Abstract
Far from being an artifact of the past, the unit commitment (UC) algorithm is essential to making economical decisions in today’s competitive electricity industry. Increasing competition; decreasing obligations-to-serve; and enhanced futures, forwards, and spot market trading in electricity and other related markets make the decision of which units to operate more complex than ever before. Decentralized auction markets currently being implemented in countries like Spain use UC-type models, which should encourage researchers to continue working on finding better and faster solution techniques. UC schedules may be developed for a generation company, a system operator, etc. The need for many flavors of UC algorithms, each considering different inputs and objective functions, is growing. Factors such as historical reliability of units should be considered in designing the UC algorithm. Although a particular schedule may result in the lowest cost, or highest profit, it may depend on generators that have varying availabilities. Traditionally, consumers had very reliable electricity whether they needed it or not. Given a choice in a market-based electricity system, many consumers might choose to pay for a slightly lower level of power availability if it would result in sufficient savings. As the number of inputs and options grows in UC problems, the genetic algorithm (GA) becomes an important tool for searching the large solution space. GA times-to-solution often scale up linearly with the number of units, or hours being considered. Another benefit of using the GA to generate UC schedules is that an entire population of schedules is developed, some of which may be well suited to situations that may arise quickly due to unexpected contingencies.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
J. Kumar and G. Shebté. “Framework for Energy Brokerage System with Reserve Margin and Transmission Losses.” In Proc. 1996 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, 96 WM 190-9 PWRS, NY: IEEE.
C. Richter and G. Sheblé. “Genetic Algorithm Evolution of Utility Bidding Strategies for the Competitive Marketplace.” In Proc. 1997 IEEE/PES Summer Meeting, PE-752-PWRS-1-05-1997. New York: IEEE.
G. Sheblé. “Electric energy in a fully evolved marketplace.” Paper presented at the 1994 North American Power Symposium, Kansas State University, KS, 1994.
G. Sheblé. “Priced based operation in an auction market structure.” Paper presented at the 1996 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting. Baltimore, MD, 1996.
C. Richter. Profiting from Competition: Financial Tools for Competitive Electric Generation Companies. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1998.
G. Sheblé and G. Fahd. Unit commitment literature synopsis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 9(1): 128–135, 1994.
A. Wood and B. Wollenberg. Power Generation, Operation, and Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
G. Sheblé. Unit Commitment for Operations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1985.
S. Takriti, B. Krasenbrink, and L.S.-Y. Wu. “Incorporating Fuel Constraints and Electricity Spot Prices into the Stochastic Unit Commitment Problem,” IBM Research Report: RC 21066, Mathematical Sciences Department, T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, 1997.
C. Richter and G. Sheblé. “A Price-Based Unit Commitment GA for Uncertain Price and Demand Forecasts.” In Proc. 1998 North American Power Symposium, 1998.
S. Kondragunta. Genetic algorithm unit commitment program, M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1997.
S. A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis. “A Genetic Algorithm Solution to the Unit Commitment Problem.” In Proc. 1995 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting 152-9 PWRS, New York: IEEE, 1995.
T. Maifeld and G. Sheblé. Genetic-based unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 11(3): 1359, 1996.
C. Richter, D. Ashlock, and G. Sheblé. “Effects of Tree Size and State Number on GP-Automata Bidding Strategies.” In Proc. 1998 Conference on Genetic Programming, Denver, CO: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
J. Koza. Genetic Programming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1992.
J. Koza. Genetic Programming II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1994.
D. Ashlock. “GP-automata for Dividing the Dollar.” Mathematics Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 1995.
D. Ashlock and C. Richter. “The Effects of Splitting Populations on Bidding Strategies.” In Proc. 1997 Conference on Genetic Programming, Denver, CO: Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
M. Andrews and R. Prager. “Genetic programming for the acquisition of double auction market strategies.” In Advances in Genetic Programming, K. Kinnear Jr., ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Richter, C.W., Sheblé, G.B. (2002). Building and Evaluating GENCO Bidding Strategies and Unit Commitment Schedules with Genetic Algorithms. In: Hobbs, B.F., Rothkopf, M.H., O’Neill, R.P., Chao, Hp. (eds) The Next Generation of Electric Power Unit Commitment Models. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 36. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47663-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47663-0_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7334-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47663-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive