IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No.

2 February 1982

381

SPINNING RESERVE CONSTRAINED STATIC AND

DYNAMIC ECONOMIC DISPATCH
W. G. Wood, Member IEEE
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Industry System Division
200 Beta Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Abstract - One of the recurring problems facing energy control

center dispatchers each day is how to operate the system during the
periods of high load pickup, such that there is sufflcient generation to
follow the load pickup, while still maintaining reasonable reserve
and/or regulation margin. This paper shows a technical solution to
this problem which can be achieved with a very efficient use of
computer resources. The problem is expressed as a dynamic programming scheduling problem, and a feasible, but suboptimal solution is
proposed, which eliminates the usual search space problem. This
method reduces the problem to a backward sequence of dispatch
problems, with the generator limits being carefully adjusted between
each time interval in the solution sequence. The paper also discusses an
efficient algorithm for the solution of a reserve constrained economic
dispatch, which is the static optimization technique used at each

interval.

INTRODUCTION
In most power systems computer control which include
Automatic Generation Control (AGC) and Economic Dispatch, the
Economic Dispatch (EDC) program computes an economic BASE
value for designated units every few minutes, based on the load change
over the time since the last execution of the EDC program. In between
computations of this economic BASE, the frequency deviation and
inadvertent interchange is controlled by an algorithm which distributes
the Area Control Error (ACE) over certain designated regulating
units, and linearly distributes the deviation of the units from their
economic base over the economic units.(5) In using this approach the
economic BASE value calculated is usually restricted not only by the
dispatcher entered economic high and low limits, but also by the rate
at which the unit can respond over the nominal period of the economic
dispatch (5 minutes). Hence, a unit with a response rate of 5
MW/MIN, economic high and low limits of 200, 100 respectively, an
actual power of 110 MW, and a nominal economic dispatch period of
5 minutes, will be restrained in the On-Line Economic Dispatch by an
effective upper and lower limits of 135 MW and 100 respectively. The
result of doing this is that each unit is assigned an economic BASE
which can be achieved by moving it at its sustained rate of response
from the present value, and hence controlling the system in a smooth
manner.
The above methodology, however, only ensures that the units are
assigned within their capability for the next 5 minutes or so. An
extension to this method, is that of including a constraint into the
economic dispatch problem to guarantee that sufficient regulating
and/or reserve margin is maintained over a short (5 minute) period.
This problem has been resolved in reference 1, and in this paper a
more general algorithm is proposed. This method will now ensure that
the economic Base values assigned to the units will be achievable
within 5 minutes of operation, and will, if possible maintain a
sufficient short term regulating reserve.

Under the strategy described above, it is well known that the least
expensive units will be allocated close to their limits during the early
stages of the load pickup, leaving the more expensive units for the
final stages. This results in the company not being able to meet its load
pickup in the later stages, except by purchasing energy from a
neighbor, or 'dragging the ties'.
At present, this is usually handled by the dispatcher's ramping of
the more expensive units above their 'economic' assignment early in
the load pickup period and thus keeping some less expensive units
below their operational limits in this early stage so that they can help
satisfy the load pickup required at the later stages. This requires, of
course, the dispatcher to make these decisions at his own discretion.
He will tend to choose a safe solution rather than an economical one.
This problem can be resolved by using an algorithm to look ahead
at the predicted load pickup and to restrict the economic BASE assignment of the units in such a manner that the load pickup will be
satisfied. This problem has been expressed and solutions to the
problem proposed in references 2, 3 and 4. The solutions proposed in
these papers involve methods which are more general than that
proposed here, their drawback being, of course, that they require
more extensive computer resources to solve the problem.
The remainder of the paper is organized into three main sections.
The first section describes the static dispatching problem, starting with
a definition of the traditional economic dispatch, then developing a
reserve limited dispatch algorithm, and finally showing the effect of
reserve limits which are above the dispatch limits. The second section
describes the dynamic dispatching problem and its solution algorithm;
it then goes on to discuss certain aspects of including such an
algorithm in an on-line operating system. The last section presents and
discusses the results.

Definitions for Static Dispatching Problems

economic base value assigned by traditional EDC to unit i

Xi

X4

: upper

limit of unit i

Xi

: lower

limit of unit i

Si

: maximum reserve for unit i (response rate times reserve

xi(L)

: effective upper

limit of unit i in dispatching L

xi(L)

: effective lower

limit of unit i in dispatching L

interval)

minimum system reserve requirement

: amount

by which the reserve requirement is violated

DOWN(L): the total generation assignment change by which the

reserve requirement can be improved
the total generation assignment change which can cover
the change DOWN(L)

UP(L)

Si

: min

S(L)

1982 IEEE

Si

idl

(x4

xi, Xi): reserve contribution for unit i.

Si: system actual reserve.

this is the breakpoint for the unit.

382

fi(xi)

: the production cost of generating xi MW at unit i.

Problem Definition

: system load

The problem is to minimize the production cost while meeting the

system load and reserve requirements and is expressed below.

Loss

system losses

system load + losses (L

system lambda

PFi

: penalty factor for unit i

(PFi

minimize
=

iI

Xi

iEI

Traditional Economic Dispatch

2 Xi

= 1

il

fi (xi)
LOSS

(1.)
=

(1.2)

Ixi < x!,

(1.3)

xi > xli

(1.4)

Where equation 1.1 represents the fact that the sum of the production costs over the set of units I is to be minimized. The constraint
1.2 states that the sum of the generation over these units must equal
the load plus losses and 1.3 and 1.4 are the inequality constraints
stating that each generation has an assignable minimum and maximum
output.
The solution to this problem is found by using traditional
Lagrangian multipliers, and is well known in the literature (6). The
losses are represented by a B-matrix, and the penalty factors are used.
The solution is expressed as:

a f(xi)=
a xi
PFi

iI

Xi

Ii
xi= L

(2.2)
(2.3)

xi >

Xl

(2.4)

(2.5)

xl'

si > S

(2.6)

The objective function, represented by equation 2.1 is once again

that of minimizing the sum of production costs over the set of units I.
The equality constraint (2.2) is also, once again, that the sum of
the generation must- satisfy the load and loss requirement.
In equation 2.3, the unit loading plus its reserve contributions
must be less than the limit, and differs from the traditional EDC.
Equation 2.4 is the same restricting the lower limit of this unit's
loading.
Equation 2.5 states that the reserve contribution must be less than
some maximum value; and 2.6 states that the summation of the
reserves over the set of units I must be greater than some assigned
reserve requirements.
If we simply run a traditional EDC, for the load L, and get, as the
results xi(L) for each unit, then we can divide the set of units I into two
subsets as described below.
*

Rate limited subset I1(L) where si = Si VicIl(L).These are the

units which were economically assigned below their breakpoint
value (xu Xi), and hence their contribution to the reserves is
si. Each of these units can have its output increased up to the
breakpoint value (xu - Ti) without any effect on the reserves.
-

UP(L)

(x4

i- xi(L))

icIl

Vi
*

Vil

An increase of UP(L) in generation of units in I1 will not affect

their reserve contribution.
Upper limited subset 12(L) where si = xlu _ xi(L) V iI2.
These are the units which were assigned above their breakpoint
value (xu - X), and hence their contribution to the reserve is
(xiu - xi(L)). Each of these units can have its output reduced
to the breakpoint (x4
Xi), with a consequential improvement
in its contribution to reserves.
-

DOWN(L)

Of (xi) is usually represented as a segmented linear curve, and a

a xi
'binary search' is used to achieve the solution.

iEI2

- (X-xi(L))
(xi

A decrease of DOWN(L) assigned generation by the units in

12(L) will increase reserve by the same amount.

Reserve Constrained Economic Dispatch

The basic work done in terms of economic dispatch with

regulating or spinning reserve margin was done in reference 1 and is
commonly referred to as MU dispatch. In that paper the basic
equations were derived, and an algorithm outlined for producing a
solution to the problem. The methodology used assumed that the
desired system margin is exactly equal to the sum of the margins for
each unit. In general application of spinning or regulating reserve, the
required reserve is normally less than the sum of the available reserves
on each unit. This requires a more general algorithm, and can be done
by a double iterative scheme involving the selections of MU and
LAMBDA, which requires a large amount of CPU time. The method
described in this section of the paper is an efficient method for finding
the general solution to the problem without resorting to the resource
expensive double iteration method. This efficiency is especially useful
for the Unit Commitment Algorithm in which thousands of dispatch
calculations are required.

loss

(2.1)

<

iI

Xi < Xiu

Xi >

fi(xi)

Si

The traditional economic dispatch method is that of minimizing

the production cost to satisfy the load requirements.
minimize

= 1

xi +

1-a Loss
a xi

Loss)

The total reserve S can be computed from the results of the traditional
EDC.

S(L)
and A

iI2

S(L)

Si
-

where A represents the deviations from the required

classify the results as described below.

reserve.

We

can

now

1) There is sufficient reserve from the traditional EDC. (A > 0).

In this case the reserve available S(L) exceeds the reserve
requirement S, and hence the problem is solved with generation assignment of xi(L).

383
2) The reserve requirement cannot be satisfied. That is we have
a deviation from reserve requirement A, and either the rate
limited units cannot be moved up sufficiently to cover the
deviation (UP(L)<A), or the upper limited units cannot be
moved down sufficiently to cover the deviation
(DOWN(L)<A).
(A<0 and either UP(L)<A

or

* set as the limits

1) The unit's maximum control limit from the Energy Control

Centre is below the maximum capability under plant control,
but the reserve limit is the maximum capability limit under
plant control.
2) The current operational condition of a unit is limited by plant
conditions which can be charged by a phone call to the plant
operator. In this case the dispatch or control limit is equal to
the current operational limit, but the reserve limit used is the
one which represents the plant after the change in operating
conditions.

3) The dispatcher may use a more constraining dispatch or control limit to save the last portion of the unit's capability for
load growth problems at a later time.

calculate the load (Ll) to be dispatched among the

rate limited units by adding A to their load from

set as the unit limits for the dispatch

Consider the value xu to be the dispatch or control limit, introduce the

reserve limit of xr, and we must now rewrite the constraint set (equation 2.3 to 2.6) as:
xi + Si < xr VicI

2i(Ll)

xi(L)

Xi >

xI(Ll)

Xi

icIl

xi(L)

+A

run a traditional economic dispatch with the conditions listed above to yield xi(Ll) as the result.

xiuVril
Si < 3i Vi6l (unchanged)
il

Step 2 Decrease the generation assigned in the traditional

EDC to the upper limited units (12) by A. This is done
as outlined below.
remove the rate limited units (iP11) from the
dispatch, thus leaving only the upper limited units
(iP12)

calculate the load L2 to be dispatched among the

upper limited units by subtracting delta from the
traditional EDC result
L2

iEI2

xi(L)

x!Via (unchanged)

xi <

3i

ViaIl

xi(L) - A

In most normal operating conditions some or all of the units have

reserve limits defined which are above the limits used for control of the
units. This can occur for many reasons such as those listed below.

remove the upper limited units (ieI2) from the

dispatch, thus leaving only the rate limited units

Ll=

iI2

The results of some tests to demonstrate this function

are discussed in the section labelled "Results" and are
included in Table 3 for 7 different load levels.

the traditional EDC

xi(L) + A +

Hence the results satisfy the equality constraint.

(iEIl)

iEIl

LI + L2 = L.

Increase the generation assigned in the traditional

EDC among the rate limited units by the quantity A.
This is done as outlined below.

x4'

Less Constrained Reserve Limits

The proposed method has a unique way of solving this problem as desqribed below. The essence of the problem is that
we know how much generation (A) is to be switched from the
units in the set I2(L) to those in the set I1(L), but we do not
know how to distribute this among the units. The method
described below achieves this.

Note: LI + L2 =

3) The reserve requirement can be satisfied by moving some of

the generation (A) from the upper limited units (12) to the
rate-limited uits (I1)

ii(L2)

-i

above as inputs yielding xi(L2) as the result VieI2

In order to obtain the maximum achievable reserve and meet

the load requirement, even though we cannot meet the
required reserve, we must switch generation from units in 12
to those in IH. In this case the generation to be switched is the
lesser of UP(L) and DOWN(L). In this case we set A = MIN
(UP(L), DOWN(L)) and proceed with the methodology
described in section 3) directly below.

Step

= X

* run a traditional economic dispatch using the

DOWN(L)<A)

A < 0,
and UP(L) >iA
and DOWN(L) > A'

xi(L2)

A'

si > S (unchanged).

Inspection of these constraints shows that they can be seperated

into 2 types, each handled differently as described below.
1) xT1

xP
1 >lgi ViElA

In this case each unit's contribution to the system reserve is i,

since it can be dispatched to its limit x! without affecting its
reserve contribution. In this case we can reduce the value of
the required system reserve to be allocated by si, and set the
maximum contribution of this unit within the dispatch computation to zero.

2) xr

xiM < siVieIB

In this case each unit's contribution to the spinning reserve is

at least xi - xi, with an additional contribution of up to -i

384

(xi - xU) available, depending on the solution of the

spinning reserve dispatch problem. In this case we can reduce
the value of the required system reserve to be allocated by the
spinning reserve dispatch problem by x4 - xO, and set the
maximum contribution of the unit within the dispatch to si (4 - xI).
In summary, the new constraint set for the problem now reduces
to the one we handle in the original problem as can be seen from
below.

ViEI

S- < u

x* +

Xi < Xi
0

iEI

VE

si(n) > S(n) V n=.

xi(n) - ri < xi(n+ 1) 6 xi(n) + ri\Vi/idyn= 1,. N

(3.6)-

(3.7)

A description of each equation is given below:

(3.1) Is the minimization criteria. It specifies to minimize the production cost over the set of units I required to meet the load, and
over N time intervals.

(3.3) This specifies that for each unit, the sum of its assigned generation and its reserve contribution must be less than or equal to its
high limit.

where

Si* O
Si* = Si
Si* = Si

ViElA

SF

iI

(3.2) This equation specifies that the sum of the generation must
satisfy the load requirements and the transmission losses
incurred. The losses are handled by the traditional B-Matrix,
penalty factor method.

FS

Si <Si*
Si > S*

S -

(x -X i )

i-IA

Si-

(3.4) This specifies that a units reserve contribution can only be

positive, and must be less than same value corresponding to the
units response over the time interval for reserve calculation.

fiI

-VIEI, iEIAUIB
iEIB

(xf - xi')

(3.5) This specifies that the unit assigned generation be greater than a
lower limnit.

Definitions of Terms for Dynamic Dispatch

(3.6) This specifies that the sum of the unit reserves must be greater
than a prespecified reserve requirement.

: time interval

xi(n)

: generation of unit i at time interval n

fi(xi(n))

: production cost of unit i at generation xi(n)

si(n)

: reserve

(3.7) This specifies that the unit's response between time intervals is
restricted to ri.

Properties of the Problem

contribution of unit i at time interval n

xiU

: maximum capability of unit i

xi(n)

: upper limit of unit i at time interval n.

xli

: minimum capability of unit i

If we look at the problem expressed in equation (3.1) to (3.7), the

most important thing to realize is that the only reason that this is a
single problem over a time horizon is because of the constraints
expressed in equation (7), that is that the unit's response rates are
limited. This means that for conditions in which the problem is solved
as a sequence of unrelated economic dispatches, one for each time
interval, and where each unit's generation satisfies the rate constraints
(7), for each interval. Then this is the GLOBAL optimal solution over
the time horizon.

xi(n)

: lower limit of unit i at time interval n.

Feasible Solution

ri

: response

Si

: maximum reserve contribution for unit i.

l(n)

system load at time n

(losses and interchange are assumed included)

: system reserve

xi(n)

A feasible solution to the problem can be found by solving the N

sequential problems stated below in a backwards manner, i.e. solve for

of unit i over the time interval

n = N, N - l,

requirement at time n.

1.

J(n) =

minimize

achievable generation at time n based on the units initial

condition xi(0) and response rate (ri)

2 xi(n)
iI

Problem Definition

xi(n)

The problem can be stated as:

'xi(n)

iI

l(n)

n=l,

fi(xi(n))

(4.1)

l(n)

(4.2)

si(n) < Xi(n) ViI

0 < si(n) <

N
J = E I fi(xi(n))
n=l idl

minimize

iEI

ijViEI

0 6 si(n) < Si

xi(n) >

(4.4)

(3.1)
; si(n) > S(n)
iI

(3.2)

xi(n) > xi(n)

xi(n) + si(n) < xi

(4.3)

VilIVn= 1.
VidIVn =1.

xlViElIVn= 1,

(3.3)

(3.4)

.i(n)

(3.5)

5xi(n)

Vidl

(4.5)

(4.6)

where
=
=

min (xi(n + 1) + ri, x(n)) ViEI

(4.7)

ri), x(n)) VidI

(4.8)

max

(xi(n + 1)

385

Ri(n)
(n)

= min(x4,

(4.9)

Results

(4.10)

In order to demonstrate the impact of this algorithm on system

operation, we consider a system which has the load growth pattern
shown in Fig. 1.
The operating characteristics of the units are shown in Table 1,
and the traditional economic dispatch at each load level is shown in
Fig. 2. In this, and all other results, the convention followed is:

xi(O) + n*ri) Vij

max (xi, xi(O) - n*ri) Vial

In expressing the problem in the above fashion, we have the

advantage of knowing that the problem defined by equations 4.1 4.6 have a solution as described in the first section of the gaper.
Equations 4.7 and 4.8 represent the limitations placed in the nt time
interval due to the units response rate, and knowledge of the solution
at (n + 1), plus knowledge of the achievable generation at time n as
represented by equations 4.9 and 4.10.

Algorithm

l00X means that the value is constrained by its upper limit

(xi)

100x: means that the value is constrained by its lower limit

In discussing the algorithm below, the reserve limited economic

dispatch algorithm is used for each time interval. The results of this
algorithm for time n is (xi(n)) the units loading and reserve contribution si(n) for each unit (icl) and the system lambda (X (n)). The input
parameters to the algorithm are the dispatchable load (l(n)), each units
upper (xi(n)) and lower (xi(n)) limit and maximum reserve contribution si(n).
Step 1 Calculate the maximum (xi(n)) and minimum (xi(n))
achievable value for each time inteval n, by considering the
upper (xr) and lower (xi) limits, the starting value at xi (1), and
the tesponse rate ri over each time interval as described in
equation 4.9 and 4.10.
Step 2 Initialize the interval counter (n) to N, and set

Yi(N) = i(N)
xi(N) Xi(N)
=

Step 3 Solve the reserve limited economic dispatch for the time interval n, yielding xi(n), si(n), S(n).

Step 4 If n = 1, we have solved for all intervals and are finished. If n

# 1, then compute the high and low (ij(n - 1), xi(n - 1)) limits
for the time interval (n - 1) as detailed in 4.7, 4.8, decrement
the interval counter n, and go to step 3.
On-Line Properties
In order to implement the algorithm described in this paper as an
on-line operational piece of software, there are many other considerations. It is a well known fact that the task of imbedding an algorithm
into an on-line computer system can involve more work than the
engineering effort involved in developing the original algorithm. Some
of the facts to be considered are listed below:

* The load forecast must be accurate, and be able to be sliced into 5 to

10 minute forecasts.
* The on-line transaction schedules with neighboring companies must
be accessed to find the total load to be dispatched over each

interval.

* Generation schedules for 'MANUALLY' controlled generators

must be known for each interval over the time period.
* Any scheduled operational restriction on the units must be known
for the time period. These include such parameters as high and low
limits, sustained response rate, fuel cost.

When this function is embedded in a real-time system, it

recommends to the dispatcher, via input/output displays, a unit
loading strategy over the time horizon of interest, and will alarm him if
any operational problems are predicted. If this calculation is run every
5 to 10 minutes, then he will always know one hour ahead of time the
hazards he faces due to load pickup. This is plenty of time for him to
reorganize the operational use of his own units by having plant conditions changed, or by changing unit modes or parameters, or by
arranging transactions with neighbors.

(Xi)

IOOR

*100

that the value is constrained by the response rate

of the unit

: means

: means that the value is unrealistic, in that it could not

be achieved in an operating system due to the units
inability to respond.

From an inspection of table 2, it can be seen that the two units 7,

8 are by far the most economical, with units 9, 10 next most
economical, and units 1 through 6 being the most expensive group. If
pure economics is used, then units 7, 8, 9, 10would reach their limits
at between 1072 and 1190 system load. The combined response rate of
units 1 to 6 is only 121 MW/period, and hence cannot follow load
moving faster than this rate. If the required system reserve is 150, then
it can be seen that, using a traditional dispatch, required reserve
cannot be met above a load lovel of around (963 to 1072) MW. Of
course the values with a * indicate that the generation could not follow
the load in this manner.
Table 3 shows the results of solving a reserve limited economic
dispatch separately for each load level. In this table it can be seen that
the required reserve can be maintained by keeping units 9, 10 below
their actual economic limits for load levels above 963. Once again, in
generating this table, no restriction was made for actual system operations and many of the results violate unit response rates, thus the
generation could not follow the load in this manner.
In table 4, the problem is now considered as a sequence of loads,
with the response rate between intervals being used to control the
limits of the units. In practice this technique manages to meet the load
requirements and required margin until the last interval, at which time
the units cannot respond quickly enough to meet the load growth, and
there is a generation shortage of 51.8MW, and the actual reserve is
only 106.
The results using the backward search technique are shown in
Table 5. As can be seen, the algorithm manages to satisfy both the
load and reserve requirements. It is worthwhile noting that in this case,
as opposed to the simple look ahead method, not only were some of
the slower, more expensive units ramped quickly from the start, but
the inexpensive units (7, 8) were actually backed off their limits in
order that they be able to help meet the load growth requirement of
the final interval.
The results for a different load growth pattern involving the
switching of the loads in the 963 and 898 in time sequence from the
original load pattern, is shown in Table 6. As can be seen this produces
a different set of desired generations over the first few intervals, since
the load increase pattern over these intervals is different. It does,
however, satisfy the load pickup and reserve requirements at all times.
Some tests were conducted to check the performance of the Spinning Constrained Dispatch Heuristic algorithm against the double
iterative MU, LAMBDA methodology. These were done over 36 load
levels at 20 MW steps each of which required that the spinning reserve
constraint be imposed. The total CPU time required for the double
iterative algorithm for the 36 load levels was 6.03 seconds. The total
CPU time required for the heuristic algorithm for the 36 load levels
was 4.065 seconds, thus showing an improvement of around 33% in
CPU time. The test was repeated at various error tolerances and the
improvement was consistently above 300o. Both algorithms converged
to the same solutions (within tolerances) in all cases.

386

CONCLUSION
It was the author's intent in analyzing these problems to stay as
close to the traditional economic dispatch methods as possible, and to
develop algorithms which would have good performance
characteristics. In doing so he initially accepted that some suboptimality would probably be necessary. In the case of the spinning
reserve limited dispatch, the algorithm developed and described is
both elegent and simple, it uses the available traditional economic
dispatch algorithm as a subroutine, and, in itself introduces a trivial
amount of new code. There are some circumstances in which it is sub-

optimal, but, in general, it finds the true optimal solution. The

efficient execution time of the algorithm will help in keeping the execution time of a unit commitment or hydro-thermal dispatch as small as
possible. In the case of the dynamic spinning reserve dispatch, the
algorithm is once again simple and elegent, using the spinning reserve
economic dispatch and controlling limits in a backwards search'to
reach a feasible sub-optimal solution. This can be used to suggest a
short term loading strategy to a dispatcher for his acceptance. The
algorithm would have to be extended before using in an on-line situation to recognize the time-horizon over which it can be most effectively
used.

SYSTEM LOAD

1A

IWITH TRADITIONAL METHOD

1:

1'

RESERVE USING PROPOSED METHOD

--

-- REQUIRED RESERVE

RESERVE WITH TRADITIONAL METHOD

TIME INTERVALS

Figure 1 - Overview of Results

1

10

TOTAL

73

93

143

70

93

350

248

190

190

113

1563

LOW LIMIT (xi)

12

26

42

18

30

100

100

40

70

40

478

RESPONSE MW

10

15

23

10

13

50

48

20

30

20

235

RESERVE BREAKPOINT

63

78

120

60

80

300

200

170

160

93

1328

HIGH LIMIT

(xi)

TABLE 1- UNIT PARAMETERS

SYSTEM
LOAD LAMBDA RESERVE

10

70

40

796

11 .

167

12X

43.9

44.4

18x

3Ox

1OOx

190x

867

12.3

167

12x

47.4

48.3

18x

30x

100X

190x

898

12.5

167

12x

49.8

50.9

18x

30x

100X

190x

963

13.

160.6

16.6

55.7

57.3

18x

30x

1072

13.8

137

*27.3

65.2

67.6

18x

42

125.7

l9ox

182.6 *104.4

1190

14.

121

30.1

68.2

70.2

19.6

*64

*201

19ox

190x

1391

14.6

69

38.7

82.0

78.2

24

*77.2

*350(

190X

I190X 113X

l9ox

TABLE 2- PURE ECONOMIC DISPATCH

113.3

59.8

134

65.8

166.4

80.7

113X

387
SYSTEM
LOAD LAMBDA RESERVE

3.

100

796

11.0

167

12X

43.9

44.4

18X

3Ox

867

12.3

167

12X

47.4

48.3

18x

30x

898

12.5

167

12X

49.8

50.9

18X

30x

963

13.

160.6

16.6

55.7

57.3

3OX

1072

150

27.7

65.6

68

18X
18X

1190

150

31.3

70.1

71.2

19

1391

150

*63

78

43.5

137

*300

*80

10

248X I goX
248X l9ox
00OX 248X l9ox
00OX 248X 190

*55.5 *229.4

107.4 *5 1.3

2.48X

l9ox

248X
248X

l9OX
I goX

70

40

*1 13.3

59.8

134

65.8

166.4

80.7

175.9

98.9

175.9

98.9

175.9

98.9

TABLE 3 - RESERVE LIMITED ECONOMIC DISPATCH

LOAD

RESERVE

796

167

12X

43.9

44.4

867

167

12X

54

55

898

167

12X

51

52.2

963

167

17.9

56.9

58.6

18X
I18X
18X
18X

1072

150

27.7

65.7

68.1

18X

1190

150

37.7R

78

91.1R

26.9

1391

106

47.7R

93R

1 14.1l R

36.9

3OX 0oX 248' X

3OX 00OX 248X
ox
248X
3OX
100x
248X
3OX
43R 137.5 248X
56R 187.5R 248X
69R 237.5 248X

19OX

IOOR

g9oX

10

TOTAL

'1OR

68.6

l9ox 160R
l9ox 175.9

84.4

19O0

175.9

98.9

19oX

190

98.9

113

1339.2

TABLE 4 - RESERVE LIMITED ECONOMIC DISPATCH WITH CONSIDERATION OF UNIT RESPONSE RATES

LOAD

RESERVE

796

167

12X

43.9

44.4

867

167

13R

54

898

167

23

963

167

1072

10

18X

30X

LOOX

248X 19OX

55

18X

30X

1X

248X

19oX 100.0R 600R

48.8

49.9

18X

30X

lOOX

248X

190X 1211R

33R

48

48.9

21.3

41

150R

248X 190X 118.7

167

43R

48

61.4

31.3R

54R

200R

248X

190X 131

1190

202.5

53R

63R

844R

41.3 R

67R

250R

236.5

170

1391

150

63R

78R

1074R

51.3R

80R

300R

248- l9OX 1759R 989R

70X J4X

145.9

TABLE 5- MULTIPLE INTERVAL LOOKAHEAD AND BACKWARD SEARCH CASE I

63.6
61.3
| 65

78.9

388
LOAD

RESERVE

10

796

167

12X

43.9

44.4

18.

3oX

00X

248X

190X

7ox

4ox

867

167

16

52.7

54.1

18X

30X

100X

248X

190X

ioR

60R

963

167

26R

63.8

68.1

18X

38.5

100X

248X

19oX

130R

80R

898

167

33

48.8R 49.9

21.3

41

|50R

248X

19OX

126.1

63.6

1072

167

43R

48

61.4

313 R

54R

200R

248k

190X

131

65

1190

202.5

53R

63R

844R

41.3R

67R

250R

236.5

170

145.9

78.9

1391

150

63R

78R

1074R

51.3R

80R

300R

248X 19OX 175.9R

TABLE 6- MULTIPLE INTERVAL LOOKAHEAD AND BACKWARD SEARCH CASE2

REFERENCES
1. W. 0. Stadlin, "Economic Allocation of Regulating Margin".
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. PAS-90, No. 4, July/
August 1971.

2. T. L. Bechert, N. Chen, "Area Automatic Generation Control by

Multi Pass Dynamic Programming". IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., Vol. PAS-96, No. 5, September/October 1977.

3. A. D. Patton, "Dynamic Optimal Dispatch of Real Power for

Thermal Generating Units". Proc. 8th Power Industry Computer
Applications Conference. Minneapolis, Minnesota. June 4-6,
1973. IEEE Publication 73 CHO 740-1 PWR.
4. D. W. Ross, S. Kim, "Dynamic Economic Dispatch of
Generation". IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. PAS-99, No.
6, Nov/Dec 80.
5. F. P. de Mello, J. M. Undrill "Automatic Generation Control".
IEEE Tutorial Course on Energy Control Center Design (1977).
6. L. K. Kirchimayer, "Economic Control of Interconnected
Systems", Wiley, New York 1958.

989R