thanx for replying sir and i will try this. one more clarification i need
from you.
I implement time of use program for congestion
management.ie for different periods the price will be different .for
example peak and off peak,valley periods.
1.I take the case of ieee14 bus system and i create congestion by
decreasing the line flow limit at 3rd bus to 30MW where the actual power
flow is 39.77MW.so there will be congestion occured.therefore the LMP
values will increase.
2.In order to mitigate this condition I use the scale load function and
scale the load into peak ,off peak and valley periods in the ratio of
0.55,0.3,0.15 resp. at all buses.
3.Now i use price sensitive loads concept where I assume the marginal
benefit is 28.5$/MWh,above that pirce the load should be curtailed.
4.In peak periods the load is curtailed and I show the gencost,objective
function,demand cost comparisons by not applying time of use.
My question is am i using the price sensitive loads in a
correct way in my context of time of use program are I am violating.I mean
that, is my approach for implementing time of use program using price
sensitive loads is in a correct way.
Please suggest me,i need advice from you.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can think of two essentially equivalent ways to do this.
>
> (1) Model the loads as fixed loads at their nominal values plus a dummy
> generator that represents curtailment. The cost of curtailment is then
> included directly as a positive cost for these curtailment dummy generators.
>
> (2) Model your load as a dispatchable load with a benefit function equal
> to the benefit to the load minus the curtailment payment from the ISO.
>
> For a DC OPF there should be no difference between the two approaches. For
> an AC OPF the only difference is that (1) affects real power only, but (2)
> forces the power factor of the load to remain constant, so reactive power
> is curtailed in proportion to the real power curtailed.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> sir
> coming to direct load control program where the case is to give
> incentives to the customers for load reduction,the objective function
> should includes the incentives payment along with the generators
> cost.whereas showing the price sensitive loads the objective function
> removes the payment by the loads.presently in matpower the runopf does this.
> my question is can we change our objective
> function according to our problem in matpower.why because ISO have to pay
> money to the people for their curtailment.so i want to includes this money
> in my objective function.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Since MATPOWER represents dispatchable demand as negative generation with
>> negative cost, the objective function ends up being the negative of net
>> benefits. Normally you want to maximize net benefits (total benefit to
>> demand minus total cost of supply). MATPOWER does this by minimizing the
>> negative of net benefits. So a negative objective function silly means that
>> the benefits to the loads is greater than the cost to generators … which is
>> what you normally expect.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 2016, at 5:13 AM, Mounika Vanjarapu <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > sir
>> >
>> > what does it means a negative objective function.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
