Thank you so much for your help. Now I understood why LMPs are not changing on 
the same bus with change in load, and because of that I replaced (rundcopf) by 
(runopf) to perform ACOPF. Also, I changed (OPF_ALG_DC) to (OPF_ALG), but I got 
the following error:
 
??? Error using ==> makeAvl at 73
makeAvl: either Qmin or Qmax must be equal to zero for each dispatchable load.
Error in ==> opf_setup at 172
  [Avl, lvl, uvl]  = makeAvl(baseMVA, gen);
Error in ==> opf at 219
om = opf_setup(mpc, mpopt);
Error in ==> runopf at 96
[r, success] = opf(casedata, mpopt);
Error in ==> run_3bus at 120
        results = runopf(mpc, opt);
 What this error means? What should I do else to have a correct ACOPF?
 
Thanks again, appreciate your help.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Bo <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:04 pm
Subject: Re: Question about locational marginal prices
To: MATPOWER discussion forum <[email protected]>


> It could very well be the case when transmission losses are not considered 
> and piecewise linear cost function is assumed for generators. LMPs will stay 
> the same until there is a change in the marginal units and/or change in 
> congested lines when load grows beyond certain level. The following two 
> papers might help understand that.
> https://sites.google.com/site/eeruibo/files/DCOPF_LMP.pdf?attredirects=0
> https://sites.google.com/site/eeruibo/files/congestion_and_LMP_prediction.pdf?attredirects=0
>  
> -Rui
>  
> Rui (Ray) Bo
> Ph.D., SM-IEEE
> Senior Economic Studies Engineer
> Policy & Economic Studies
> MISO
> Phone: (651) 632-8447
> Email: [email protected], [email protected]
>  
>  
> From: Haneen Mohammad dawoud Aburub 
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:24
> To: [email protected] 
> Subject: Question about locational marginal prices
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I used the DCOPF to get the locational marginal prices of a 3-bust system. 
> The locational marginal prices that I have got are not changing with the 
> change in load. Can you please tell me the reason of that.
>  
> Thank you.

Reply via email to