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] > <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. > > > >
