Unit Commitment

Prof. Dr. Ashik Ahmed

Dept. of EEE
Islamic University of Technology
Gazipur 1704
Bangladesh
Introduction
• Loads are fluctuating more or less all the time
Introduction
• Is this a problem in the operation of an electric power system?
• Why not just simply commit enough units to cover the maximum
system load and leave them running?
 Commit- Turn ON a unit, bring it to speed, synchronize it to the system,
connect it to the network.
• The problem with this approach of ‘commit enough unit and leave
them ON’ is related to economics.
• It is quite expensive to run too many generating units.
• A great deal of money can be saved by decommitting units when they
are not needed.
ELD vs UC
• ELD- For a given number of available generator units Ngen, find the
optimum operating policy for these units.
• UC- Given a number of subsets of the complete set of Ngen generating
units that would satisfy the expected demand, which of these subsets
should be used in order to provide the minimum operating cost?

G1 G1

G2 G2

L1 L1
G3 G3

ELD UC
Unit Commitment
• More difficult to solve than ELD
• It involves ELD as a sub-problem
• Integer type decision variables (Unit ON/OFF) are involved along with
continuous type variables (Unit O/P).
• Mixed Integer Programming
Unit Commitment- Example
• For a three unit system the following data are given

Pg, min Pg, max Heat Rate (MBtu/h) Fuel Cost Demand
(MW) (MW) ($/MBtu) (MW)
150 600 510+7.2Pg1+ 0.00142Pg12 1.1
550
100 400 310+7.85Pg2+ 0.00194Pg22 1.02
50 200 78+7.97Pg3+ 0.00482Pg32 1.2

• What unit/ units should be used to supply the load most

economically?
• One way is to simply try all the combinations among the units.
Unit Commitment- Example
Unit Unit Unit Σ Pg, max Σ Pg, min P1 P2 P3 F1 F2 F3 FT
1 2 3 (MW) (MW)

Off Off Off 0 0 Infeasible

Off Off On 200 50 Infeasible
Off On Off 400 100 Infeasible
Off On On 600 150 0 400 150 0 3760 1658 5418
On Off Off 600 150 550 0 0 5389 0 0 5389
On Off On 800 200 500 0 50 4911 0 586 5497
On On Off 1000 250 295 255 0 3030 2440 0 5471
On On On 1200 300 267 233 50 2787 2244 586 5617
Unit de-Commitment- Example
• Consider the following generating unit data and the load data
Pg, min Pg, max Heat Rate (MBtu/h) Fuel Cost Demand
(MW) (MW) ($/MBtu) (MW)
150 600 510+7.2Pg1+ 0.00142Pg12 1.1
Varying
100 400 310+7.85Pg2+ 0.00194Pg22 1.02
50 200 78+7.97Pg3+ 0.00482Pg32 1.2

Which units to
de-commit
and when?
 Load Optimal Combination
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Unit de-Commitment Example 1200 On On On
1150 On On On
1100 On On On
1050 On On On
950 On On Off
• Simple ‘Shutdown Rule’ 900 On On Off
When load is above 1000 MW, run all three 850 On On Off
units; between 1000 and 600 MW, run units 1 800 On On Off
and 2; below 600 MW, run only unit 1.
750 On On Off
700 On On Off
650 On On Off
600 On Off Off
550 On Off Off
500 On Off Off
Unit Commitment Constraints
• Spinning Reserve = Total generation from all the synchronized units
– present load supplied – loss

150 MW 0 MW
G1

280 MW
300 MW G2
P1oss = 10 MW
180 MW
200 MW G3
L1 = 450 MW
50 MW G4
Unit Commitment Constraints
• Off-line Reserve = Units which can be brought on-line pretty quickly
compared to thermal plants

150 MW 0 MW
G1

280 MW
300 MW G2
P1oss = 10 MW
180 MW
200 MW G3
L1 = 450 MW
Diesel Gen/ gas turbine/ 180 MW G4
Pumped Hydro Storage/
Hydro Units
Unit Commitment Constraints
• Reserves must be spread around the power system to avoid
transmission system limitations and allow islanding, if required.

50 MW 0 MW
G1
80 MW
280 MW G4 90 MW
300 MW G2
P1oss = 10 MW
0 MW
180 MW G1
G3 80 MW
Diesel Gen/ gas turbine/
Pumped Hydro Storage/
Hydro Units
L1 = 250 MW L2 = 100 MW
 Spinning Reserve- Example

Units 1,2, and 3 550 MW Max. Units 4 and 5

Region 1 Region 2

Region Units Unit Unit Regional Spinning Regional Interchange

Capacity Output Generation Reserve Load (MW)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1 1000 900 900+420+420 = 100 1900 160 In
2 800 420 1740 380
3 800 420 380

2 4 1200 1040 1040+310 = 160 1190 160 Out

5 600 310 1350 290
Total 1-5 4400 3090 3090 1310 3090
 Spinning Reserve- Example

Units 1,2, and 3 550 MW Max. Units 4 and 5

Region 1 Region 2
Unit 1 is out

Region Units Unit Unit Regional Spinning Regional Interchange

Capacity Output Generation Reserve Load (MW)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1 1000 --- 0+800+800 = --- 1900 300 In
2 800 420+380 1600 380-380 = 0
3 800 420+380 380-380 = 0

2 4 1200 1040+140 1180+310 = 160-140 = 20 1190 300 Out

5 600 310 1490 290
Total 1-5 4400 3090 3090 310 3090
 Spinning Reserve- Example

Units 1,2, and 3 550 MW Max. Units 4 and 5

Region 1 Region 2
Unit 2 is out

Region Units Unit Unit Regional Spinning Regional Interchange

Capacity Output Generation Reserve Load (MW)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1 1000 900 + 100 1000+0+740 = 100-100 = 0 1900 160 In
2 800 --- 1740 ---
3 800 420+320 380-320 = 60

2 4 1200 1040 1350 160 1190 160 Out

5 600 310 290
Total 1-5 4400 3090 3090 510 3090
 Spinning Reserve- Example

Units 1,2, and 3 550 MW Max. Units 4 and 5

Region 1 Region 2
Unit 3 is out

Region Units Unit Unit Regional Spinning Regional Interchange

Capacity Output Generation Reserve Load (MW)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1 1000 900 + 100 1000+740+0 = 100-100 = 0 1900 160 In
2 800 420+320 1740 380-320 = 60
3 800 --- ---

2 4 1200 1040 1350 160 1190 160 Out

5 600 310 290
Total 1-5 4400 3090 3090 510 3090
 Spinning Reserve- Example

Units 1,2, and 3 550 MW Max. Units 4 and 5

Region 1 Region 2
Unit 4 is out

Region Units Unit Unit Regional Spinning Regional Interchange

Capacity Output Generation Reserve Load (MW)
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1 1000 900 + 100 1000+760+730 = 100-100 = 0 1900 590 Out ???
2 800 420+380 2490 380-380 = 0
3 800 420+310 380-310 = 70

2 4 1200 --- 0+600 = 600 --- 1190 590 In ???

5 600 310 + 290 290-290 = 0
Total 1-5 4400 3090 3090 70 3090
Thermal Unit Constraints

• Minimum Up Time: Once the unit is running, it should not be turned

off immediately.
• Minimum Down Time: Once the unit is decommitted, there is a
minimum time before it can be recommitted.
• Crew Constraints: If a plant consists of two or more units, they cannot
both be turned on at the same time since there are not enough crew
members to attend both units while starting up.
Thermal Unit Constraints

• The temperature and pressure of the thermal unit must be moved

slowly.
• A certain amount of energy must be expended to bring the unit on-
line.
• This energy does not result in any MW generation from the unit and is
brought into the unit commitment problem as a start-up cost.
• Hot start cost and Cold start cost.
Hot Start and Cold Start Costs

 
t

Start Up Cost when Cooling = C c 1     F  Cf
 
Cc  cold-start cost (MBtu)
F  Fuel Cost
C f  fixed Cost($)
  thermal time constant
t = time duration (h) the unit has been cooled

Start Up Cost when Banking = Ct  t  F  C f

Ct  Cost (MBtu/h) of maintaining unit at operating temp
Other Constraints

• Must Run Unit

• Fuel Constraints
• Hydro Constraints
UC Solution Methods

• Priority List Schemes

• Dynamic Programming (DP)
• Lagrange Relaxation (LR)
• Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)
Priority List Scheme Example
• Given the following unit data, construct a priority list for shut down.

• Calculate the full load average production cost as follows

Full load average production cost = [Heat Rate (Mbtu/h) | full laod /
x Fuel Cost ($/MBtu)] Rated Capacity
Priority List Scheme Example
• The full load avg. production cost
Unit Full load avg production
cost ($/ MWh)
1 9.79
2 9.48
3 11.188

• A strict priority ordering will yield the following

Unit $/ MWh Min MW Max MW
2 9.48 100 400
1 9.79 150 600
3 11.188 50 200
Priority List Scheme Example
• The commitment scheme is as follows (ignoring start-up costs,
minimum up/down time, etc.)
Combination Min MW Max MW
2+1+3 300 1200
2+1 250 1000
2 100 400
UC using Dynamic Programming (DP)
• A state consists of an array of units with specified units operating and
the rest off-line.
• The start-up cost of a unit is independent of the time it has been
offline (i.e. it is a fixed amount).
• There is no shut-down costs.
• In each interval a specified minimum amount of capacity must be
operating.
Feasible State
• The committed units can supply the
required load.
• Meets the minimum amount of capacity
each period.
Recursive Algorithm for DP
Fcost  K , I   min  Pcost (K, I)  S cost (K  1, L : K, I)  Fcost (K  1, L) 
{L}

K = interval or hour
I = combination
Fcost (K,I) = least total cost to arrive at state (K,I)
Pcost (K,I) = production cost for state (K,I)
Scost (K-1,L : K,I ) = state transition cost from (K-1,L) to (K,I)
Search path and strategy

X = Number of states
to search each period

N = number of
strategies or paths to
save at each step
Problem Statement
Unit Description
Fuel Cost = 2.0 $/MBTU
Unit Max Min Inc. Heat No load Full Min up Min
No. Rate (BTU/kWh) Cost Load time Down
($/h) Avg. Time
Cost
1 80 25 10440 213 23.54 4 2
2 250 60 9000 585.62 20.34 5 3
3 300 75 8730 684.74 19.74 5 4
4 60 20 11900 252 28 1 1
Problem Statement
Unit initial status and Start up costs

Unit Initial Status Start up costs Start up Hours (h)

No. Offline (-)
Online (+) Hot ($) Cold ($) Cold

1 -5 150 350 4
2 8 170 400 5
3 8 500 1100 5
4 -6 0 0 0
Problem Statement
Load Pattern
MW vs Hours
700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 State Unit Combinations Max Net
1 2 3 4 Capacity for the
Combination
Capacity Ordering
of the Units
15 1 1 1 1 690
14 1 1 1 0 630
13 0 1 1 1 610
12 0 1 1 0 550
11 1 0 1 1 440
10 1 1 0 1 390
9 1 0 1 0 380
8 0 0 1 1 360
7 1 1 0 0 330
6 0 1 0 1 310
5 0 0 1 0 300
4 0 1 0 0 250
3 1 0 0 1 140
2 1 0 0 0 80
1 0 0 0 1 60
Cases to be Studied
• Case 1:
Follow strict priority order to commit/de-commit units.
Ignore minimum up/down times of the units.
Start-up cost = Cold Start cost
Hot start cost neglected
Cases to be studied
• Case 2:
Follow complete enumeration scheme.
Ignore minimum up/down times of the units.
Start-up cost = Cold Start cost
Hot start cost neglected
Cases to be studied
• Case 3:
 Follow complete enumeration scheme.
 Consider minimum up/down times of the units.
 Consider the hot-start costs.
 Hot-start up costs are to be chosen once the unit down-time is
greater than or equal to unit minimum down-time and less than unit
cold start-up time.
 If unit down-time is greater than or equal to unit cold start-up time,
choose the cold start-up cost.
Simplified Unit Characteristics: F(P)
F (P)  No load cost  Incremental Cost x P
 Solution: Preliminary Calculation

• Calculate unit incremental costs (I.C)

103 kW / MW
Incremental Cost ($ / h)  Incremental Heat rate(BTU/ kWh) X Fuel cost ($ / MBTU) X 6
10 BTU / MBTU
Unit IHR (BTU/kWh) Fuel Cost ($/MBTU) IC ($/h)
1 10440 2 20.88
2 9000 2 18
3 8730 2 17.46
4 11900 2 23.8
 State Unit Combinations Max Net
1 2 3 4 Capacity for the

Case 1: Priority ordering Combination

15 1 1 1 1 690
14 1 1 1 0 630
• According to full load average cost 13 0 1 1 1 610
12 0 1 1 0 550
Unit No. Cost ($/MWh) 11 1 0 1 1 440
10 1 1 0 1 390
Unit 3 19.74
9 1 0 1 0 380
Unit 2 20.34
8 0 0 1 1 360
Unit 1 23.54 7 1 1 0 0 330
Unit 4 28.00 6 0 1 0 1 310
5 0 0 1 0 300
4 0 1 0 0 250
• Allowable States = {5, 12, 14, 15} 3 1 0 0 1 140
2 1 0 0 0 80
1 0 0 0 1 60
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 1.
Pcost (1,12) = 684.74+17.46*300+585.62+18*150 = 9208
• Initial Condition, L = {12}
• Load = 450 MW
• Feasible States, X = {12, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 12 25 105 300 20 9861 350 (0, 0110 : 1, 1111) 0 10211

14 12 25 125 300 - 9493 350 (0, 0110 : 1, 1110) 0 9843
12 12 - 150 300 - 9208 0 (0, 0110 : 1, 0110) 0 9208

• Current saved States, N = {12, 14} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 12
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 2; Previous Saved States, L = {12,14}
• Load = 530 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 14 25 185 300 20 11301 0 (1, 1110 : 2, 1111) 9843

12 350 (1, 0110 : 2, 1111) 9208 20859
14 14 25 205 300 - 10933 0 (1, 1110 : 2, 1110) 9843
12 350 (1, 0110 : 2, 1110) 9208 20491
12 14 - 230 300 - 10648 0 (1, 1110 : 2, 0110) 9843
12 0 (1, 0110 : 2, 0110) 9208 19856

• Current Saved States, N = {12, 14} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 1212
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 3; Previous Saved States, L = {12,14}
• Load = 600 MW; Feasible States, X = {14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 14 30 250 300 20 12576 0 (2, 1110 : 3, 1111) 20491

12 350 (2, 0110 : 3, 1111) 19856 32782
14 14 50 250 300 - 12265 0 (2, 1110 : 3, 1110) 20491
12 350 (2, 0110 : 3, 1110) 19856 32471

• Current Saved States, N = {14, 15} (only two strategies available!)

• Progress: 1212 14
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 4; Previous Saved States, L = {14,15}
• Load = 540 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 15 25 195 300 20 11481 0 (3, 1111 : 4, 1111) 32782

14 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 1111) 32471 43952
14 15 25 215 300 - 11113 0 (3, 1111 : 4, 1110) 32782
14 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 1110) 32471 43584
12 15 - 240 300 - 10828 0 (3, 1111 : 4, 0110) 32782
14 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 0110) 32471 43299

• Current Saved States, N = {12, 14} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 12121412
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 5; Previous Saved States, L = {12,14}
• Load = 400 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 14 25 55 300 20 8961 0 (4, 1110 : 5, 1111) 43584 52545

12 350 (4, 0110 : 5, 1111) 43299
14 14 25 75 300 - 8953 0 (4, 1110 : 5, 1110) 43584 52537
12 350 (4, 0110 : 5, 1110) 43299
12 14 - 100 300 - 8308 0 (4, 1110 : 5, 0110) 43584
12 0 (4, 0110 : 5, 0110) 43299 51607
• Current Saved States, N = {12, 14} (two least cost strategies)
• Progress: 1212141212
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 6; Previous Saved States, L = {12,14}
• Load = 280 MW; Feasible States, X = {5, 12, 14, 15}
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 14 25 60 175 20 6869 0 (5, 1110 : 6, 1111) 52537

12 350 (5, 0110 : 6, 1111) 51607 58826
14 14 25 60 195 - 6490 0 (5, 1110 : 6, 1110) 52537
12 350 (5, 0110 : 6, 1110) 51607 58447
12 14 - 60 220 - 6192 0 (5, 1110 : 6, 0110) 52537
12 0 (5, 0110 : 6, 0110) 51607 57799
5 14 - - 280 - 5574 0 (5, 1110 : 6, 0010) 52537
12 0 (5, 0110 : 6, 0010) 51607 57181
• Current Saved States, N = {5, 12} (two least cost strategies)
• Progress: 12121412125
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 7; Previous Saved States, L = {5,12}
• Load = 290 MW; Feasible States, X = {5, 12, 14, 15}
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 12 25 60 185 20 7043 0 (6, 0110 : 7, 1111) 57799

5 750 (6, 0010 : 7, 1111) 57181 64975
14 12 25 60 205 - 6665 350 (6, 0110 : 7, 1110) 57799
5 750 (6, 0010 : 7, 1110) 57181 64596
12 12 - 60 230 - 6366 0 (6, 0110 : 7, 0110) 57799
5 400 (6, 0010 : 7, 0110) 57181 63947
5 12 - - 290 - 5748 0 (6, 0110 : 7, 0010) 57799
5 0 (6, 0010 : 7, 0010) 57181 62929
• Current Saved States, N = {5, 12} (two least cost strategies)
• Progress: 121214121255
Case 1: Calculation
• Hour, K= 8; Previous Saved States, L = {5,12}
• Load = 500 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 14, 15} Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 12 25 155 300 20 10761 350 (7, 0110 : 8, 1111) 63947

5 750 (7, 0010 : 8, 1111) 62929 74440
14 12 25 175 300 - 10393 350 (7, 0110 : 8, 1110) 63947
5 750 (7, 0010 : 8, 1110) 62929 74072
12 12 - 200 300 - 10108 0 (7, 0110 : 8, 0110) 63947
5 400 (7, 0010 : 8, 0110) 62929 73437

• Current Saved States, N = {5, 12} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 12121412125512
 State Unit Combinations Max Net
1 2 3 4 Capacity for the
Case 2:
Combination
Enumeration Scheme

15 1 1 1 1 690
14 1 1 1 0 630
13 0 1 1 1 610
• All states are allowable. 12 0 1 1 0 550
• Feasible states will be chosen 11 1 0 1 1 440
10 1 1 0 1 390
based on the capacity of the 9 1 0 1 0 380
combination. 8 0 0 1 1 360
• Minimum up/down times are 7 1 1 0 0 330
6 0 1 0 1 310
still ignored. 5 0 0 1 0 300
• Hot start cost is still ignored. 4 0 1 0 0 250
3 1 0 0 1 140
2 1 0 0 0 80
1 0 0 0 1 60
 Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 1; Initial Condition, L = {12}
• Load = 450 MW; Feasible States, X = {12,13, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 12 25 105 300 20 9861 350 (0, 0110 : 1, 1111) 0 10211

14 12 25 125 300 - 9493 350 (0, 0110 : 1, 1110) 0 9843
13 12 - 130 300 20 9576 0 (0, 0110 : 1, 0111) 0 9576
12 12 - 150 300 - 9208 0 (0, 0110 : 1, 0110) 0 9208

• Current saved States, N = {12, 13} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 12
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 2; Previous Saved States, L = {12,13}
• Load = 530 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 13, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 13 25 185 300 20 11301 350 (1, 0111 : 2, 1111) 9576

12 350 (1, 0110 : 2, 1111) 9208 20859
14 13 25 205 300 - 10933 350 (1, 0111 : 2, 1110) 9576
12 350 (1, 0110 : 2, 1110) 9208 20491
13 13 - 210 300 20 11016 0 (1, 0111 : 2, 0111) 9576
12 0 (1, 0110 : 2, 0111) 9208 20224
12 13 - 230 300 - 10648 0 (1, 0111 : 2, 0110) 9576
12 0 (1, 0110 : 2, 0110) 9208 19856

• Current Saved States, N = {12, 13} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 1212
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 3; Previous Saved States, L = {12,13}
• Load = 600 MW; Feasible States, X = {13, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 13 30 250 300 20 12576 350 (2, 0111 : 3, 1111) 20224

12 350 (2, 0110 : 3, 1111) 19856 32782
14 13 50 250 300 - 12265 350 (2, 0111 : 3, 1110) 20224
12 350 (2, 0110 : 3, 1110) 19856 32471
13 13 - 250 300 50 12450 0 (2, 0111 : 3, 0111) 20224
12 0 (2, 0110 : 3, 0111) 19856 32306

• Current Saved States, N = {13, 14} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 1212 13
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 4; Previous Saved States, L = {13,14}
• Load = 540 MW; Feasible States, X = {12, 13, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 14 25 195 300 20 11481 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 1111) 32471 43952

13 350 (3, 0111 : 4, 1111) 32306
14 14 25 215 300 - 11113 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 1110) 32471 43584
13 350 (3, 0111 : 4, 1110) 32306
13 14 - 220 300 20 11196 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 0111) 32471
13 0 (3, 0111 : 4, 0111) 32306 43502
12 14 - 240 300 - 10828 0 (3, 1110 : 4, 0110) 32471
13 0 (3, 0111 : 4, 0110) 32306 43134

• Current Saved States, N = {12, 13} (two least cost strategies)

• Progress: 1212 1312
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 5; Previous Saved States, L = {12,13}
• Load = 400 MW; Feasible States, X = {11, 12, 13, 14, 15}  Due to capacity
I L Unit Production Pcost (K, I) Scost (K-1, L : K, I) Fcost (K-1, L) Fcost (K, I)
1 2 3 4

15 13 25 55 300 20 8961 350 (4, 0111 : 5, 1111) 43502

12 350 (4, 0110 : 5, 1111) 43134 52445
14 13 25 75 300 - 8593 350 (4, 0111 : 5, 1110) 43502
12 350 (4, 0110 : 5, 1110) 43134 52077
13 13 - 80 300 20 8676 0 (4, 0111 : 5, 0111) 43502
12 0 (4, 0110 : 5, 0111) 43134 51810
12 13 - 100 300 - 8308 0 (4, 0111 : 5, 0110) 43502
12 0 (4, 0110 : 5, 0110) 43134 51442
11 13 80 - 300 20 8534 350 (4, 0111 : 5, 1011) 43502
12 350 (4, 0110 : 5, 1011) 43134 52018
• Current Saved States, N = {12, 13} (two least cost strategies)
• Progress: 1212131212
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 6; Previous Saved States, L = {12,13}
• Load = 280 MW;
• Feasible States, X = {5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15}
• Save the two least cost strategies and proceed to the next hour.
• Progress should look like: 12121312125
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 7; Previous Saved States, L = { From previous hour}
• Load = 290 MW;
• Feasible States, X = {5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15}
• Save the two least cost strategies and proceed to the next hour.
• Progress should look like: 121213121255
Case 2: Calculation
• Hour, K= 8; Previous Saved States, L = { From previous hour}
• Load = 500 MW;
• Feasible States, X = {12, 13, 14, 15}
• Progress should look like: 12121312125512
Another Example
Unit Data

Pmin Pmax Min Min No-load Marginal Start-up

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

59
Demand Data
Hourly Demand
350
300
250
200
Load
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Hours

Reserve requirements are not considered

60
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

61
Transitions between feasible combinations
A B C
1 2 3

1 1 1

1 1 0

1 0 1

1 0 0 Initial State

0 1 1

62
Infeasible transitions: Minimum down time of unit A

1 2 3

TD TU
Initial State
A 3 3
B 1 2
C 1 1

63
Infeasible transitions: Minimum up time of unit B

1 2 3

TD TU
A 3 3 Initial State

B 1 2
C 1 1

64
Feasible transitions

1 2 3

Initial State

65
Operating costs
1 1 1 4

1 1 0 3 7

1 0 1
2 6

1 0 0
1 5

66
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

67
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

68
Start-up costs

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

69
Accumulated costs
$5400
4 ---- Accumulated cost
$3200
$0 ---- Start up cost
$5200 $7300 ---- Operating cost
$0
3 7
$3100 $2100
$700
$5100 $600 $7200

$600 2 6
$0
$3500 $2100
$1500 $100 $0 $7100
$0
1 5
$1500 $2000

( 4  7 and 2  7 are higher cost options)

70
Total costs
4

$7300
3 7

$7200
2 6

$7100
1 5

Lowest Total Cost

71
Optimal solution

$7100
1 5

72
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. However, this technique only works for small
systems (< 20 units).
73