
chase electricity from other sources to supply its load and its reserve generation capacity
may not be
may be satisfied if the GUs are shut down ininhigh-demand intervals. Considering the
may not
not be satisfied
satisfied ifif the
theGUs
GUsare areshut
shutdowndownin high-demand
high-demand intervals.
intervals. Considering
Considering the the
results
results of this paper, the unused generation capacities based on models A, D, and E are
results of
of this paper,
paper, the the unused
unusedgeneration
generationcapacities
capacities based
based onon models
models A, D,A, and
D, and
E areE are
shown in Figures 8–10, respectively. These models are selected because they have differ-
shown
shown in in Figures
Figures 8–10,
8–10, respectively. These These models
modelsare areselected
selectedbecause
becausethey theyhave
havediffer-
different
ent procedures to obtain the results, as explained in Section 4. Also, cases 1, 8, and 13 are
ent procedures
procedures to obtain
to obtain the results,
the results, as explained
as explained in Section
in Section 4. Also,
4. Also, casescases 1, and
1, 8, 8, and
13 13
areare
based
based on 28, 35, and 40 USD/ton emission cost coefficients, as reported by [3–5], respec-
based
on on and
28, 35, 28, 35,
40 and 40 USD/ton
USD/ton emission emission cost coefficients,
cost coefficients, as reported
as reported by [3–5],by respectively.
[3–5], respec-The
tively. The results show that most GUs are maintained in low-demand intervals, which
tively. show
results The results
that mostshow thatare
GUs most GUs are in
maintained maintained
low-demand in low-demand
intervals, which intervals, which9–15
are weeks
are weeks 9–15 and 31–42, as specified by the load data [20,38]. It can be said that the
are 31–42,
and weeks as 9–15 and 31–42,
specified by theas load
specified
data by the load
[20,38]. It candata
be [20,38].
said that It the
canresults
be saidfound
that the
in this
results found in this paper are reliable, robust, and consistent with those of previous stud-
results found in this paper are reliable, robust, and consistent with
paper are reliable, robust, and consistent with those of previous studies. We have neglected those of previous stud-
ies. We have neglected to show the unused capacities of models B and C to avoid provid-
ies.
to We have
show neglected
the unused to showof
capacities themodels
unusedBcapacities
and C to avoidof models B and Ca to
providing avoid provid-
redundant analysis.
ing a redundant analysis.
ing a redundant analysis.

Figure 8. The
The generation
generation capacity that
capacitythat cannot
thatcannot bebeused
cannotbe usedunder
underthe GMS plans (Case 1).
Figure
Figure 8.
8. The generation capacity used under thethe
GMSGMS plans
plans (Case
(Case 1). 1).

Figure 9. The generation capacity that cannot be used under the GMS plans (Case 8).
Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
The generation
generationcapacity
capacitythat
thatcannot
cannotbebeused
usedunder
underthethe
GMS plans
GMS (Case
plans 8). 8).
(Case
Energies
Energies2023, 16,
2023, 16,7775
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1313
ofof2222

Figure10.
Figure 10.The
The generation
generation capacity
capacity that
that cannot
cannot be
be used
used under
under the
the GMS
GMS plans
plans(Case
(Case13).
13).

5.2.
5.2.The
TheResults
Results of
of Models
Models A, B, and C
The
TheGMS
GMSindices
indices from
from models
models A, B, and C C are
are demonstrated
demonstratedin inTable
Table2,2,showing
showingthat
that
model
modelA A gives
gives the
the minimum
minimum costs in in cases
cases 1,
1, 5,
5, 6,
6, 8,
8, 9,
9, and
and 11,
11, while
whilemodel
modelCCisisthe
thebest
best
choice
choicefor
forcases
cases 2,
2, 3,
3, 4,
4, 7,
7, 10,
10, 12, and 13. To find the
the optimal
optimal GMS
GMSplan,
plan,ififthe
theGenCo
GenCoonlyonly
considers
considersthe
thetotal
totalcost,
cost, models
models A and C should be run. run. On
On the
theother
otherhand,
hand,model
modelBBisisnot
not
appropriate
appropriatefor
forall
allcases.
cases.

Table2.2.The
Table Thetotal
totalcost,
cost, emission
emission output,
output, PnF’, and ANRV from
from models
models A,
A,B,
B,and
andC.
C.

Total Cost Emission

Emission
OutputOutput ANRV
ANRV
CaseModel ModelTotal Cost
Case PnF’PnF’
(Million(Million
USD) USD) (Million(Million
ton) ton) (MW)
(MW)
A A 1309.6221309.622 9.622 9.622 67.3067.30 1704
1704
1 1 B B 1317.5501317.550 9.426 9.426 56.8256.82 1733
1733
C C 1309.6971309.697 9.615 9.615 57.3457.34 1740
1740
A A 1319.8841319.884 9.615 9.615 68.5168.51 1673
1673
2 2 B B 1326.9771326.977 9.426 9.426 59.2359.23 1733
1733
C 1319.308 9.616 57.34 1740
C 1319.308 9.616 57.34 1740
A A 1329.8551329.855 9.624 9.624 67.5067.50 1655
1655
3 B 1336.403 9.426 59.24 1808
3 B 1336.403 9.426 59.24 1808
C 1328.921 9.616 57.34 1740
C 1328.921 9.616 57.34 1740
A 1340.802 9.620 60.64 1657
A 1340.802 9.620 60.64 1657
4 B 1345.830 9.426 64.71 1770
4 C B 1338.5371345.830 9.616 9.426 57.3464.71 1770
1740
C 1338.537 9.616 57.34 1740
A 1347.141 9.618 62.64 1757
5 B A 1355.2561347.141 9.426 9.618 55.2962.64 1757
1742
5 C B 1348.1551355.256 9.616 9.426 57.3455.29 1742
1740
A C 1357.2691348.155 9.622 9.616 63.0157.34 1740
1699
6 B A 1364.6821357.269 9.426 9.622 60.7563.01 1699
1683
6 C B 1357.7741364.682 9.616 9.426 57.3460.75 1740
1683
A C 1367.7941357.774 9.619 9.616 63.2557.34 1740
1699
7 B A 1374.3171367.794 9.433 9.619 63.2363.25 1614
1699
7 C B 1367.3911374.317 9.615 9.433 57.3463.23 1740
1614
A C 1376.8831367.391 9.632 9.615 69.3157.34 1717
1740
8 B A 1383.5351376.883 9.426 9.632 65.9369.31 1751
1717
C 1377.002 9.616 57.34 1740
8 B 1383.535 9.426 65.93 1751
C 1377.002 9.616 57.34 1740
9 A 1384.011 9.636 60.69 1768
 Energies 2023, 16, 7775 14 of 22

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Total Cost Emission Output ANRV

Case Model B (Million USD)
1392.962 9.426 PnF’ 59.59 1718
(Million ton) (MW)
A
C 1384.011
1386.626 9.636
9.616 60.69
57.34 1740
1768
9 B A 1392.9621397.675 9.426 9.616 59.59 58.15 1675
1718
10 C B 1386.6261402.388 9.616 9.426 57.34 56.26 1740
1716
A C 1397.6751396.234 9.616 9.616 58.15 57.34 1740
1675
10 B A 1402.3881403.410 9.426 9.580 56.26 69.72 1716
1673
C 1396.234 9.616 57.34 1740
11 B 1411.815 9.426 60.27 1712
A C 1403.4101405.855 9.580 9.616 69.72 57.34 1673
1740
11 B 1411.815 9.426 60.27 1712
C A 1405.8551415.777 9.616 9.635 57.34 63.01 1614
1740
12 B 1421.241 9.426 60.88 1663
A 1415.777 9.635 63.01 1614
12 B C 1421.2411415.466 9.426 9.615 60.88 57.34 1740
1663
C A 1415.4661427.110 9.615 9.602 57.34 68.74 1615
1740
13 A B 1427.1101430.667 9.602 9.426 68.74 61.62 1740
1615
13 B C 1430.6671425.084 9.426 9.615 61.62 57.34 1740
1740
C 1425.084 9.615 57.34 1740

If both the total cost and emission output are considered by the GenCo, the differ-
ences If both the
among thetotal
costscost and emission
of models output
A, B, and are depicted
C are consideredin by the GenCo,
Figure 11. On the the differences
x-axis, B1–
among the costs of models A, B, and C are depicted in Figure
A1 and B1–C1 represent the gaps in costs between models B and A and models 11. On the x-axis,B B1–A1
and C,
and B1–C1 represent
respectively, for case 1.the gaps
The in costs
Figure between
indicates that models
model BB consistently
and A and models
results inB and C,
higher
respectively,
costs for However,
in all cases. case 1. The Figure
the indicates
differences that the
among model B consistently
emission outputs of results in higher
the three mod-
costs in all cases. However, the differences among the emission outputs of the
els are shown in Figure 12, in which the terms on the x-axis can be logically explained as three models
are shown
those in Figure
in Figure 12, in
11. It can bewhich the terms
observed on theBx-axis
that model can be logically
consistently generates explained as those
lower emissions
in all cases as well. Therefore, if emission concerns are correlated to crucial issues such in
in Figure 11. It can be observed that model B consistently generates lower emissions as
all cases as well. Therefore, if emission concerns are correlated to crucial issues such as
government policies, carbon credits, and sustainable development goals, choosing model
government policies, carbon credits, and sustainable development goals, choosing model B
B can lead to significant benefits for GenCos.
can lead to significant benefits for GenCos.

Figure
Figure11.
11.The
Thedifferences
differencesbetween
betweentotal
total costs
costs of
of models
models A, B, and C.

When considering all indices, which are the total costs, emission output, PnF’, and
ANRV, GenCos should select model C in cases 2, 7, and 12, whereas model A is appropriate
for cases 5 and 9. Model B is not considered in all cases because it has very high costs
compared to those of models A and C. By contrast, if a GenCo benefits from system
reliability, such as reliability charges, and market power to negotiate with its customers,
model C is the attractive choice for cases 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 15 of 22

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

Table 3. The total cost, emission output, PnF’, and ANRV from models C and D.

Total Cost Emission Output ANRV

Case Model PnF’
(Million $) (Million ton) (MW)
C 1309.697 9.615 57.34 1740
1
D 1310.591 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1319.308 9.616 57.34 1740
2
D 1320.404 9.812 74.35 1907
Figure 12. The differences
differences
C between emission
1328.921 outputs of models
9.616 A, B, and C. 57.34 1740
3
D 1330.216 9.812 74.35 1907
The
When results indicateall
considering theindices,
following: which(i) AareGMS
the model that only
total costs, includes
emission the OMC
output, PnF’, and
EC in4a GenCos
single state C do not 1338.537
benefit GenCos in some 9.616 57.34 1740
ANRV, should select model C in cases 2, 7,cases;
and 12, (ii)whereas
GenCos modelhave the A flexibility
is appropri- to
choose a GMS
ate for cases 5 andD 9.based
plan Model onB1340.028
their
is notconsiderations, 9.812
considered in including
all 74.35
their financial
cases because it 1907costs
management,
has very high
emission
compared concerns,
to those C of
and system
models 1348.155
Areliability;
and C. By and contrast, 9.616
(iii) Ififthe emission
a GenCo 57.34
output
benefits is not
from a 1740
system primary
relia-
5
concern
bility, such D
or ifasreducing the
reliability 1349.840
running
charges, andtimemarket power9.812
is a priority, it is
to reasonable
negotiate withto74.35
discard
its model
customers, 1907 B, as
model
it consistently
C is the C
leads to higher 1357.774
costs compared to 9.616
those of models A 57.34
and C. 1740
6 attractive choice for cases 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13.
The results D indicate the 1359.652
following: (i) A GMS model 9.812 that only includes 74.35 the OMC 1907 and
5.3. The Results of Models C and D
EC in a single state C do not benefit
1367.391 GenCos in some9.615 cases; (ii) GenCos have the flexibility
57.34 1740
7 demonstrate the robustness of the proposed GMS models, the GMS problem
To
to choose a GMSD plan based1369.464 on their considerations, 9.812including their financial manage-
74.35 1907
discussed in [23],concerns,
ment, emission Crepresentedand by model
system
1377.002 D, is adapted
reliability; and and
9.616(iii) solved.
If the The
emissionoutcomes
57.34 output ofismodel
1740 not a
C are8 chosen as the benchmark
primary concernDor if reducing in this section for
the running time is9.812 the following reasons:
a priority, it is reasonable (i) This
to1907model
discard
1379.276 74.35
adopts
model B, theaslexicographic
it consistently method,
leads toashigher
implemented
costs in model to
compared D; those
(ii) Displaying
of models the
A total
and costs
C.
C 1386.626 9.616 57.34 1740
of model
9 A would present redundant data, which can be avoided; and (iii) Model B is not
suitable D
for costofminimization 1389.088 9.812 74.35 1907
5.3. The Results Models C andin D any of the cases, as illustrated in Section 5.2.
In Table 3, the C results indicate
1396.234 that model D achieves 9.616 the highest 57.34
ANRV in all 1740 cases.
10
To demonstrate the robustness of the proposed GMS models, the GMS problem dis-
D 1398.900 9.812
This high performance can be attributed to the model’s emphasis on system reliability. 74.35 1907
cussed in [23], represented by model D, is adapted and solved. The outcomes of model C
Figures 13 and 14Cdemonstrate 1405.855
the gaps in costs and 9.616
emission outputs 57.34
between models1740 C
11
are chosen as the benchmark in this section for the following reasons: (i) This model
and D, respectively. D When comparing
1408.712 the total costs 9.812of models C and 74.35 1907 in
D, as depicted
adopts the lexicographic method, as implemented in model D; (ii) Displaying the total
Table 3 and Figure C 13, model1415.466
D incurs significantly 9.615 higher costs than57.34 model C in 1740 all cases.
costs12of model A would present redundant data, which can be avoided; and (iii) Model B
Additionally, considering
D the emission
1418.524 outputs shown
9.812 in Table 3 and
74.35 Figure 14,1907model
is not suitable for cost minimization
D also generatesCthe highest 1425.084
in any of the cases,
emissions in all cases.9.615
as illustrated in
This implies that57.34
Section 5.2. GMS
the proposed
In Table 1740
13
models in this3,paper
the results
D
indicate
outperform
1428.336 thethat model
model D achieves
presented in thepreviously
the
9.812 emphasis on
highest ANRV
74.35
in all
published 1907
cases.
work
This high performance can be attributed to the
when the cost of emissions is taken into account in the GMS problems.model’s system reliability.
Figures 13 and 14 demonstrate the gaps in costs and emission outputs between models C
and D, respectively. When comparing the total costs of models C and D, as depicted in
Table 3 and Figure 13, model D incurs significantly higher costs than model C in all cases.
Additionally, considering the emission outputs shown in Table 3 and Figure 14, model D
also generates the highest emissions in all cases. This implies that the proposed GMS mod-
els in this paper outperform the model presented in the previously published work when
the cost of emissions is taken into account in the GMS problems.

Figure13.
Figure Thedifferences
13. The differencesbetween
betweentotal
totalcosts
costs of
of models
models D
D and
and C.
C.
 Energies 2023, 16, 7775 16 of 22

Table 3. The total cost, emission output, PnF’, and ANRV from models C and D.

Total Cost Emission Output ANRV

Case Model PnF’
(Million $) (Million ton) (MW)
C 1309.697 9.615 57.34 1740
1
D 1310.591 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1319.308 9.616 57.34 1740
2
D 1320.404 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1328.921 9.616 57.34 1740
3
D 1330.216 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1338.537 9.616 57.34 1740
4
D 1340.028 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1348.155 9.616 57.34 1740
5
D 1349.840 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1357.774 9.616 57.34 1740
6
D 1359.652 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1367.391 9.615 57.34 1740
7
D 1369.464 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1377.002 9.616 57.34 1740
8
D 1379.276 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1386.626 9.616 57.34 1740
9
D 1389.088 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1396.234 9.616 57.34 1740
10
D 1398.900 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1405.855 9.616 57.34 1740
11
D 1408.712 9.812 74.35 1907
C 1415.466 9.615 57.34 1740
12
D 1418.524 9.812 74.35 1907
OR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22
C 1425.084 9.615 57.34 1740
13
D 1428.336 9.812 74.35 1907

Figure 14. The differences

Figure between emission
14. The differences outputs
between of models
emission Dofand
outputs C. D and C.
models

5.4. The Results of Models C and E

5.4. The Results of Models C and E
To decrease the total financial cost, reduce the generation of emissions, and increase
To decrease thethetotal financial
system cost,
reliability, reduce the generation
the implementation of the DRP of emissions,solved.
is numerically and increase
the system reliability, the implementation of the DRP is numerically solved.
The results for the cost, emission output, PnF’, and ANRV of models C and E are
presented in Table 4. The costs of model E are 4.73%, 4.77%, 4.81%, 4.85%, 4.88%, 4.92%,
4.96%, 4.99%, 5.03%, 5.07%, 5.10%, 5.13%, and 5.17% lower than those of model C for cases
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 17 of 22

The results for the cost, emission output, PnF’, and ANRV of models C and E are
presented in Table 4. The costs of model E are 4.73%, 4.77%, 4.81%, 4.85%, 4.88%, 4.92%,
4.96%, 4.99%, 5.03%, 5.07%, 5.10%, 5.13%, and 5.17% lower than those of model C for cases
1–13, respectively. The corresponding cost values (in USD) are illustrated in Figure 15.
Furthermore, the differences between the emission outputs of models C and E are 9.88%,
9.89%, 10.16%, 10.17%, 10.17%, 10.17%, 10.16%, 10.16%, 10.17%, 10.16%, 10.17%, 10.16%,
and 10.16% for cases 1–13, respectively, with the values as tons depicted in Figure 16. In
terms of system reliability, the PnF’ indices generated by model E are slightly higher than
those of model C, although the differences are negligible compared to the benefits received
from the cost and emission reductions. Furthermore, the ANRVs in all cases meet the
desired values compared to those of model C. Consequently, incorporating the DRP into
the GMS plan proves to be a superior choice. However, GenCos need to find efficient
solutions for operating the DRP in real scenarios, considering recent works proposing DRP
applications [41–44] that can be later adapted to the GMS field.

Table 4. The total cost, emission output, PnF’, and ANRV from models C and E.

Total Cost Emission Output ANRV

Case Model PnF’
(Million USD) (Million tons) (MW)
C 1309.697 9.615 57.34 1740
1
E 1247.733 8.665 68.88 1681
C 1319.308 9.616 57.34 1740
2
E 1256.398 8.665 68.88 1681
C 1328.921 9.616 57.34 1740
3
E 1265.045 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1338.537 9.616 57.34 1740
4
E 1273.683 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1348.155 9.616 57.34 1740
5
E 1282.321 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1357.774 9.616 57.34 1740
6
E 1290.960 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1367.391 9.615 57.34 1740
7
E 1299.598 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1377.002 9.616 57.34 1740
8
E 1308.236 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1386.626 9.616 57.34 1740
9
E 1316.875 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1396.234 9.616 57.34 1740
10
E 1325.513 8.638 68.88 1681
C 1405.855 9.616 57.34 1740
11
E 1334.151 8.638 68.88 1681
C 1415.466 9.615 57.34 1740
12
E 1342.789 8.638 64.94 1727
C 1425.084 9.615 57.34 1740
13
E 1351.428 8.638 64.94 1727
 11 CC 1405.855
1405.855 9.616
9.616 57.34
57.34 1740
1740
11
EE 1334.151
1334.151 8.638
8.638 68.88
68.88 1681
1681
12 CC 1415.466
1415.466 9.615
9.615 57.34
57.34 1740
1740
12
EE 1342.789
1342.789 8.638
8.638 64.94
64.94 1727
1727
Energies 2023, 16, 7775
13 CC 1425.084
1425.084 9.615
9.615 57.34
57.34 174018 of 22
1740
13
EE 1351.428
1351.428 8.638
8.638 64.94
64.94 1727
1727

Figure 15.15.
Figure
Figure 15. The
The differences
The
differences between
differences total
between
between costs
total
total ofofmodels
costs
costs models
of CCand
models and
C E.E.E.
and

Figure16.
Figure 16.The
Thedifferences
differencesbetween
betweenemission
emissionoutputs
outputsofofmodels
modelsCCand
andE.E.
Figure 16. The differences between emission outputs of models C and E.

6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions
6. Conclusions
Inthis
In this
In thispaper,
paper,
paper, four
four
four GMS
GMSGMS models, represented
models,represented
models, representedby by
byA,A,
A,B,B,
B,C,C, andE,
C,and E,are proposedto
areproposed
proposed toiden-
to iden-
identify
tify
tifythethe minimum
theminimum
minimumtotal total cost
totalcost paid
cost paid by
paid by GenCos. Model A minimizes
GenCos. Model AAminimizes
by GenCos. minimizesthe the sum
thesum
sum of
ofofthe
thetheOMC
OMC OMC and
andand
EC
ECEC in
in in a single
a single
a single stage.
stage.
stage. Model
Model
Model B aims
B aims
B aims to find
to find
to find the minimum
thethe minimum
minimum OMC
OMC OMC and
andand EC
EC EC consecutively.
consecutively.
consecutively.
Model
Model
Model CCis
Cisused
used
is used toto
to solve
solve
solve the
the minimum
the minimum
minimum ECEC
EC and
and andOMC
OMC
OMC consecutively.
consecutively.
consecutively. Inmodel
In model
In model E,E,the
thethe
E, EC,
EC, EC,
OMC,
OMC, and DRP are minimized in three stages. The last three
OMC, and DRP are minimized in three stages. The last three models are calculated by by
and DRP are minimized in three stages. The last threemodels
models are
arecalculated
calculated by
using
using
using the
the thelexicographic
lexicographic
lexicographic method
method
method asaas
as amathematical
mathematical
a mathematical tool.
tool.
tool. ToTo
To demonstrate
demonstrate
demonstrate the
the robustness
the robustness
robustness ofof
of
thetheproposed
proposed GMSGMS algorithms,
algorithms, thetheGMS
GMS model
model in a
in previously
a previously
the proposed GMS algorithms, the GMS model in a previously published work, which published
published work,
work, which
which
hieratically
hieratically
hieratically aims
aims
aims to to minimize
tominimize
minimize thethe
the emission
emission
emission output,
output,
output, minimize
minimize
minimize the
the
the OMC,
OMC,
OMC, and
and
and maximize
maximize
maximize the
the
the
ANRV,
ANRV,isisalso
ANRV, is also
alsorun. run. It is represented
run.ItItisisrepresented
representedby by model
bymodel
modelD. D.
D.AllAll models
Allmodels
modelsare are tracked
aretracked
trackedbasedbased
basedon on thirteen
onthirteen
thirteen
cases following the emission cost coefficients of 28–40 USD/ton. The IEEE 24-bus reliability
test system is implemented to obtain numerical results. GMS indices such as the emission
output, PnF, and ANRV are demonstrated to support the GenCo’s decision.
The results show the following: (i) When the emission cost is considered as one of
the objective functions, models A and C result in the minimum costs in several cases
and should be primarily chosen by the GenCo. Significantly, they provide a balance
between cost minimization and emission reduction; (ii) Model B has the highest costs in
all cases. However, it generates the lowest emissions. If the emission factor has benefits
beyond financial aspects, such as corporate social responsibility, social welfare, sustainable
development goals, or the potential to adapt carbon credits to the GenCo, this model
can be a suitable algorithm; (iii) Model D is a better choice when the GenCo prioritizes
system reliability, especially in terms of its generation capacity. The GenCo can ensure the
reliability of its power supply to its customers, which can be advantageous in terms of
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 19 of 22

customer satisfaction. However, this model generates significantly high costs and emission
outputs compared to those of models A, C, and E; (iv) Model E consistently has the lowest
costs and emission outputs in all cases. Nonetheless, it requires the implementation of the
DRP in collaboration with customers. This model can be considered when a GenCo has the
capability to work with customers to optimize their demand response strategies. From the
perspective of the ISO, there are no concerns because all models satisfy all of the crucial
constraints. Therefore, the selection of a specific model depends on the priorities and
objectives of the GenCo, such as cost minimization, emission reductions, system reliability
maximization, and collaboration with customers through the DRP.
Therefore, in certain cases, GenCos cannot achieve the minimum cost by including the
OMC and EC in a single objective function. Better results can be obtained by adapting the
lexicographic method to the GMS problem. Additionally, our GMS models yield superior
outcomes compared to those of previous works, offering benefits for GenCos in various
aspects such as financial management, carbon taxation, and system reliability.
However, the models presented in this paper were not solved with actual parameters
based on specific electricity generation and carbon tax policies in any country. Hence,
for future work, it would be beneficial to incorporate carbon credit, government policies,
and social welfare into the objective function, while using actual data in the models.
Furthermore, the proposed GMS models can be applied in competitive markets using game
theory to optimally satisfy the objectives of GenCos.

Author Contributions: Project administration, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis,

resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, visualization, funding acquisition,
conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, verification, investigation, resources,
writing—review and editing, supervision, P.P., P.K. and N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors received funding from the Faculty of Engineering at Thammasat University
under funding agreement No 01/2562.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The financial support granted by the Faculty of Engineering at Thammasat
University is greatly appreciated and acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
Indices
F Set of objective functions
I Set of generation units
T Set of time intervals
B Set of buses
Parameters
Dbmax Maximum demand of bus b (MW)
Db, t Demand of bus b at interval t (MW)
di Maintenance duration of generation unit i (interval)
drt Demand ratio at interval t
ECCi Emission cost coefficient of generation unit i ($/ton)
EOCi Emission output coefficient of generation unit i (ton/MWh)
FRi Failure rate of generation unit i
H Duration of each time interval (h)
incb Incentive to consumer in bus b for 1 MWh reduction ($/MWh)
MCi Maintenance cost of generation unit i ($)
Market price of bus b before implementing a demand response program at interval
mpt
t ($/MWh)
Market price of bus b after implementing a demand response program at interval t
mptDR
($/MWh)
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 20 of 22

Intervals between when generation unit i was placed back after previous maintenance and
m pv,i
the 51st interval of the previous maintenance scheduling window (interval)
nd Nominal potential of responsive demand (%)
P Largest Generation capacity of the largest generation unit (MW)
PiMax Maximum capacity of generation unit i (MW)
PiMin Minimum power output of generation unit i (MW)
VCi Variable production cost of generation unit i ($/MWh)
δ Coefficient of search space for the lexicographic method
Variables
ANRV Average net reserve value (MW)
DRP Demand of bus b occurring after implementing a demand response program at interval
Db,t
t (MW)
DRPC Cost of a demand response program ($)
EC Emission cost ($)
EOi Emission output of generation unit i (ton)
Initial maintenance state of generation unit i (1 when generation unit i is started to
imsi,t
maintain and 0 otherwise)
m ps,i The tth interval that generation unit i is maintained in the present scheduling window
OMC Operation and maintenance costs ($)
OVf∗ Optimal value of objective function f
Binary variable of maintenance state of generation unit i occurring at interval t (1 when
msi,t
generation unit i is in maintenance and 0 otherwise)
Pi,t Power supplied by generation unit i at interval t (MW)
PnF 0 Representation of PnF, which is calculated from the linearized model
Binary variable of the operation state of generation unit i occurring at interval t (1 when
psi,t
generation unit i is in operation and 0 otherwise)
RMVt Reserve margin value at interval t

References
1. Endrenyi, J.; Aboresheid, S.; Allan, R.N.; Anders, G.J.; Asgarpoor, S.; Billinton, R.; Chowdhury, N.; Dialynas, E.N.; Fipper, M.;
Fletcher, R.H.; et al. The present status of maintenance strategies and the impact of maintenance on reliability. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2001, 16, 638–646. [CrossRef]
2. Endrenyi, J.; Anders, G.J.; Leite da Silva, A.M. Probabilistic evaluation of the effect of maintenance on reliability—An application.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1998, 13, 576–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Resources for the Future. Carbon Pricing 201: Pricing Carbon in the Electricity Sector. Available online: https://www.rff.org/
publications/explainers/carbon-pricing-201-pricing-carbon-electricity-sector/ (accessed on 15 August 2022).
4. International Energy Agency. The Potential Role of Carbon Pricing in Thailand’s Power Sector. Thailand, 2021. Available online:
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-potential-role-of-carbon-pricing-in-thailands-power-sector (accessed on 15 August 2022).
5. Parry, I. Putting a Price on Pollution. Available online: https://www.imf.org/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/the-case-for-
carbon-taxation-and-putting-a-price-on-pollution-parry (accessed on 15 August 2022).
6. Leroutier, M. Carbon pricing and power sector decarbonization: Evidence from the UK. J. Environ. Econ. Manag 2022, 111, 102580.
[CrossRef]
7. Lovcha, Y.; Perez-Laborda, A.; Sikora, I. The determinants of CO2 prices in the EU emission trading system. Appl. Energy 2022,
305, 117903. [CrossRef]
8. Handayani, K.; Anugrah, P.; Goembira, F.; Overland, I.; Suryadi, B.; Swandaru, A. Moving beyond the NDCs: ASEAN pathways
to a net-zero emissions power sector in 2050. Appl. Energy 2022, 311, 118580. [CrossRef]
9. Olmstead, E.H.; Yatchew, A. Carbon pricing and Alberta’s energy-only electricity market. Electr. J. 2022, 35, 107112. [CrossRef]
10. Wong, J.B.; Zhang, Q. Impact of carbon tax on electricity prices and behaviour. Finance. Res. Lett. 2022, 44, 102098. [CrossRef]
11. Köppl, A.; Schratzenstaller, M. Carbon taxation: A review of the empirical literature. J. Econ. Surv. 2023, 37, 1353–1388. [CrossRef]
12. Hasnu, F.N.M.; Muhammad, I. Environmental issues in Malaysia: Suggestion to impose carbon tax. Asia Pac. Manag. Account. J.
2022, 17, 65–95.
13. Muhammad, I. Carbon tax as the most appropriate carbon pricing mechanism for developing countries and strategies to design
an effective policy. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2022, 9, 145–168. [CrossRef]
14. Chien, F.S.; Vu, T.L.; Phan, T.T.H.; Van Nguyen, S.; Anh, N.H.V.; Ngo, T.Q. Zero-carbon energy transition in ASEAN countries:
The role of carbon finance, carbon taxes, and sustainable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2023, 212, 561–569. [CrossRef]
15. Sadeghian, O.; Shotorbani, A.M.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. Generation maintenance scheduling in virtual power plants. IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 2019, 13, 2584–2596. [CrossRef]
16. Bagheri, B.; Amjady, N.; Dehghan, S. Multiscale multiresolution generation maintenance scheduling: A stochastic affinely
adjustable robust approach. IEEE Sys. J. 2021, 15, 893–904. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 21 of 22

17. Lou, X.; Feng, C.; Chen, W.; Guo, C. Risk-based coordination of maintenance scheduling and unit commitment in power systems.
IEEE Access 2020, 8, 58788–58799. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, Z.; Liu, M.; Xie, M.; Dong, P. A mathematical programming–based heuristic for coordinated hydrothermal generator
maintenance scheduling and long-term unit commitment. J. Electr. Power. Energy Syst. 2023, 147, 108833. [CrossRef]
19. Sadeghian, O.; Shotorbani, A.M.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. Risk-based stochastic short-term maintenance scheduling of GenCos in
an oligopolistic electricity market considering the long-term plan. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 175, 105908. [CrossRef]
20. Hassanpour, A.; Roghanian, E. A two-stage stochastic programming approach for non-cooperative. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
2021, 126, 106584. [CrossRef]
21. Rokhforoz, P.; Gjorgiev, B.; Sansavini, G.; Fink, O. Multi-agent maintenance scheduling based on the coordination between central
operator and decentralized producers in an electricity market. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 210, 107495. [CrossRef]
22. Eygelaar, J.; Lötter, D.P.; Vuuren, J.H. Generator maintenance scheduling based on the risk of power generating unit failure. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 95, 83–95. [CrossRef]
23. Mollahassani-Pour, M.; Rashidinejad, M.; Pourakbari-Kasmaei, M. Environmentally constrained reliability-based generation
maintenance scheduling considering demand-side management. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2019, 13, 1153–1163. [CrossRef]
24. Lindner, B.G.; Brits, R.; Vuuren, J.H.; Bekker, J. Tradeoffs between levelling the reserve margin and minimising production cost in
generator maintenance scheduling for regulated power systems. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 101, 458–471. [CrossRef]
25. Sadeghian, O.; Oshnoei, A.; Nikkhah, S.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo1, B. Multi-objective optimisation of generation maintenance
scheduling in restructured power systems based on global criterion method. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2019, 2, 203–213.
[CrossRef]
26. Moghbeli, M.; Sharifi, V.; Abdollahi, A.; Rashidinejad, M. Evaluating the impact of energy efficiency programs on generation
maintenance scheduling. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 119, 105909. [CrossRef]
27. Assis, F.A.; Silva, A.M.; Resende, L.C. Generation maintenance scheduling with renewable sources based on production and
reliability costs. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2022, 134, 107370. [CrossRef]
28. Martin, L.S.; Yang, J.; Liu, Y. Hybrid NSGA III/dual simplex approach to generation and transmission maintenance scheduling. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2022, 135, 107498. [CrossRef]
29. Sharifi, V.; Abdollahi, A.; Rashidinejad, M. Flexibility-based generation maintenance scheduling in presence of uncertain wind
power plants forecasted by deep learning considering demand response programs portfolio. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2022,
141, 108225. [CrossRef]
30. Salarkheili, S.; Nazar, M.S.; Wozabal, D.; Jabari, F. Capacity withholding of GenCos in electricity markets using security-
constrained generation maintenance scheduling. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2023, 146, 108771. [CrossRef]
31. Rokhforoz, P.; Montazeri, M.; Fink, O. Safe multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for joint bidding and maintenance scheduling
of generation units. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2023, 232, 109081. [CrossRef]
32. Mollahassani-pour, M.; Rashidinejad, M.; Abdollahi, A. Appraisal of eco-friendly preventive maintenance scheduling strategy
impacts on GHG emissions mitigation in smart grids. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 43, 212–223. [CrossRef]
33. Sharifi, V.; Abdollahi, A.; Rashidinejad, M.; Heydarian-Forushani, E.; Alhelou, H.H. Integrated electricity and natural gas demand
response in flexibility-based generation maintenance scheduling. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 76021–76030. [CrossRef]
34. Prukpanit, P.; Kaewprapha, P.; Leeprechanon, N. Optimal generation maintenance scheduling considering financial return and
unexpected failure of distributed generation. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2021, 15, 1787–1797. [CrossRef]
35. Hemmati, R.; Saboori, H.; Jirdehi, A.M. Multistage generation expansion planning incorporating large scale energy storage
systems and environmental pollution. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 636–645. [CrossRef]
36. Abdollahi, A.; Moghaddam, M.P.; Rashidinejad, M.; Sheikh-El-Eslami, M.K. Investigation of economic and environmental-driven
demand response measures incorporating UC. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 2012, 3, 12–25. [CrossRef]
37. Marler, R.T.; Arora, J.S. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 2004, 26,
369–395. [CrossRef]
38. Subcommittee, P.M. IEEE reliability test system. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 1979, 98, 2047–2054. [CrossRef]
39. Schlunz, E.B. Decision Support for Generator Maintenance Scheduling in the Energy Sector; Master of Science, Department of Logistics,
Stellenbosch University: Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2011.
40. Lakshminarayanan, S.; Kaur, D. Optimal maintenance scheduling of generator units using discrete integer cuckoo search
optimization algorithm. Swarm. Evol. Comput. 2018, 42, 89–98. [CrossRef]
41. Mansouri, S.A.; Maroufi, S.; Ahmarinejad, A. A tri-layer stochastic framework to manage electricity market within a smart
community in the presence of energy storage systems. J. Energy Storage 2023, 71, 108130. [CrossRef]
42. Fatemi, S.; Ketabi, A.; Mansouri, S.A. A multi-level multi-objective strategy for eco-environmental management of electricity
market among micro-grids under high penetration of smart homes, plug-in electric vehicles and energy storage devices. J. Energy
Storage 2023, 67, 107632. [CrossRef]
43. Xu, H.; Chang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, F. A new multi-timescale optimal scheduling model considering wind power uncertainty and
demand response. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2023, 147, 108832. [CrossRef]
44. Mansouri, S.A.; Jordehi, A.R.; Marzband, M.; Tostado-V´eliz, M.; Jurado, F.; Aguado, J.A. An IoT-enabled hierarchical decentral-
ized framework for multi-energy microgrids market management in the presence of smart prosumers using a deep learning-based
forecaster. Appl. Energy 2023, 333, 120560. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7775 22 of 22

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.