Introto Optimization

Introduction to Optimization
and Application to Economic

Dispatch and Unit Commitment
Daniel Kirschen
Perspective
• Conventional PS economics problems:

– Economic Dispatch (ED)
– Unit Commitment (UC)
– Optimal Power Flow (OPF)
• Assume monopoly, vertically integrated utility
• Why?
– Conceptually simpler
– Variants for competitive electricity markets
– Comparison with “benevolent monopolist”
© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 2
Economic dispatch problem
L
A B C
• Several generating units serving the load

• What share of the load should each
generating unit produce?
• Consider the limits of the generating units
• Ignore the limits of the network

Types of Power Plants
• Thermal power plants
• Renewable energy sources
• Hydro power plants

Thermal power plants
• Burn a fuel to generate electric power

– Coal, oil, gas, biomass, uranium, ..
• Economic characteristics:
– Substantial operating cost
– On/off status and power output can be changed
• Within limits
• Nuclear units:
– Low operating cost but very limited flexibility
• Typically multiple units in a power plant
Renewable energy sources
• Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal

• Economic characteristics:
– Negligible operating cost
– Intermittent (except geothermal)
– Stochastic (wind, solar)
– High investment cost per kW of capacity
Use it or lose it

Hydro power plants
• Economic characteristics
– Negligible operating cost
– Storage capability
• Hydro with reservoir
– Controllable output
– Size of the reservoir is highly variable
• Days to years
• “Run of the river” hydro
– No reservoir or negligible reservoir
– Uncontrollable output: use it or lose it
Concept of net load
- =
actual load – uncontrolled renewable generation
= net load
= controllable generation
We’ll assume that the uncontrollable renewable generation

is known and dispatch the controllable generation to meet
the net load
Hydro-thermal coordination
Q: Would you rather generate a MWh using hydro

or thermal generation?
A: It depends..
 If there is a reservoir (and it is not full) a MWh from
hydro can be generated now or later
 It may have more value later, depending on how
much the thermal MWh costs now and later
• We will assume that the hydro production is
given

Characteristics of the thermal units
B T G J/h
Input
Fuel Electric Power
(Input) (Output) MW
Pmin Pmax
• Thermal generating units
Output
• Consider the running costs only
• Input / Output curve
– Fuel vs. electric power
• Fuel consumption measured by its energy content
• Upper and lower limit on output of the generating unit

Cost Curve
• Multiply fuel input by fuel cost
• No-load cost
– Cost of keeping the unit running if it could produce zero MW
$/h
Cost
No-load cost
MW
Pmin Pmax
© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington
Output 11
Incremental Cost Curve
• Incremental cost curve Cost [$/h]
D FuelCost vs Power
D Power ∆F
∆P
• Derivative of the cost curve MW
• In $/MWh
Incremental Cost
• Cost of the next MWh [$/MWh]
MW
Mathematical formulation
• Objective: Minimize
C = CA (PA ) + CB (PB ) + CC (PC ) A B C
L
• Constraints
– Load / Generation balance:
L = PA + PB + PC
– Unit Constraints:
PAmin £ PA £ PAmax
PBmin £ PB £ PBmax
This is an optimization problem
PCmin £ PC £ PCmax

Introduction to Optimization
Objective
• Achieving the best possible design or
operating conditions requires a way of
measuring the goodness of this result
• We will call this measure our objective F
• Examples:
– minimize cost of building a transformer
– minimize cost of supplying power
– minimize losses in a power system
– maximize profit from a bidding strategy

Decision Variables
• The value of the objective is a function of

some decision variables:
F = f ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,… x n )
• Examples of decision variables:

– Dimensions of the transformer
– Output of generating units, position of taps
– Parameters of bids for selling electrical energy

Optimization Problem
• What value should the decision variables take

so that F = f ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,… x n ) is minimum or
maximum?

Example: function of one variable
f(x*) f(x)
x* x
f(x) is maximum for x = x*

Minimization and Maximization
f(x*) f(x)
x* x
-f(x)
-f(x*)
If x = x* maximizes f(x) then it minimizes - f(x)

Minimization and Maximization
• Maximizing f(x) is thus the same thing as

minimizing g(x) = -f(x)
• Minimization and maximization problems are

thus interchangeable
• Depending on the problem, the optimum is

either a maximum or a minimum

Necessary Condition for Optimality
f(x)
f(x*)
df df
>0 <0
dx dx
x* x
If x = x * maximises f ( x ) then:
df
f ( x ) < f ( x ) for x < x Þ
* *
> 0 for x < x *
dx
df
f ( x ) < f ( x ) for x > x Þ
* *
< 0 for x > x *
dx
Necessary Condition for Optimality
f(x) df
=0
dx
x* x
df
If x = x maximises f ( x ) then
*
= 0 for x = x *
dx

Example
f(x)
x
df
For what values of x is =0?
dx
In other words, for what values of x is the necessary condition for
optimality satisfied?

Example
f(x)
A B C D x
• A, B, C, D are stationary points
• A and D are maxima
• B is a minimum
• C is an inflexion point

How can we distinguish minima and maxima?
f(x)
A B C D x
d2 f
For x = A and x = D, we have: <0
dx 2
The objective function is concave around a maximum

f(x)
A B C D x
d2 f
For x = B we have: >0
dx 2
The objective function is convex around a minimum

f(x)
A B C D x
d2 f
For x = C , we have: =0
dx 2
The objective function is flat around an inflexion point

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Optimality
df
• Necessary condition: =0
dx
• Sufficient condition:
d2 f
– For a maximum: <0
dx 2
d2 f
– For a minimum: >0
dx 2

Isn’t all this obvious?
• Can’t we tell all this by looking at the objective

function?
– Yes, for a simple, one-dimensional case when we
know the shape of the objective function
– For complex, multi-dimensional cases (i.e. with
many decision variables) we can’t visualize the
shape of the objective function
– We must then rely on mathematical techniques

Feasible Set
• The values that the decision variables can take

are usually limited
• Examples:
– Physical dimensions of a transformer must be
positive
– Active power output of a generator may be
limited to a certain range (e.g. 200 MW to 500
MW)
– Reactive power output of a generator may be
limited to a certain range (e.g. -100 MVAr to 150
MVAr)
Feasible Set
f(x)
xMIN A xMAX D x
Feasible Set
The values of the objective function outside
the feasible set do not matter
Two-Dimensional Case
f(x1,x2)
x1*
x1
x2 *
x2 f(x1,x2) is minimum for x1*, x2*

Necessary Conditions for Optimality
f(x1,x2)
¶f ( x 1 ,x 2 )
=0
¶x 1
x * ,x *
1 2
¶f ( x 1 ,x 2 )
=0
¶x 2 x * ,x *
1 2
x1*
x1
x2*
x2
Multi-Dimensional Case
At a maximum or minimum value of f ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,… x n )
we must have: ¶f
=0
¶x 1
¶f
=0
¶x 2
¶f
=0
¶x n
A point where these conditions are satisfied is called a stationary point

Sufficient Conditions for Optimality
f(x1,x2) minimum maximum
x1
x2
f(x1,x2)
Saddle point
x1
x2
Calculate the Hessian matrix at the stationary point:
æ ¶2 f ¶2 f ¶2 f ö
ç ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x n ÷
ç 1 ÷
ç ¶2 f ¶2 f ¶ f ÷
2
ç ÷
ç ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 22 ¶x 2 ¶x n ÷
ç ÷
ç ¶2 f ¶2 f ¶2 f ÷
ç ÷÷
ç ¶x ¶x ¶x n ¶x 2
è n 1 ¶x n ø
2

• Calculate the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix at the
stationary point
• If all the eigenvalues are greater or equal to zero:
– The matrix is positive semi-definite
– The stationary point is a minimum
• If all the eigenvalues are less or equal to zero:
– The matrix is negative semi-definite
– The stationary point is a maximum
• If some or the eigenvalues are positive and other are
negative:
– The stationary point is a saddle point

Calculating eigenvalues
The eigenvalues of a matrix A are such that:
det λ𝐼 − 𝐴 = 0
1 0 0
Where I is the identity matrix: 0 1 0
0 0 1

Contours
f(x1,x2)
F2
F1
x1
F1 F2
x2
Contours
A contour is the locus of all the point that give the same value
to the objective function
x2
x1
Minimum or maximum
Example 1
Minimise C = x 12 + 4 x 22 - 2 x 1 x 2
Necessary conditions for optimality:

¶C
= 2 x1 - 2 x 2 = 0
¶x 1 ì x1 = 0 is a stationary
í point
¶C îx 2 = 0
= -2 x 1 + 8 x 2 = 0
¶x 2

Example 1
Sufficient conditions for optimality:
æ ¶ 2C ¶ 2C ö
ç ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 2 ÷ æ 2 -2 ö
Hessian Matrix: ç 1
÷ =ç ÷
ç ¶ 2C ¶ C ÷ è -2 8 ø
2
ç ÷
è ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 22 ø
must be positive definite (i.e. all eigenvalues must be positive)

l-2 2
= 0 Þ l 2 - 10 l + 12 = 0
2 l-8
10 ± 52 The stationary point
Þl = ³0
2 is a minimum
Example 1
x2
C=9
C=4
C=1
x1
Minimum: C=0

Example 2
Minimise C = - x 12 + 3 x 22 + 2 x 1 x 2
Necessary conditions for optimality:

¶C
= -2 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 0
¶x 1 ì x1 = 0 is a stationary
í point
¶C îx 2 = 0
= 2 x1 + 6 x 2 = 0
¶x 2

Example 2
Sufficient conditions for optimality:
æ ¶ 2C ¶ 2C ö
ç ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 2 ÷ æ -2 2 ö
Hessian Matrix: ç 1
÷ =ç ÷
ç ¶ 2C ¶ C2
÷ è 2 6 ø
ç ÷
è ¶x 2 ¶x 1 ¶x 2 ø
2
l+2 -2
= 0 Þ l2 - 4 l - 8 = 0
-2 l-6
4 + 80
Þl = >0
2 The stationary point
is a saddle point
4- 80
or l = <0
2
Example 2
x2
C=0
C=9
C=4
C=1
C=-9 C=-4 C=-1 C=-4 C=-9
x1
C=1
C=4
C=9
This stationary point is a saddle point C=0

In practice..
• In practice we don’t check the sufficient

conditions for optimality
• If the problem is convex a stationary point will
be a minimum
• Or we rely on the nature of the problem to
“ensure” that a stationary point will be a
minimum or a maximum

Optimization with Constraints
Optimization with Equality Constraints
• There are usually restrictions on the values
that the decision variables can take
Minimise
f ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) Objective function
subject to:
w 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0
Equality constraints
w m ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0

Number of Constraints
• N decision variables
• M equality constraints
• If M > N, the problems is over-constrained
– There is usually no solution
• If M = N, the problem is determined
– There may be a solution
• If M < N, the problem is under-constrained
– There is usually room for optimization

Example 1
Minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x + x
1
2 2
2
x2 Subject to w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x 1 - x 2 = 0
w ( x1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0
Minimum
x1
f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x + x
2
1
2
2
Example 2: Economic Dispatch
x1 x2
L
G1 G2
C 1 = a1 + b1 x 12 Cost of running unit 1

C 2 = a 2 + b 2 x 22 Cost of running unit 2
C = C 1 + C 2 = a1 + a 2 + b1 x 12 + b 2 x 22 Total cost
Optimization problem:
Minimise C = a1 + a 2 + b1 x 12 + b 2 x 22
Subject to: x 1 + x 2 = L
Solution by substitution
Minimise C = a1 + a 2 + b1 x 12 + b 2 x 22
Subject to: x 1 + x 2 = L
Þ x 2 = L - x1
Þ C = a1 + a 2 + b1 x 12 + b 2 ( L - x 1 )
2
Unconstrained minimization
dC
= 2 b1 x 1 - 2 b 2 ( L - x 1 ) = 0
dx 1
b2 L æ b1 L ö
Þ x1 = çÞ x2 = ÷
b1 + b 2 è b1 + b 2 ø
d 2C
= 2b1 + 2 b 2 > 0 Þ minimum
© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington dx 1
2
54
Solution by substitution
• Difficult
• Usually impossible when constraints are non-
linear
• Provides little or no insight into solution
Solution using Lagrange multipliers

Gradient
Consider a function f ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n )
æ ¶f ö
ç ¶x 1 ÷
ç ÷
ç ¶f ÷
The gradient of f is the vector Ñf = ç ¶x 2 ÷
ç ÷
ç ÷
ç ¶f ÷
ç ÷
è ¶x n ø

Properties of the Gradient
• Each component of the gradient vector
indicates the rate of change of the function in
that direction
• The gradient indicates the direction in which a
function of several variables increases most
rapidly
• The magnitude and direction of the gradient
usually depend on the point considered
• At each point, the gradient is perpendicular to
the contour of the function
Example 3
f ( x , y ) = ax 2 + by 2
æ ¶f ö
ç ¶x ÷ æ 2 ax ö
Ñf = ç ÷ = ç ÷
¶f
ç ÷ è 2 by ø y
è ¶y ø

Example 4
f ( x , y ) = ax + by f = f3
æ ¶f ö
ç ¶x ÷ æ a ö f = f2 y
Ñf = ç ÷ = ç ÷ Ñf
¶f
ç ÷ è bø
è ¶y ø
f = f1 Ñf
Ñf

Lagrange multipliers
Minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x 12 + x 22 subject to w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x 1 - x 2 = 0
w ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5 - x1 - x 2
f = 0.25 x 12 + x 22 = 6
f = 0.25 x 12 + x 22 = 5

æ ¶f ö
ç ¶x 1 ÷
Ñf = ç ÷
w ( x1 , x 2 ) ç ¶f ÷
Ñf ç ÷
è ¶x 2 ø
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 6
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5 Ñf
Ñf

æ ¶w ö
ç ¶x 1 ÷
Ñw = ç ÷
w ( x1 , x 2 ) çç ¶w ÷÷
è ¶x 2 ø
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 6
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5
Ñw
Ñw

Ñw 62
• The solution must be on the constraint
• To reduce the value of f, we must move
in a direction opposite to the gradient
w ( x1 , x 2 )
Ñf
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 6
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5 Ñf
Ñf

• We stop when the gradient of the function
is perpendicular to the constraint because
moving further would increase the value
w ( x1 , x 2 ) of the function
Ñf
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 6
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5 Ñf
Ñw
Ñf
Ñw
At the optimum, the gradient of the
function is parallel to the gradient
of the constraint Ñw
At the optimum, we must have: Ñf Ñw
Which can be expressed as: Ñf + l Ñw = 0
In terms of the co-ordinates: ¶f ¶w

+l =0
¶x 1 ¶x 1
¶f ¶w
+l =0
¶x 2 ¶x 2
The constraint must also be satisfied: w ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0
l is called the Lagrange multiplier

Lagrangian function
To simplify the writing of the conditions for optimality,
it is useful to define the Lagrangian function:
( x 1 , x 2 ,l ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 ) + lw ( x 1 , x 2 )
The necessary conditions for optimality are then given
by the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian:
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l ) ¶f ¶w
= +l =0
¶x 1 ¶x 1 ¶x 1
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l ) ¶f ¶w
= +l =0
¶x 2 ¶x 2 ¶x 2
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l )
= w ( x1 ,x 2 ) = 0
© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington ¶l 66
Example
Minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x 12 + x 22 subject to w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x 1 - x 2 = 0
( x 1 , x 2 , l ) = 0.25 x 12 + x 22 + l ( 5 - x 1 - x 2 )
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l )
º 0.5 x 1 - l = 0
¶x 1
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l )
º 2x2 -l = 0
¶x 2
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l )
º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0
¶l

Example
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l )
º 0.5 x 1 - l = 0 Þ x1 = 2 l
¶x 1
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l ) 1
º 2x2 -l = 0 Þ x2 = l
¶x 2 2
¶ ( x 1 , x 2 ,l ) 1
º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0 Þ 5 - 2l - l = 0
¶l 2
Þl=2
Þ x1 = 4
Þ x2 =1
Example
Minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x + x
1
2 2
2
x2 Subject to w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x 1 - x 2 = 0
w ( x1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0
f ( x1 , x 2 ) = 5 Minimum
1
4 x1
Important Note!
If the constraint is of the form: ax 1 + bx 2 = L
It must be included in the Lagrangian as follows:
= f ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + l ( L - ax 1 - bx 2 )
And not as follows:
= f ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + l ( ax 1 + bx 2 )

Application to Economic Dispatch
x1 x2
L minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = C 1 ( x 1 ) + C 2 ( x 2 )
G1 G2
s.t . w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º L - x 1 - x 2 = 0
( x 1 , x 2 , l ) = C1 ( x 1 ) + C 2 ( x 2 ) + l ( L - x 1 - x 2 )
¶ dC 1
º -l =0
¶x 1 dx 1 dC 1 dC 2
= =l
¶ dC 2 dx 1 dx 2
º -l =0
¶x 2 dx 2
¶ Equal incremental cost
º L - x1 - x 2 = 0
¶l solution
Incremental Cost
C1 ( x 1 ) C2 ( x 2 )
Cost curves:
x1 x2
dC 1 dC 2
Incremental dx 1 dx 2
cost curves:
x1 x2
Interpretation of this solution
dC 1 dC 2
dx 1 dx 2
x1 x2
-
L -
+
If < 0, reduce λ
L - x1 - x 2 If > 0, increase λ
Physical interpretation
dC DC
= lim
C( x ) dx Dx®0 Dx
DC For Dx sufficiently small:

Dx dC
DC » ´ Dx
dx
x If Dx = 1 MW :
dC(x) dC
DC »
dx dx
The incremental cost is the cost of
one additional MW for one hour.
This cost depends on the output of
x the generator.
dC 1
: Cost of one more MW from unit 1
dx 1
dC 2
: Cost of one more MW from unit 2
dx 2
dC 1 dC 2
Suppose that >
dx 1 dx 2
dC 1
Decrease output of unit 1 by 1MW Þ decrease in cost =
dx 1
dC 2
Increase output of unit 2 by 1MW Þ increase in cost =
dx 2
dC 2 dC 1
Net change in cost = - <0
© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington dx 2 dx 1 75
It pays to increase the output of unit 2 and decrease the

output of unit 1 until we have:
dC 1 dC 2
= =l
dx 1 dx 2
The Lagrange multiplier λ is thus the cost of one more MW

at the optimal solution.
This is a very important result with many applications in

economics.

Generalization
Minimise
f ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n )
subject to:
w 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0
w m ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0
Lagrangian:
= f ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + l 1 w 1 ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + + l m w m ( x 1 ,… , x n )
• One Lagrange multiplier for each constraint
• n + m variables: x1, …, xn and λ1, …, λm

Optimality conditions
= f ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + l 1 w 1 ( x 1 ,… , x n ) + + l m w m ( x 1 ,… , x n )
¶ ¶f ¶w 1 ¶w m
= + l1 + +lm =0
¶x 1 ¶x 1 ¶x 1 ¶x 1
n equations
¶ ¶f ¶w 1 ¶w m
= + l1 + +lm =0
¶x n ¶x n ¶x n ¶x n
¶
= w1 ( x1 , ,x n ) = 0
¶l 1
m equations
¶
= w m ( x1 , ,x n ) = 0 n + m equations in
¶l m n + m variables
Optimization with inequality constraints
Minimise
f ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) Objective function
subject to:
w 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0
Equality constraints
w m ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0
and:
g1 ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) £ 0
Inequality constraints
g p ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) £ 0
Example: Economic Dispatch
x 1min £ x 1 £ x 1max
x1 x2
L
G1 G2 x 2min £ x 2 £ x 2max
Minimise C = a1 + b1 x 12 + a 2 + b 2 x 22
Subject to:
x1 + x 2 = L Equality constraints
x 1 - x 1max £ 0
x 1min - x 1 £ 0
Inequality constraints
x2 - x max
2 £0
x 2min - x 2 £ 0
Minimise C = a1 + b1 x 12 + a 2 + b 2 x 22 Family of ellipses
x2 Ellipse tangent to equality constraint at A

Inequality constraints are satisfied
x1 + x 2 = L
x2max
A
x2min
min x1max x1
x1
What is the solution for a larger load?
x2 Ellipse tangent to equality constraint at B

Inequality constraints are NOT satisfied!
x1 + x 2 = L x 1 + x 2 = L'
x2max
A B
x2min
x1min x1max x1
C is the solution because it is the point on
the equality constraint that satisfies the
x2 inequality constraints at minimum cost
x1 + x 2 = L x 1 + x 2 = L'
x2max
A B
x2min
x1min x1max x1
Binding Inequality Constraints
• A binding inequality constraint is an inequality constraint that is
satisfied exactly
• Example:
– If we must have x1 ≤ x1max
– And at the solution we have x1 = x1max
– Then the constraint x1 ≤ x1max is said to be binding
• ALL of the inequality constraints must be satisfied
• Only a FEW will be binding (or active) at any given time
• But we don’t know ahead of time which inequality constraints
will be binding!
• All equality constraints are always binding

Solution using Lagrange multipliers
Minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n )
subject to:
w i ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) = 0 i = 1,...m
g j ( x 1 , x 2 ,… , x n ) £ 0 j = 1,... p
Lagrangian function:
( )
x 1 ,… , x n , l 1 ,..., l m , m 1 ,..., m p = f ( x 1 ,… , x n )
m
+ å l i w i ( x 1 ,… , x n )
i=1
+ å m j g j ( x 1 ,… , x n )
j =1
Optimality Conditions
(Known as the Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) conditions
m p
( x ,l ,m ) = f ( x ) + å l i w i ( x ) + å m j g j ( x )
i=1 j =1
¶ ( x , l , m ) ¶f ( x ) m ¶w k ( x ) p ¶g j ( x )
º + ål k + åm j =0 i = 1,...n
¶x i ¶x i k =1 ¶x i j =1 ¶x i
¶ ( x ,l ,m )
º w k ( x) = 0 k = 1,...m
¶l k
gj (x)£ 0 j = 1,... p
m j g j ( x) = 0 j = 1,... p
mj ³0 Complementary Slackness Conditions j = 1,... p
Complementary slackness conditions
m j g j ( x) = 0
mj ³0
Two possibilities for each constraint j:
m j = 0 then the constraint g j ( x ) is non - binding Þ g j ( x ) < 0
OR
g j ( x ) = 0 then the constraint g j ( x ) is binding Þ m j > 0

Warning!
• Difficulty with the complementary slackness
conditions
– They tell us that an inequality constraint is either

binding or non-binding
– They DON’T tell us which constraints are binding
and non-binding
– The binding constraints have to be identified
through trial and error

Example
Minimise
f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x + x
2
1
2
2
Subject to:
w ( x1 ,x 2 ) º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0
g ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 £ 0

Example
x2
g ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 £ 0
f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x 12 + x 22
x1

w ( x1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0 90
Example
( x 1 , x 2 , l , m ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 ) + lw ( x 1 , x 2 ) + mg ( x 1 , x 2 )
= 0.25 x 12 + x 22 + l ( 5 - x 1 - x 2 ) + m ( x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 )
¶
º 0.5x1 - l + m = 0
¶x1
¶
º 2x2 - l + 0.2 m = 0
¶x2
¶
º 5 - x1 - x2 = 0
¶l
¶
º x1 + 0.2x2 - 3 £ 0
¶m
m g(x) º m ( x1 + 0.2x2 - 3) = 0 and m ³ 0
Example
KKT conditions do not tell us if inequality constraint is binding
Must use a trial and error approach
Trial 1: Assume inequality constraint is not binding μ = 0
From solution of example without inequality constraint, we

know that the solution is then:
x 1 = 4 ;x 2 = 1
but this means that:
x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 = 1.2 ³ 0
This solution is thus not an acceptable solution

Example
Trial 2: Assume that the inequality constraint is binding
¶
º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0 x 1 = 2.5
¶l
¶ x 2 = 2.5
º x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 = 0
¶m
¶
º 0.5 x 1 - l + m = 0 l = 5.9375
¶x 1
¶ m = 4.6875
º 2 x 2 - l + 0.2 m = 0
¶x 2
All KKT conditions are satisfied. This solution is acceptable

Example: graphical solution
x2
g ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 1 + 0.2 x 2 - 3 £ 0
Solution of problem
with inequality constraint
Solution of problem
f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0.25 x + x 2
1
2
2 without inequality
constraint
x1
Solution of problem
without constraints
w ( x1 , x 2 ) º 5 - x1 - x 2 = 0
x1 x2
L
G1 G2
minimise f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = C 1 ( x 1 ) + C 2 ( x 2 )
s.t . w ( x 1 , x 2 ) º L - x 1 - x 2 = 0
g1 ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 1 - x 1max £ 0
g 2 ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 1min - x 1 £ 0
g 3 ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 2 - x 2max £ 0
g 4 ( x 1 , x 2 ) º x 2min - x 2 £ 0

( x 1 , x 2 ,l ,m 1 ,m 2 ,m 3 ,m 4 ) = C1 ( x 1 ) + C 2 ( x 2 ) + l ( L - x 1 - x 2 )
+ m 1 ( x 1 - x 1max ) + m 2 ( x 1min - x 1 )
+ m 3 ( x 2 - x 2max ) + m 4 ( x 2min - x 2 )
KKT Conditions:
¶ dC 1
º - l + m1 - m 2 = 0
¶x 1 dx 1
¶ dC 2
º -l +m3 -m4 = 0
¶x 2 dx 2
¶
º L - x1 - x 2 = 0
¶l
KKT Conditions (continued):
¶
º x 1 - x 1max £ 0 m 1 ( x 1 - x 1max ) = 0 ; m 1 ³ 0
¶m 1
¶
º x 1min - x 1 £ 0 m 2 ( x 1min - x 1 ) = 0 ; m 2 ³ 0
¶m 2
¶
º x 2 - x 2max £ 0 m 3 ( x 2 - x 2max ) = 0 ; m 3 ³ 0
¶m 3
¶
º x 2min - x 2 £ 0 m 4 ( x 2min - x 2 ) = 0 ; m 4 ³ 0
¶m 4

Solving the KKT Equations
Case #1: No generator is at a limit
No inequality constraint is binding and all μ’s are equal to zero
¶ dC 1
º -l =0
¶x 1 dx 1 dC 1 dC 2
= =l
¶ dC 2 dx 1 dx 2
º -l =0
¶x 2 dx 2
¶
º L - x1 - x 2 = 0
¶l
All generators operate at the same incremental cost

Case #2: Generator 1 is at its upper limit; Other limits not binding
x1 - x1max = 0 Þ m1 ³ 0; m2 = m3 = m4 = 0
¶ dC 1 dC 1
º - l + m1 = 0 = l - m1 £ l
¶x 1 dx 1 dx 1
¶ dC 2 dC 2
º -l =0 =l
¶x 2 dx 2 dx 2
All generators do NOT operate at the same incremental cost!
The incremental cost of unit 1 is lower…. Why?
If that was possible, more power would be produced by unit 1

Case #3: Generator 1 is at its lower limit; other limits not binding
x1min - x1 = 0 Þ m2 ³ 0; m1 = m3 = m4 = 0
¶ dC 1 dC 1
º -l -m2 = 0 = l + m2 ³ l
¶x 1 dx 1 dx 1
¶ dC 2 dC 2
º -l =0 =l
¶x 2 dx 2 dx 2
Again, all generators do NOT operate at the same incremental cost!
The incremental cost of unit 1 is higher… Why?

If that was possible, less power would be produced by unit 1
Physical Interpretation of Lagrange Multipliers
Minimise C ( x )
subject to: w ( x ) = L Û L - w ( x ) = 0
and: g( x) ³ K Û K - g( x ) £ 0
( x ,l ,m ) = C ( x ) + l ( L - w ( x ) ) + m ( K - g ( x ) )
At the optimum x * , l * , m * : =0 =0
( x *
, l *
, m *
) = C ( x *
)
¶
= l * Marginal cost of equality constraint
¶L Optimum
¶
= m* Marginal cost of inequality constraint
¶K Optimum
Physical Interpretation of Lagrange Multipliers
• Constraints always increase the cost of a

solution
• The Lagrange multipliers give the incremental
cost of the binding constraints at the optimum
• They are sometimes called shadow costs
• Non-binding inequality constraints have a zero
incremental cost

Economic Dispatch
Example of Calculation Using

Lagrange Multipliers
Economic Dispatch Example
A load of 800 MW is supplied by three generating units.

The cost characteristics of these generating units are
given by the following expressions:
C1 = 100 + 8 P1 + 0.1 P12 [$/h] 230 ≤ P1 ≤ 400 MW
C2 = 200 + 7 P2 + 0.06 P22 [$/h] 100 ≤ P2 ≤ 500 MW
C3 = 250 + 9 P3 + 0.07 P32 [$/h] 100 ≤ P3 ≤ 260 MW
Calculate the optimal economic dispatch.

Example: Form the Lagrangian
= 100 + 8P1 + 0.1P 1
2
+200 + 7P2 + 0.06P 2

2
+250 + 9P3 + 0.07P 3

2
+ l (L - P1 - P2 - P3 )
+ m1 (P1 - 400) + m2 (230 - P1 )
+ m3 (P2 - 500) + m4 (100 - P2 )
+ m5 (P3 - 260) + m6 (100 - P3 )
Example: Optimality Conditions
Set the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian with respect to the
decision variables and λ to zero:
¶
º 8 + 0.2P1 - l + m1 - m2 = 0 (1)
¶P1
¶
º 7 + 0.12P2 - l + m 3 - m 4 = 0 (2)
¶P2
¶
º 9 + 0.14P3 - l + m5 - m6 = 0 (3)
¶P3
¶
º L - P1 - P2 - P3 = 0 (4)
¶l
μ’s to zero:
¶
º P1 - 400 £ 0
¶ m1
¶
º 230 - P1 £ 0
¶ m2
¶
º P2 - 500 £ 0
¶ m3

μ’s to zero:
¶
º 100 - P2 £ 0
¶m4
¶
º P3 - 260 £ 0
¶ m5
¶
º 100 - P3 £ 0
¶ m6

Example: Complementary slackness
m1.(P1 - 400) = 0; m1 ³ 0
m2 .(230 - P1 ) = 0; m2 ³ 0
m3 .(P2 - 500) = 0; m3 ³ 0
m4 .(100 - P2 ) = 0; m4 ³ 0
m5 .(P3 - 260) = 0; m5 ³ 0
m6 .(100 - P3 ) = 0; m6 ³ 0
Example: First Trial (1)
Assume that none of the inequality constraints is binding
This means that all the μ‘s are zero
Set the μ’s equal to zero in the optimality conditions.
Equations (1) to (3) become:
¶ l-8
º 8 + 0.2P1 - l = 0 Þ P1 =
¶P1 0.2
¶ l-7
º 7 + 0.12P2 - l = 0 Þ P2 =
¶P2 0.12
¶ l-9
º 9 + 0.14P3 - l = 0 Þ P3 =
¶P3 0.14
Example: First Trial (2)
Inserting these expressions in Equation (4), we get:
L - 5(l - 8) - 8.33(l - 7) - 7.14(l - 9) = 0

With L = 800MW, we get: l = 46.96 $/MWh
Replacing λ in the equations on the previous slide, we have:
P1 = 194.8 MW <P
1
min
= 230 MW
Not a valid solution
P2 = 333.0 MW  trial fails
P3 = 271.2 MW >P
3
max
= 260 MW
Example: Second Trial (1)
We must try another combination of binding constraints.
6 inequality constraints  26 = 64 possible combinations

Realistic system  ridiculously large number of combinations
Must use information from previous trials
Let us try:
P1 = P1min = 230 MW Þ m2 ¹ 0
P3 = P 3
max
= 260 MW Þ m5 ¹ 0
m1 = m3 = m4 = m6 = 0
L - P1 - P2 - P3 = 0
P1 = P1min = 230 MW Þ P2 = 310 MW
P3 = P 3
max
= 260 MW
However, we must check that the μ‘s meet the

complementary slackness conditions

m1 = m3 = m4 = m6 = 0
¶
º 8 + 0.2P1 - l - m2 = 0 Þ m2 = 9.8 $/MWh
¶P1
¶
º 7 + 0.12P2 - l = 0 Þ l = 44.2 $/MWh
¶P2
¶
º 9 + 0.14P3 - l + m5 = 0 Þ m5 = -1.2 $/MWh
¶P3

£ 0! 114
The constraint P3 £ P 3
max
should not be binding!
What is happening?
First trial:
P1
P1
P
1
min P1
max
P2
P2
P2min P2max
P3
P3
P 3
min
P3
max

In the second trial, we “pushed” P1 towards its lower limit and P3
towards its upper limit. However, there was no need to push P3
because increasing P1 would naturally reduce P3 below its limit.
Second trial:
P1
P1
P
1
min P
1
max
P2
P2
P2min P2max
P3
P3
P 3
min
P
3
max

Example: Third Trial (1)
P1 = P1min = 230 MW Þ m2 ¹ 0
m1 = m3 = m4 = m5 = m6 = 0
¶
º 7 + 0.12P2 - l = 0
¶P2 l = 44.75 $/MWh
¶ P2 = 315 MW
º 9 + 0.14P3 - l = 0
¶P3
P3 = 255 MW
¶
º L - P1 - P2 - P3 = 0
¶l
Example: Third Trial (2)
¶
º 8 + 0.2P1 - l - m2 = 0 Þ m2 = 9.25 $/MWh
¶P1
Solution that satisfies all the optimality conditions:
P1 = 230 MW
P2 = 315 MW
P3 = 255 MW
l = 44.75 $/MWh  Cost of an extra MW of load
m2 = 9.25 $/MWh  Value of reducing P1min by 1MW
Example: Optimal Solution
Third trial:
P1
P1
P
1
min P
1
max
P2
P2
P2min P2max
P3
P3
P 3
min
P 3
max

Practical Economic Dispatch
Equal Incremental Cost Dispatch
dC A dC B dC C
dPA dPB dPC
PA PB PC
PA + PB + PC
Lambda search algorithm
1. Choose a starting value for l
¶C A (PA ) ¶C B (PB ) ¶C C (PC )

2. Calculate PA ,PB , PC such that = = =l
¶PA ¶PB ¶PC
3. If one of these values exceeds its lower or upper limit, fix it at that limit
4. Calculate PTOTAL = PA + PB + PC
5. If PTOTAL < L, then increase l

Else If PTOTAL > L, then decrease l
Else If PTOTAL » L, then exit
6. Go To Step 2
Linear Cost Curves
CA CB
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
l
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX

Linear Cost Curves
CA CB
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
l
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX

Linear Cost Curves
CA CB
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB
PAMAX PBMAX

Linear Cost Curves
• The output of the unit with the lowest

incremental cost (in this case unit A) is
increased first (it is “loaded” first)
• The output of the other units is not increased
until unit A is loaded up to its maximum
• The output of the unit with second lowest
incremental cost is then increased (i.e. the
“second cheapest” unit)
• And so on until the generation meets the load
Linear cost curves with minimum generation
CA CB
PA PB
PAMIN PAMAX PBMIN PBMAX
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB
PAMIN PAMAX PBMIN PBMAX

Linear cost curves with minimum generation
• All generating units are first loaded up to their

minimum generation
• The generating units are then loaded in order
of incremental cost

Piecewise Linear Cost Curves
CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB

Economic Dispatch with Piecewise Linear Cost Curves
CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
l
PA PB

CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
l
PA PB

CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB

CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB

CA CB
PA PB
dC A dC B
dPA dPB
PA PB

• All generators except one are at breakpoints of their cost

curve
• The marginal generator is between breakpoints to balance the
load and generation
• Not well-suited for lambda-search algorithm
• Very fast table lookup algorithm:
– Rank all the segments of the piecewise linear cost
curves in order of incremental cost
– First dispatch all the units at their minimum
generation
– Then go down the table until the generation
matches the load
Example
dC A
dPA
Unit PSegment Ptotal Lambda
0.7 A&B min 20+30 = 50 50
B 70-20=50 100 0.1
0.5
0.3 A 80-30=50 150 0.3
A 120-80=40 190 0.5
30 80 120 150 PA B 110-70=40 230 0.6
A 150-120=30 260 0.7
B 140-110=30 290 0.8
dC B
dPB
0.8 If Pload = 210MW

0.6 The optimal economic dispatch is:
PA = 120MW
0.1 PB = 90 MW
20 70 110 140
PB λ = 0.6
Local and Global Optima
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and

University of Washington 137
Which one is the real maximum?
f(x)
A D x
df d2 f
For x = A and x = D, we have: = 0 and <0
dx dx 2
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and University of

Washington
138
Which one is the real optimum?
x2
x1

Washington
139
Local and Global Optima
• The optimality conditions are local conditions
• They do not compare separate optima
• If I find an optimum can I be sure that it is the
global optimum?
• In general, to find the global optimum, we
must find and compare all the optima
• In large problems, this can be very difficult
and time consuming
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and University of Washington 140

Convexity
• If the feasible set is convex and the objective

function is convex, there is only one minimum
and it is thus the global minimum

Examples of Convex Feasible Sets
x2 x2
x1 x1
x2
x1 x1
x1 min x1 max
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and University of Washington
142
Example of Non-Convex Feasible Sets
x2 x2
x1 x1
x2
x1
x1 x1
x1 a x1 b c
x1 x1 d
Washington
143
Example of Convex Feasible Sets
A set is convex if, for any two points belonging to the set, all the
points on the straight line joining these two points belong to the set
x2 x2
x1 x1
x2
min max
x1 x1
x1 x1

Example of Non-Convex Feasible Sets
x2 x2
x1 x1
x2
x1
x1
x1a x1b x1c x1d x1

Example of Convex Function
f(x)

Washington
146
Example of Convex Function
x2
x1

Example of Non-Convex Function
f(x)

148
x2
x1

Definition of a Convex Function
f(x)
f(y)
xa y xb x
A convex function is a function such that, for any two points xa and xb
belonging to the feasible set and any k such that 0 ≤ k ≤1, we have:
z = kf ( x a ) + (1- k ) f ( x b ) ³ f ( y ) = f [ kx a + ( 1- k ) x b ]

150
f(x)

151
Importance of Convexity
• If we can prove that a minimization problem is convex:

– Convex feasible set
– Convex objective function
Then, the problem has one and only one solution
• Proving convexity is often difficult

• Power system problems are usually not convex
There may be more than one solution to power system
optimization problems

Unit Commitment
Daniel Kirschen
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and the

153
University of Washington
Economic Dispatch: Problem Definition
• Given load
• Given set of units on-line
• How much should each unit generate to meet
this load at minimum cost?
L
A B C
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and the University of

154
Washington
Unit Commitment
• Given load profile

(e.g. values of the load for each hour of a day)
• Given set of units available
• When should each unit be started, stopped
and how much should it generate to meet the
load at minimum cost?
? ? ?
Load Profile
G G G
© 2015 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington 155

Typical summer and winter loads
Figure courtesy of National Grid (UK) 156

A Simple Example
• Unit 1:
• PMin = 250 MW, PMax = 600 MW
• C1 = 510.0 + 7.9 P1 + 0.00172 P12 $/h
• Unit 2:
• C2 = 310.0 + 7.85 P2 + 0.00194 P22 $/h
• Unit 3:
• C3 = 78.0 + 9.56 P3 + 0.00694 P32 $/h
• What combination of units 1, 2 and 3 will produce 550 MW at minimum cost?
• How much should each unit in that combination generate?

Cost of the various combinations
Example borrowed from Wood and Wollenberg’s Power Generation, Operation and Control 158
Observations on the example:
• Far too few units committed:

Can’t meet the demand
• Not enough units committed:
Some units operate above optimum
• Too many units committed:
Some units below optimum
• Far too many units committed:
Minimum generation exceeds demand

Effect of the no-load cost
• Example:
C1 = 510 + 7.9P1 + 0.00172P12
• Economic dispatch looks
No-load cost only at marginal cost:
dC1
= 7.9 + 0.00344 P1
• dP1
This example considered the total cost
• The no-load cost affects the solution

160
Washington
Another Example
• Optimal generation schedule

for a load profile Load
• Decompose the profile into a
set of period 1000
• Assume load is constant over

each period 500
• For each time period, which Time

units should be committed to 0 6 12 18 24
generate at minimum cost

during that period?
Optimal combination for each hour
Matching the combinations to the load
Load
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
0 12 24
Time
6 18

Unit commitment as an optimization problem
• Minimize total cost over time horizon

– Total cost = running cost + startup cost
• Constraints
– Unit constraints
– System constraints
• Time horizon is divided in a set of optimization periods:

• During each period:
– The load is assumed constant
– The decision variables are constant

Notations
u(i,t) : Status of unit i at period t
u(i,t) = 1: Unit i is ON during period t
u(i,t) = 0 : Unit i is OFF during period t
p(i,t) : Power produced by unit i during period t
Ci [ p(i,t)] : Running cost of unit i during period t
SCi [u(i,t)] : Startup cost of unit i during period t
N: Number of available generating units
T: Number of periods in the optimization horizon

Running cost
• Cost of generating power with a given unit

• Depends on the power output of the unit
• Same cost function as used in economic
dispatch
• Includes the no-load cost

Start-up cost
• Thermal generating units:
– Coal, gas, oil, biomass
• These units must be “warmed up” before they
can be brought on-line
• Warming up a unit requires fuel and therefore
costs money
• Incurred only during the first period when the
unit is turned on

Start-up cost
• Start-up cost depends on time unit has been

off
– If the unit has not been off for a long time, the
water will still be warm
– Hot start vs. cold start
t iOFF
-
SC i (t OFF
i ) = a i + b i (1 - e t i )
αi + βi
αi
tiOFF

Effect of the start-up cost
• Need to “balance” start-up costs and running
costs
• Example:
– Diesel generator: low start-up cost, high running cost
– Coal plant: high start-up cost, low running cost
• Issues:
– How long should a unit run to “recover” its start-up
cost?
– Start-up one more large unit or a diesel generator to
cover the peak?
– Shutdown one more unit at night or run several units
part-loaded?

Objective function
T N
min åå{C [ p(i,t)]+ SC [u(i,t)]}

u(i,t ); x(i,t ) t=1 i=1
i i
Running cost Startup cost

Decision
variables

Unit Constraints
• Constraints that affect each unit individually:

– Maximum generating capacity
– Minimum stable generation
– Minimum “up time”
– Minimum “down time”
– Ramp rate

171
Washington
Unit Constraints
• Minimum up time
– Once a unit is running it may not be shut down
immediately:
If u(i,t) = 1 and tiup < tiup,min then u(i,t +1) = 1
• Minimum down time

– Once a unit is shut down, it may not be started
immediately
If u(i,t) = 0 and tidown < tidown,min then u(i,t +1) = 0

172
Washington
Unit Constraints
• Maximum ramp rates
– To avoid damaging the turbine, the electrical output of a
unit cannot change by more than a certain amount over a
period of time:
Maximum ramp up rate constraint:

p (i,t +1) - p (i,t ) £ DPi up,max
Maximum ramp down rate constraint:

p(i,t) - p(i,t +1) £ DPi down,max

System Constraints
• Constraints that affect more than one unit

– Load/generation balance
– Reserve generation capacity
– Emission constraints
– Network constraints

Load/Generation Balance Constraint
At all times, the power produced by the generating

units must be equal to the load
N
åu(i,t)p(i,t) = L(t)
i=1

Reserve Constraint
• Unanticipated loss of a generating unit or an
interconnection causes unacceptable frequency
drop if not corrected
• Need to increase production from other units to
keep frequency drop within acceptable limits
• Rapid increase in production only possible if
committed units are not all operating at their
maximum capacity
• Some of the capacity of the generating units must
be kept “in reserve”
Reserve Constraint
Pi max - p(i,t) : Contribution of unit i to reserve at

period t (“headroom”)
N
å u(i,t)[Pi
max
- p(i,t)] ³ R(t) Reserve requirement at period t
i=1
N
åu(i,t)p(i,t) = L(t) Load generation balance

i=1
åu(i,t)P i
max
³ L(t)+ R(t) Reserve constraint at period t
i=1

How much reserve?
• Protect the system against “credible outages”

• Reserve requirement:
– Capacity of largest unit or interconnection
– Percentage of peak load

Types of Reserve
• Spinning reserve
– Primary
• Quick response for a short time
– Secondary
• Slower response for a longer time
• Tertiary reserve
– Replace primary and secondary reserve to protect
against another outage
– Provided by units that can start quickly
• e.g. gas turbines
– Also called scheduled or off-line reserve
Cost of Reserve
• Reserve has a cost even when it is not called

– More units scheduled than required
• Units not operated at their maximum efficiency
• Extra start up costs
– Must build units capable of rapid response
– Cost of reserve proportionally larger in small
systems
• Important driver for the creation of interconnections
between systems

180
Washington
Emission Constraints
• Amount of pollutants that generating units can emit may be limited
• Pollutants:
– SO2, NOx
• Various forms:
– Limit on each plant at each hour
– Limit on plant over a year
– Limit on a group of plants over a year
– Etc…

Network Constraints
• Transmission network may have an effect on

the commitment of units
– Some units must run to provide voltage support
– The output of some units may be limited because
their output would exceed the transmission
capacityAof the network B
Cheap generators More expensive generator

May be “constrained off” May be “constrained on”

Why can’t we treat each period separately?
• Large units are efficient but have a substantial

startup cost
– Need to “amortize” this startup cost over the
optimization horizon
• Some constraints create a link between the

periods
– Minimum up- and down-time constraint
– Ramping constraints

Economic Dispatch vs. Unit Commitment
• Generation scheduling or unit commitment is

a more general problem than economic
dispatch
• Economic dispatch is a sub-problem of
generation scheduling
• Unit commitment must strike a balance
between cheaper inflexible units and more
expensive flexible units

Flexible Plants
• Power output can be adjusted (within limits)
• Examples:
– Coal-fired
– Oil-fired Thermal units
– Open cycle gas turbines
– Combined cycle gas turbines
– Hydro plants with storage
• Status and power output can be optimized

Inflexible Plants
• Power output cannot be adjusted for technical

or commercial reasons
• Examples:
– Nuclear
– Run-of-the-river hydro
– Renewables (wind, solar,…)
– Combined heat and power (CHP, cogeneration)
• Output treated as given when optimizing

Solving the Unit Commitment Problem
• Decision variables:
– Status of each unit at each period:
u(i,t) Î{0,1} " i,t
– Output of each unit at each period:

p(i,t) Î {0,éëPi min ; Pi max ùû} " i,t
• Combination of integer and continuous variables

Optimization with integer variables
• Continuous variables
– Can follow the gradients or use LP
– Any value within the feasible set is OK
• Discrete variables
– There is no gradient
– Can only take a finite number of values
– Problem is not convex
– Must try combinations of discrete values

How many combinations are there?
111
• Examples
110
101 – 3 units: 8 possible

100 states
– N units: 2N possible
011
010
001 states
000

How many solutions are there anyway?
• Optimization over a
time horizon divided
into intervals
• A solution is a path
linking one combination
at each interval
• How many such paths
are there?
T= 1 2 3 4 5 6

How many solutions are there anyway?
Optimization over a time

horizon divided into intervals
A solution is a path linking
one combination at each
interval
How many such path are
there?
Answer: (2 N )( 2 N ) … ( 2 N ) = (2 N )
T
T= 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Curse of Dimensionality
• Example: 5 units, 24 hours
(2 N T
) = (2 )
5 24
= 6.2 10 35 combinations
• Processing 109 combinations/second, this

would take 1.9 1019 years to solve
• There are 100’s of units in large power
systems...
• Many of these combinations do not satisfy the
constraints
How do you Beat the Curse?
Brute force approach won’t work!
• Need to be smart
• Try only a small subset of all combinations
• Can’t guarantee optimality of the solution
• Try to get as close as possible within a
reasonable amount of time

Main Solution Techniques
• Characteristics of a good technique
– Solution close to the optimum
– Reasonable computing time
– Ability to model constraints
• Possible techniques
– Priority list / heuristic approach
– Dynamic programming
– Lagrangian relaxation
– Mixed Integer Programming State of the art
• Heuristic techniques (e.g particle swarm
optimization) are a waste of time
A Simple Unit Commitment Example
195
Unit Data
Min Min No-load Marginal Start-up

Pmin Pmax Initial
Unit up down cost cost cost
(MW) (MW) status
(h) (h) ($) ($/MWh) ($)
A 150 250 3 3 0 10 1,000 ON
B 50 100 2 1 0 12 600 OFF
C 10 50 1 1 0 20 100 OFF

Cost curves
C(p)
C B A

Demand Data
Hourly Demand
350
300
250
200
Load
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Hours
Reserve requirements are not considered

Feasible Unit Combinations (states)
Combinations 1 2 3
Pmin Pmax
A B C 150 300 200
1 1 1 210 400
1 1 0 200 350
1 0 1 160 300
1 0 0 150 250
0 1 1 60 150
0 1 0 50 100
0 0 1 10 50
0 0 0 0 0

Transitions between feasible combinations
1 2 3
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0 Initial State
0 1 1

Infeasible transitions: Minimum down time of unit A
1 2 3
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0 Initial State
0 1 1
TD TU
A 3 3
B 1 2
C 1 1

Infeasible transitions: Minimum up time of unit B
1 2 3
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0 Initial State
0 1 1
TD TU
A 3 3
B 1 2
C 1 1

Feasible transitions
1 2 3
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0 Initial State
0 1 1

Operating costs
1 1 1 4
1 1 0 3 7
1 0 1
2 6
1 0 0 1
5

Economic dispatch
State Load PA PB PC Cost

1 150 150 0 0 1500
2 300 250 0 50 3500
3 300 250 50 0 3100
4 300 240 50 10 3200
5 200 200 0 0 2000
6 200 190 0 10 2100
7 200 150 50 0 2100
Unit Pmin Pmax No-load cost Marginal cost
A 150 250 0 10
B 50 100 0 12
C 10 50 0 20

Operating costs
1 1 1 4
$3200
1 1 0 3 7
$3100 $2100
1 0 1 2 6
$3500 $2100
1 0 0 1 5
$1500 $2000

Start-up costs
1 1 1 4
$3200
$0
1 1 0 $700 3 $0 7
$3100 $600 $2100
$600
1 0 1 2 $0 6
$100 $3500 $2100
$0
1 0 0 $0 1 5
$1500 $2000
Unit Start-up cost
A 1000
B 600
C 100

Accumulated costs
$5400
1 1 1 4
$3200
$0
1 1 0 $5200 $7300
$700 3 $0 7
$3100 $600 $2100
$600 $5100 $7200
1 0 1 2 $0 6
$100 $3500 $0
$2100
1 0 0 $1500 $7100
$0 1 5
$1500 $2000

Total costs
1 1 1 4
1 1 0 $7300
3 7
$7200
1 0 1 2 6
1 0 0 $7100
1 5
Lowest total cost

Optimal solution
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1 2
$7100
1 0 0 1 5

Notes
• This example is intended to illustrate the
principles of unit commitment
• Some constraints have been ignored and others
artificially tightened to simplify the problem and
make it solvable by hand
• Therefore it does not illustrate the true
complexity of the problem
• The solution method used in this example is
based on dynamic programming. This technique
is no longer used in industry because it only
works for small systems (< 20 units)
Linear Programming (LP)
212
Motivation
• Many optimization problems are linear

– Linear objective function
– All constraints are linear
• Non-linear problems can be linearized:
– Piecewise linear cost curves
– DC power flow
• Efficient and robust method to solve such
problems

213
Piecewise linearization of a cost curve
CA
PA

Mathematical formulation
n
minimize Σ cj xj
j =1
n
subject to: Σ aij xj ≤ bi, i = 1, 2, . . ., m
j =1
n
Σ hij xj = di, i = 1, 2, . . ., p
j =1
Decision variables: xj
Constants: cj, aij, bi, hij, di

Example 1
y
Maximize x + y 4
Subject to: x ≥ 0; y≥0

3
x≤3 Feasible
Region
y≤4 2
x+2y≥2
1
0 x
0 1 2 3
Example borrowed from Piyush Kumar of Florida State University)

Example 1
Maximize x + y
y
Subject to: x ≥ 0; y≥0 4
x≤3
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2
0 x
0 1 2 3
x+y=0
Example 1
Maximize x + y
y
x≤3
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2 Feasible
Solution
1
0 x
0 1 2 3
x+y=1
Example 1
Maximize x + y
y
x≤3
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2
1
Feasible
Solution
0 x
0 1 2 3
x+y=2
Example 1
Maximize x + y
y
x≤3
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2
0 x
0 1 2 3
x+y=3
Example 1
Maximize x + y Optimal
y Solution
x≤3
x+y=7
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2
0 x
0 1 2 3
Solving a LP problem (1)
• Constraints define a polyhedron in n

dimensions
• If a solution exists, it will be at an extreme
point (vertex) of this polyhedron
• Starting from any feasible solution, we can
find the optimal solution by following the
edges of the polyhedron
• Simplex algorithm determines which edge
should be followed next
222
Which direction?
Maximize x + y Optimal
y Solution
x≤3
x+y=7
3
y≤4
x+2y≥2
2
0 x
0 1 2 3
3D Polyhedron

Solving a LP problem (2)
• If a solution exists, the Simplex algorithm will

find it
• But it could take a long time for a problem
with many variables!
– Interior point algorithms

225
Interior point methods
Extreme points
(vertices)
Constraints
(edges)
Simplex: search from vertex to Interior-point methods: go through

vertex along the edges the inside of the feasible space

Conclusions
• Robustness of LP is an enormous advantage

– If there is a solution, it will be found
• Many non-linear optimization problems are
linearized so they can be solved using LP
• Very efficient implementation of LP solution
algorithms are available in commercial solvers

227
Sequential Linear Programming (SLP)
• Used if more accuracy is required

• Algorithm:
– Linearize
– Find a solution using LP
– Linearize again around the solution
– Repeat until convergence

228
Mixed Integer Linear
Programming
LP formulation of Economic Dispatch
CA
L
A B C
PA=x1
CA = c1.x1 CB PAMAX
CB = c2 .x2
CC = c3 .x3
PB=x2
x1 £ P A
MAX
CC PBMAX
x2 £ PBMAX
x3 £ PCMAX
PC=x3
PCMAX
© 2011 D. Kirschen & the University of Washington 230

Minimize CT = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + c3 x3
Subject to: x1 + x2 + x3 = L
x1 ³ 0 x1 £ PAMAX
x2 ³ 0 x2 £ PBMAX
x3 ³ 0 x3 £ PCMAX
• Objective function is linear

• All constraints are all linear
• All variables are real
 Problem can be solved using standard linear programming

CA
Minimize CT = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + c3 x3
Subject to: x1 + x2 + x3 = L a1
PA=x1
x1 ³ PAMIN CB PAMIN PAMAX
x2 ³ PBMIN
x3 ³ PCMIN a2 PB=x2
x1 £ PAMAX CC PBMIN PBMAX
x2 £ PBMAX
x3 £ PCMAX a3 PC=x3
PCMIN PCMAX

Can we use LP for unit commitment?
CA
x1 = 0 or PAMIN £ x1 £ PAMAX
a1
PA=x1
CB PAMIN PAMAX
x2 = 0 or PBMIN £ x2 £ PBMAX
a2
x3 = 0 or P MIN
£ x3 £ PMAX PB=x2
C C CC PBMIN PBMAX
a3 PC=x3
PCMIN PCMAX

Can we use LP for unit commitment?
CA
x1 = 0 or P A
MIN
£ x1 £ P
A
MAX
x2 = 0 or PBMIN £ x2 £ PBMAX a1
PA=x1
CB PAMIN PAMAX
x3 = 0 or PCMIN £ x3 £ PCMAX
a2 PB=x2
CC PBMIN PBMAX
The variables no longer have

a continuous domain.
Standard linear programming a3 PC=x3
is no longer applicable. PCMIN PCMAX

Integer Programming
• Integer programming:
– All decision variables are integers
– Special case: binary variables {0,1}
• Mixed Integer Programming
– Some decision variables are integer or binary
– Other variables are real
• Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)
– Objective function and constraints are linear
• Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming
(MINLP)
Example
Except for the fact that the variables are integer, this
looks very much like a linear programming problem.

Example

LP Relaxation
The LP solution “relaxes” the

constraints that all variables
can only take integer values

LP Relaxation
The relaxed LP solution is always

“better” than the solution of
original problem!
(Lower objective for minimization
problem, higher for maximization)

Solution of the integer problem
Can we find it by simply

“rounding” the LP solution
to the nearest integer?

Integer Programming Example

Naïve rounding off
x
2
-cT
x1
LP solution
IP solution
The optimal integer solution can be far away from the LP solution

Finding the integer solution
• Large number of integer variables

• Vast number of possible integer solutions
• Need a systematic procedure to search this
solution space
• Fix the variables to the nearest integer one at
a time
• “Branch and Bound” algorithm

Another example
Relaxed LP solution: (1.75, 0.75)

Branch on x1
Problem 0
x1 ³ 0; x2 ³ 0 x1 ³ 0 ; x2 ³ 0
x1 £ 1 x1 ³ 2
Problem 1 Problem 2

Branch on x1
Problem 2
Problem 1
Solution of
Problem 1 Solution of Problem 2

Search Tree: first layer
Solution of Problem 1: Solution of Problem 2:

• x1 integer • x1 & x2 integer
• x2 real • Feasible solution of
• Not a feasible solution yet the original problem
• Can still branch on x2 • Bound on the optimum
• Best solution so far

Branch on x2
Problem 1
x1 £ 1; x2 ³ 0
x1 ³ 0; x2 ³ 0 x1 ³ 0; x2 ³ 0
x1 £ 1; x2 £ 1 x1 £ 1; x2 ³ 2
Problem 3 Problem 4

Branch on x2 for Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 1
Problem 4
x2 = 2
x2 = 1
Problem 3

Branch on x2 for Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 1
Solution of
Problem 4 Problem 4
x2 = 2
x2 = 1
Problem 3
No solution!

Search Tree: second layer
No solution
No integer solution yet

Branch and Bound: what next?
Optimal solution
Solution of relaxed
Can’t go any problem 4 is bounded
further in this by solution of problem
No solution
direction 2. No point in going
further

Comments on Branch and Bound
• Search tree gets very big if there are more
than a few integer or binary variables
• Even with the bounds provided by the relaxed
solutions, exploring the tree usually takes a
ridiculous amount of time
• Clever mathematicians have developed
techniques to identify “cuts”
– Constraints based on the structure of the problem
that eliminate part of the search tree
– “Branch and Cut” algorithm

Mixed Integer Linear Programming
• Start with linear programming formulation

• Use branch and cut algorithm for integer and
binary variables
• Each node of the search tree involves the
solution of an LP problem

Duality Gap
• Finding the optimal solution for a large

problem can take too much time even with
branch and cut
• Best solution of relaxed problem provides a
bound on the solution
• Duality gap: Difference between best solutions
of relaxed problem and actual problem
• Stop searching the tree if duality gap is
sufficiently small

Introto Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introto Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Optimization

and Application to Economic

• Conventional PS economics problems:

• Several generating units serving the load

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 3

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 4

• Burn a fuel to generate electric power

• Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 6

We’ll assume that the uncontrollable renewable generation

Q: Would you rather generate a MWh using hydro

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 9

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 10

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 13

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 15

• The value of the objective is a function of

• Examples of decision variables:

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 16

• What value should the decision variables take

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 17

f(x) is maximum for x = x*

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 18

If x = x* maximizes f(x) then it minimizes - f(x)

• Maximizing f(x) is thus the same thing as

• Minimization and maximization problems are

• Depending on the problem, the optimum is

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 20

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 22

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 23

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 24

The objective function is concave around a maximum

The objective function is convex around a minimum

The objective function is flat around an inflexion point

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 28

• Can’t we tell all this by looking at the objective

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 29

• The values that the decision variables can take

x2 f(x1,x2) is minimum for x1*, x2*

A point where these conditions are satisfied is called a stationary point

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 34

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 37

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 38

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 39

Necessary conditions for optimality:

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 42

must be positive definite (i.e. all eigenvalues must be positive)

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 44

Necessary conditions for optimality:

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 45

C=-9 C=-4 C=-1 C=-4 C=-9

This stationary point is a saddle point C=0

• In practice we don’t check the sufficient

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 48

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 50

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 51

C 1 = a1 + b1 x 12 Cost of running unit 1

Solution using Lagrange multipliers

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 55

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 56

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 58

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 59

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 60

© 2018 D. Kirschen and University of Washington 61

x2 f(x1,x2) is minimum for x1, x2