I’m afraid I can’t answer the question of whether or not your particular
problem formulation implements the “time of use” program you intend.
Ray
> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <http://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 <http://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]
> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > sir
>> >
>> > what does it means a negative objective function.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
