Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Managing power balance and reserve feasibility in the AC unit commitment problem (2404.00200v1)

Published 30 Mar 2024 in eess.SY, cs.SY, and math.OC

Abstract: Incorporating the AC power flow equations into unit commitment models has the potential to avoid costly corrective actions required by less accurate power flow approximations. However, research on unit commitment with AC power flow constraints has been limited to a few relatively small test networks. This work investigates large-scale AC unit commitment problems for the day-ahead market and develops decomposition algorithms capable of obtaining high-quality solutions at industry-relevant scales. The results illustrate that a simple algorithm that only seeks to satisfy unit commitment, reserve, and AC power balance constraints can obtain surprisingly high-quality solutions to this AC unit commitment problem. However, a naive strategy that prioritizes reserve feasibility leads to AC infeasibility, motivating the need to design heuristics that can effectively balance reserve and AC feasibility. Finally, this work explores a parallel decomposition strategy that allows the proposed algorithm to obtain feasible solutions on large cases within the two hour time limit required by typical day-ahead market operations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. B. Knueven, J. Ostrowski, and J.-P. Watson, “On mixed-integer programming formulations for the unit commitment problem,” INFORMS J. Comp., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 857–876, 2020.
  2. R. P. O’Neill, T. Dautel, and E. Krall, “Recent iso software enhancements and future software and modeling plans,” 2011.
  3. B. Carlson, Y. Chen, M. Hong, R. Jones, K. Larson, X. Ma, P. Nieuwesteeg, H. Song, K. Sperry, M. Tackett, D. Taylor, J. Wan, and E. Zak, “MISO unlocks billions in savings through the application of operations research for energy and ancillary services markets,” Interfaces, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 58–73, 2012.
  4. A. Castillo, C. Laird, C. A. Silva-Monroy, J.-P. Watson, and R. P. O’Neill, “The unit commitment problem with AC optimal power flow constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Sys., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4853–4866, 2016.
  5. J. Holzer, C. Coffrin, C. DeMarco, R. Duthu, S. Elbert, B. Eldridge, T. Elgindy, S. Greene, N. Guo, E. Hale, B. Lesieutre, T. Mak, C. McMillan, H. Mittelmann, H. Oh, R. O’Niell, T. Overbye, B. Palmintier, F. Safdarian, A. Tbaileh, P. van Hentenryck, A. Veeramany, and J. Wert, “Grid optimization competition challenge 3 problem formulation,” ARPA-E, Tech. Rep., 2023.
  6. M. Carrion and J. Arroyo, “A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,” IEEE Trans. Power Sys., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1371–1378, 2006.
  7. P. Meibom, H. V. Larsen, R. Barth, H. Brand, A. Tuohy, and E. Ela, “Advanced unit commitment strategies in the united states eastern interconnection,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Tech. Rep., 8 2011.
  8. M. B. Cain, R. P. O’Neill, and A. Castillo, “History of optimal power flow and formulations,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tech. Rep., 2012.
  9. K. Van den Bergh and E. Delarue, “Energy and reserve markets: interdependency in electricity systems with a high share of renewables,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 189, p. 106537, 2020.
  10. A. Bublitz, D. Keles, F. Zimmermann, C. Fraunholz, and W. Fichtner, “A survey on electricity market design: Insights from theory and real-world implementations of capacity remuneration mechanisms,” Energy Economics, vol. 80, pp. 1059–1078, 2019.
  11. L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and T. Li, “Stochastic security-constrained unit commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Sys., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 800–811, 2007.
  12. I. Aravena, D. K. Molzahn, S. Zhang, C. G. Petra, F. E. Curtis, S. Tu, A. Wächter, E. Wei, E. Wong, A. Gholami, K. Sun, X. A. Sun, S. T. Elbert, J. T. Holzer, and A. Veeramany, “Recent developments in security-constrained AC optimal power flow: Overview of challenge 1 in the arpa-e grid optimization competition,” Operations research., 2023.
  13. C. Murillo-Sanchez and R. Thomas, “Thermal unit commitment with nonlinear power flow constraints,” in IEEE Power Engineering Society. 1999 Winter Meeting, vol. 1, 1999, pp. 484–489 vol.1.
  14. H. Ma and S. Shahidehpour, “Unit commitment with transmission security and voltage constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Sys., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 757–764, 1999.
  15. Y. Fu, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “Security-constrained unit commitment with AC constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Sys., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1001–1013, 2005.
  16. D. A. Tejada-Arango, S. Wogrin, P. Sánchez-Martın, and A. Ramos, “Unit commitment with ACOPF constraints: Practical experience with solution techniques,” in 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech, 2019, pp. 1–6.
  17. C. Coffrin, B. Knueven, J. Holzer, and M. Vuffray, “The impacts of convex piecewise linear cost formulations on AC optimal power flow,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 199, p. 107191, 2021.
  18. P. González, J. Villar, C. A. Díaz, and F. A. Campos, “Joint energy and reserve markets: Current implementations and modeling trends,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 109, pp. 101–111, 2014.
  19. I. Quesada and I. Grossmann, “An LP/NLP based branch and bound algorithm for convex MINLP optimization problems,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 937–947, 1992.
  20. R. A. Waltz, J. L. Morales, J. Nocedal, and D. Orban, “An interior algorithm for nonlinear optimization that combines line search and trust region steps,” Math. Prog., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 391–408, 2006.
  21. J. Holzer and S. Elbert. (2023) C3DataUtilities. Accessed 2023-09-30. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/GOCompetition/C3DataUtilities
  22. J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, “Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing,” SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 65–98, 2017.
  23. M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Dias Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. P. Vielma, “JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,” Math. Prog. Comp., vol. 15, p. 581–589, 2023.
  24. A. Wächter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Math. Prog., pp. 25–27, 2006.
  25. I. S. Duff and J. K. Reid, “MA27 – A set of Fortran subroutines for solving sparse symmetric sets of linear equations,” AERE Harwell, Tech. Rep. AERE-R 10533, 1982.
  26. (2022) MathOptSymbolicAD.jl. Accessed 2023-09-30. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/odow/MathOptSymbolicAD.jl
  27. H. Hijazi, G. Wang, and C. Coffrin, “Gravity: A mathematical modeling language for optimization and machine learning,” Machine Learning Open Source Software Workshop at NeurIPS 2018, 2018.
  28. Q. Huangfu and J. A. J. Hall, “Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method,” Math. Prog. Comp., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 119–142, Mar 2018.
  29. (2023) Challenge 3 event leaderboards. Accessed 2024-03-05. [Online]. Available: https://gocompetition.energy.gov/challenges/Challenge-3/Leaderboards
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now