1440 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO.

4, DECEMBER 2015

Real-Time Economic Dispatch Considering

Renewable Power Generation Variability and
Uncertainty Over Scheduling Period
S. Surender Reddy, Student Member, IEEE, P. R. Bijwe, Senior Member, IEEE, and A. R. Abhyankar, Member, IEEE

AbstractReal-time economic dispatch (RTED) is performed fps (ps ) Solar PV generation PDF.
every 515 min with the static snapshot forecast data. During the fl (l) Load PDF (normal distribution).
period between two consecutive schedules, generators participate Gij , Bij Transfer conductance and susceptance between
in managing power imbalance, based on participation factors
(PFs) from previous economic dispatch (ED). In modern power bus i and bus j, respectively.
systems with considerable renewable energy sources that have n Number of buses in the system.
high variability, this conventional approach may not adequately NL Number of loads/demands.
accommodate the economic implication of the said variability. NG Number of conventional thermal generators.
This paper proposes the evaluation of best-fit PFs by taking NW Number of wind generators/farms.
into account the minute-to-minute variability of solar, wind, and
load demand, for a scheduling period. Since best-fit PFs are NS Number of solar PV plants.
evaluated only once, i.e., at the start of scheduling interval, the PGi Scheduled power from ith conventional thermal
dimensionality of optimization problem remains the same as that generator (MW) in interval T .
of conventional approach. The proposed approach is suggested for T 1
PGi Power output of ith conventional thermal gener-
sequential and dynamic variants. Results for two test systems have ator (MW) in previous interval (T 1).
been obtained to verify the benefit of the proposed approach.
PDi Forecasted real power demand in interval T .
Index TermsAutomatic generation control (AGC), economic PWj Power output from jth wind farm (MW).
dispatch (ED), electricity markets, renewable energy sources, un- PS,k Power output from kth solar PV plant (MW).
certainty, variability.
pr,j Rated wind power from jth wind generator.
max
PS,k Maximum power output from kth solar PV plant.
N OMENCLATURE
PDl,av Available power demand from lth load. This
a i , bi , c i Cost coefficients of ith thermal generator. is a random variable, with a range of PDl min

Cp,Dl Penalty cost function for lth load. PDl,av PDlmax
.
Cp,Sk Penalty cost function for kth solar photovoltaic PSk,av Available solar power from the kth solar power
(PV) plant. generator. This is a random variable, with a range
Cp,Wj Penalty cost function for not using all available of 0 PSk,av PSr,k .
power from the jth wind power generator. PWj,av Available wind power from the jth wind power
Cr,Dl Reserve cost function for lth load. generator. This is a random variable, with a range
Cr,Sk Reserve cost function for kth solar PV plant. of 0 PWj,av pr,j .
Cr,Wj Reserve cost function relating to uncertainty of p WEG power output.
wind power. This is effectively a penalty asso- l Uncertain load.
ciated with overestimation of the available wind ps Solar PV power output.
power. QDi Forecasted reactive power demand in inter-
dj Direct cost coefficient of jth wind farm. val T .
up down
ek Direct cost coefficient of kth solar PV plant. RGi , RGi Ramp up and ramp down limits of conventional
fp (p) Wind energy generator (WEG)/wind power thermal generators (MW/hr).
probability density function (PDF). t Subinterval (1 min) index.
T Interval (10 min) index.
VDk Load bus voltage magnitude.
Vi , Vj Voltage magnitudes at bus i and bus j.
Manuscript received November 10, 2013; revised April 6, 2014; accepted i , j Voltage angles at bus i and bus j.
May 11, 2014. Date of publication June 16, 2014; date of current version
November 20, 2015.
S. Surender Reddy is with the Department of Railroad and Electrical
Engineering, Woosong University, Daejeon 300-718, Korea (e-mail: salkuti. I. I NTRODUCTION
surenderreddy@gmail.com).
P. R. Bijwe and A. R. Abhyankar are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India
(e-mail: prbijwe@ee.iitd.ac.in; abhyankar@ee.iitd.ac.in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSYST.2014.2325967
I N the past, search for new energy resources was primarily
dictated by the fast depletion and rising cost of the fossil
fuels [1]. Nuclear energy was considered to be a very good

1932-8184 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
option. However, some accidents in the last two decades in
nuclear reactors and the increasing awareness of the alarming
rate of global warming has led to a massive push for the large-
scale integration of wind and solar renewable generation in the
grid. The actual cost of this renewable generation is still quite
high, and governments are providing subsidies to make their
absorption economically viable. Due to the highly uncertain
and variable nature of these resources and the subsidies, these
generations are generally considered to be nonschedulable,
barring a few exceptions.
Wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant technolo-
gies are developing rapidly, and receive increasing attention
throughout the world. Most of the renewable energy sources
such as wind and solar power have a maximum generation limit
that changes with time (variability), and this limit is not known
with perfect accuracy (uncertainty), unlike the conventional en-
ergy sources [2]. It is well known that wind power is uncertain
as well as variable. Solar power is less uncertain, but has higher
variability compared to the wind power. Uncertainty is a serious
issue in planning for longer time frames. However, in real-
time economic dispatch (RTED), the uncertainty range is much
smaller, as the forecast is more accurate as compared with that
in a longer term [3]. North American Electricity Reliability
Council (NERC) studies have shown that PV installations can
change output by 70%, in a time frame of 210 min, many
times per day.
The presence of any intermittent source of power increases
balancing requirement and associated costs [4]. Because of
wind and solar variability, there has been widespread interest in
quantifying the increase in ancillary services required to inte-
grate wind and solar over various timescales [5]. Various types
and details of ancillary services are defined in [6]. Regulation
ancillary is the service required to follow moment-to-moment
fluctuations in system load and variable power generation [7].
The requirement of regulation service is not locational, and
the suppliers are responsible for both regulation up and down
services in the whole market [8]. A metric to quantify the
subhourly variability cost of individual wind plants and show its
use in valuing reductions in wind power variability is developed
in [9]. A methodology that allows for studying the impacts of
variability and uncertainty at multiple operational timescales is
developed in [2].
Traditionally, real-time security-constrained economic dis-
patch (SCED) provided by the Independent System Operators
(ISOs)/Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) solves en-
ergy dispatch and/or ancillary service clearing for one target
interval. Real-time SCED inputs include demand forecast, net
scheduled interchange, and forecast of intermittent resource
outputs, such as wind and solar, for the target interval. However,
under single step/interval dispatch, limited ramp capability may
not be effectively utilized to prepare for significant changes
on demand or intermittent resource outputs in the near future.
Thus, ISOs/RTOs are looking into the dynamic/integrated dis-
patch. With dynamic dispatch, RTOs can use multiple intervals
of demand and wind forecast to solve for multiple-interval
optimized real-time SCED. The coordinated decision making
over these multiple intervals makes it a dynamic dispatch.
The power outputs from those renewable energy resources can
1441
change significantly within the short amount of time. Intro-
ducing dynamic dispatch can better manage the ramp capa-
bility of dispatchable resources for the volatility of renewable
generations.
In [10], a real-time SCED algorithm is designed to carry
out real-time dispatch and the expost real-time pricing in com-
pliance with Midwest Independent System Operators energy
and ancillary service market business rules. Compared with a
conventional static SCED, look-ahead dispatch leverages the
near-term forecasts of variable generation, for an overall more
cost-effective utilization of generation assets [11], [12]. Strictly
speaking, optimum RTED should consider all the operational
costs involved, as accurately as possible, without making the
optimization unduly complex, and computationally inefficient
from the implementation point of view. With the present state
of art, in real time, energy, reserve, and regulation markets
are cleared simultaneously or sequentially, typically at 5-m
intervals, depending on the individual market structures [8].
This real-time dispatch is again sequential in some markets and
dynamic in some others. New York ISO (NYISO) performs a
rolling window-type dynamic dispatch, every 5 min, for the
next 60-min operation [13]. In [14], a high-speed dynamic
economic load dispatch is proposed by utilizing the short-term
load forecast, which is suitable for power systems with large
renewable energy penetration suffering from large disturbances
whose fluctuations might cause infeasibility and whose predic-
tion error requires continuous change in operation schedule.
However, the approach proposed in [14] is suitable for verti-
cally integrated systems, and the issues of its applications in
the energy market environment have not been studied.
In the recent wind and solar PV generation integration studies
[15][17], the simulations have been fixed to one time resolu-
tion. This makes it difficult to analyze the effects of variability
within the single time-frame. To accommodate the variability
and uncertainty in the scheduling programs, the system opera-
tors carry operating reserves to cover energy imbalances. The
effects of solar PV power variability and forecast uncertainty
on electric power grid operation in the Arizona Public Service
system is investigated in [18]. Both variability and uncertainty
can create challenges for grid operators, when balancing elec-
tricity generation with demand, while obeying power system
constraints and maintaining the lowest possible costs. Since
it is often difficult to predict the variations of both load and
renewable generator output accurately, Rosehart [19] proposes
an optimal power flow algorithm to make optimized results not
only have a high probability to achieve minimized generation
cost, but also robust to the uncertain operating states. In [20], a
stochastic mixed integer linear optimization scheduling model
treating wind power forecasts and load forecasts as uncertain
parameters is used to study the operational impacts of high
wind penetrations on the power system. The model includes a
scenario-generation methodology, treatment of reserves, and a
rolling stochastic unit commitment and dispatch driven by up-
dated forecasts. A dynamic scheduling of operating reserves in
an electricity market with wind power is proposed in [21]. The
dynamic reserves are integrated into a two-settlement market-
clearing mechanism, where energy and reserves are dispatched
and priced simultaneously.
1442 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

To the best of our knowledge, all the approaches for RTED
consider frozen static snapshots of the power system at (for
example) 5-min intervals. The variable generation cost between
two consecutive scheduling intervals is ignored in this opti-
mization. The motivation in this paper is to accommodate the
variable cost of generation at suitable discrete subintervals (e.g.,
1 min), for which the load and nonschedulable renewable power
generation forecast data are available.
During the RTED scheduling interval (e.g., 5 min), the
regulating generators share the power imbalance as per their
participation factors (PFs) evaluated at the base-point genera-
tions. This paper proposes a method that considers variability
and uncertainty cost of renewable energy sources between two
consecutive scheduling intervals. In the proposed approach, the
evaluation of these best-fit PFs is based on the total cost
of energy over the entire RTED interval, consisting of 1-min
discrete subintervals. Both sequential and dynamic dispatch
models are considered. All the relevant constraints, including
generation rate constraint (GRC), are considered in both the
models. The highlight of the proposed approach is that the opti-
mization is done only once at the start of scheduling interval,
and the best-fit PFs are evaluated from this optimization.
Therefore, the dimensionality of optimization problem, and
the implementation, remains the same as that of conventional
approach.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
The market practice considered in this paper is such that the
wind and solar PV powers are treated to be nonschedulable. In
this market practice, the rule/policy is to absorb all wind and
(T = 1, 2, . . . , Nint ). Again, this 515-min scheduling inter-
val T is subdivided into Nsub of 1-min subintervals (t =
1, 2, . . . , Nsub ). The subinterval duration may be changed as
per forecast availability in a given system.
A. Conventional Sequential RTED
The conventional practice has been to perform RTED sep-
arately/sequentially for each interval T . In this approach, an
optimization is performed for a given snapshot, at the beginning
of a scheduling interval of 515 min. From this optimized solu-
tion, a set of constant generation PFs [22] are evaluated for use
in automatic generation control (AGC) during the scheduling
interval T . As the power imbalance occurs due to load and
renewable power generation uncertainty, and variability, the
generators adjust their generation as per PFs already evaluated,
in order to restore power balance. The objective is to minimize
the cost of all generations, while supplying the load for a given
snapshot. The mathematical model for conventional sequential
RTED is presented as follows.
Minimize the cost in each scheduling interval T

NG
CGi (PGi ) (1)
i=1
subjected to the equality and inequality constraints given next.
B. Equality and Inequality Constraints
1) Nodal Power Balance Constraints:

n

solar PV power into the system, and pay a tariff established by PGi PDi = Vi Vj (Gij cos ij + Bij sin ij ) (2)
j=1
the regulator, which is different from the market-clearing price.
This rule is normally followed in systems trying to increase n
QGi QDi = Vi Vj (Gij sin ij Bij cos ij ) (3)
the share of renewable power in the generation portfolio. Wind j=1
farms and solar plants come into the ISO market as price takers,
and do not directly affect the locational marginal prices. where i = 1, 2, . . . , n; ij = i j . Yij = Gij + jBij is the
In order to bring out the difference between the existing and (i, j) entry of the nodal admittance matrix.
the proposed RTED approaches, we first discuss the former. 2) Generation Limits in Each Interval T: The generator
First, the simpler sequential dispatch model will be considered, operation constraint after including the ramp rate limit of
and then, the dynamic dispatch model will be introduced. For generators can be described as
simplicity in understanding, all cases are first discussed with  min T 1   max T 1 up 
only variability of loads and then renewable energy sources. max PGi , PGi RGi down
PGi min PGi , PGi +RGi .
One case is finally discussed, where both variability and un- (4)
certainty effects are considered. The maximum penetration of wind power into the system is
The assumptions in the mathematical models are organized given by
as follows.
1) The wind and solar generations are nonschedulable. PW,j PR,j . (5)
Hence, the system operator will have to compulsorily use
whatever generation is available from these sources. The maximum penetration of solar PV into the power system is
2) System load and renewable generation forecasts are as- given by
sumed to be available at every 1-min subinterval, between PS,k PS,k
max
. (6)
the two successive stages of economic dispatch (ED).
3) Generators from the previous stage of ED are assumed to 3) Security Constraints: These include the limits on the
be known, in order to check GRC constraint satisfaction load bus voltage magnitudes and line flow limits. That is
at this stage.
In the mathematical models, the scheduling period of 1 h
min
VDk VDk VDk
max
, k = 1, 2, . . . , ND (7)
(60 min) is divided into Nint of 515-min scheduling intervals |Lij | Lij
max
(8)
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY 1443

where Lij is the MVA flow, and Lmax

ij is the thermal limit of the over the scheduling interval T . In view of this, the generation
line between buses i and j. changes in any subinterval t can be obtained as follows:
This conventional sequential RTED is repeated in every
scheduling interval T (e.g., 10 min) over the scheduling PGi,t = PFi [PSolar,t + PWind,t + PLoad,t ]. (11)
period (e.g., 60 min).
The bracketed term in (11) represents the power imbalance
with respect to the base-point generations. The base-point
C. Proposed Sequential RTED With Variable Load and generations and the PFs refer to the initial operating condition
Renewable Power Generation snapshot. However, these are deliberately kept at the same in
all subintervals. The PF [22] for each regulating generator in
As discussed earlier, because of the possibility of large and subinterval t (PFi ) is given by
abrupt/sudden changes in solar and wind power generation over
the scheduling interval T , the conventional RTED approach PGi,t
PFi = , i = 1, 2, . . . , NG and t = 1, 2, . . . , Nsub
of single snapshot optimization at the beginning of each inter- 
N G
PGi,t
val, to generate base points and compute PFs, may not be bene- i=1
ficial from the economic point of view. Intuitively, it appears (12)
prudent to factor these in the optimization process. Ideally, where PGi,t represents the individual generation output in each
this requires a separate optimization for every contemplated subinterval t, and is expressed using base-point generation
subinterval t (e.g., 1 min), for which load and renewable (PGi,0 ) and PFs (PFi )
power generation data could be available. However, this is not
a practical approach for RTED. Hence, in order to make the PGi,t = PGi,0 + PGi,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , Nsub (13)
computations feasible in real time, a new concept of best-fit
PSolar,t = PSolar,t PSolar,0 t = 1, 2, . . . , Nsub (14)
PFs is used in the optimization. For achieving power balance
during the scheduling interval T , these new best-fit PFs PWind,t = PWind,t PWind,0 , t = 1, 2, . . . , Nsub (15)
are used instead of the conventional ones. The best-fit PFs
PLoad,t = PLoad,t PLoad,0 , t = 1, 2, . . . , Nsub . (16)
are evaluated by considering the complete load forecast over
the scheduling period. For simplicity, uncertainty in renewable Hence, using (11)(16), the objective function in (9) can be
generation is ignored at this stage. expressed in terms of base-point generations, and the known
As explained earlier, the scheduling interval T is divided data for solar and wind generations and loads, i.e.,
into number of 1-min subintervals of Nsub . The objective Minimize
function in this case is to minimize the total cost of generation
while supplying load over the entire scheduling interval T . 
NG
CGi (f (PGi,0 )). (17)
Mathematically, the optimization problem can be stated as i=1
follows:
Minimize For example, the amount of generation change required due
to solar, wind, and load variability in the first subinterval

N sub 
NG (PGi,1 ) is calculated using
CGi (PGi,t ). (9)
t=1 i=1 PGi,1 = PFi [PSolar,1 + PWind,1 + PLoad,1 ] . (18)

In the generation evolution from one subinterval to other, The desired output for each thermal generator in subinterval 1
GRCs are also considered, in addition to the equality and is given by
inequality constraints of the previous problem. In view of this, PGi,1 = PGi,0 + PGi,1 . (19)
the generation limits in subinterval t are given by
 min  Similarly, the desired output for each thermal generator in
max PGi , PGi,t1 RGi,t
down
subinterval 2 is given by
 
up
PGi,t min PGimax
, PGi,t1 + RGi,t . (10) PGi,2 = PGi,0 + PGi,2 (20)

As explained earlier, we intend to simplify the multistage
optimization problem in (9) to a simpler single optimization
problem using best-fit PFs, which remain constant over the
scheduling interval T . It may be noted that the usual operat-
ing practice of having a fixed set of PFs over the interval is also
applicable in this proposed approach. The amount of generation
change required (PGi,t ) in each subinterval t is worked out
using these PFs (PFi ) and the amount of generation changes
due to solar, wind, and load demand variabilities (PSolar,t ,
PWind,t , and PLoad,t ), respectively, in each subinterval t,
where
PGi,2 = PFi [PSolar,2 + PWind,2 + PLoad,2 ]. (21)
This process will be repeated for all subintervals t in the
scheduling interval T . It may be noted that PFs are already
defined in terms of base-case generations.
From the aforementioned discussion, it can be seen that
the objective function consists of generation costs in all the
subintervals. The generations in each subinterval have the same
set of PFs. Hence, the objective function can be expressed in
1444
terms of only the base-point generations. Since, the PFs depend
on the optimization involving all subinterval generations, these
can be considered to be best-fit PFs.
Although the terms in the objective function are more, the
optimization variables in this approach are same as that in
the conventional approach. This is because in the proposed
approach, the optimization is performed only once at the begin-
ning of interval T , similar to the conventional approach. The
generations in each subinterval t (1 min) are obtained using
best-fit PFs. These best-fit PFs are evaluated only once at
the beginning of each interval. Hence, the computational effort
in this optimization is almost same as that in the conventional
approach.
This proposed sequential RTED is repeated in every schedul-
ing interval T (e.g., 10 min) over the scheduling period (e.g.,
60 min).
D. Conventional Dynamic RTED
Dynamic dispatch has normally been done in daily hydro
thermal scheduling or unit commitment. Because of the highly
variable renewable generation, it is being felt that there is a need
to have dynamic dispatch for even shorter durations like 1 h.
This is important not just from the economics point of view
but also for having smooth transition of schedules every few
minutes.
In the hourly (60 min) dynamic dispatch, the scheduling
period is divided into Nint of 515-min intervals. The opti-
mization variables are now generations in all these intervals, to
minimize the total energy cost over the entire scheduling period.
The mathematical model is written as follows:
Minimize

N int 
NG
 T +
CGi PGi (22)
T =1 i=1
subjected to equality and inequality constraints in all intervals
over the scheduling period.
E. Proposed Dynamic RTED With Variable Energy Costs
The difference in this dynamic dispatch and the conventional
one is the same as that in the sequential one, viz., incorporation
of minute-to-minute generation variation cost. As explained
earlier, the PFs for each interval (e.g., 10 min) are evaluated as
independent variables. These best-fit PFs remain fixed in the
respective intervals. The mathematical model for this problem
is written as follows.
Minimize

N 
int N sub 
NG
 T
CGi PGi,t (23)
T =1 t=1 i=1
subjected to equality and inequality constraints in all the subin-
tervals and intervals over the scheduling period.
It is important to note that the dimensionality of this problem
is same as that in the conventional dynamic dispatch, de-
spite additional summation over the intervals. This is because,
IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015
although the generations vary minute to minute, the PFs on
which these depend, change only once during an interval.
Hence, it is expected to provide more economical benefit com-
pared with the conventional one.
F. Proposed Sequential RTED Considering Variability
and Uncertainty
In the real time, the forecast uncertainty is much small;
hence, the variability plays a more prominent role. However,
there is still some forecast uncertainty at the real time, since dis-
patch signals must be sent out to the generators ahead of time.
Frequent dispatch intervals (typically 515 min) reduces the
uncertainty. Here, it is assumed that the system has conventional
thermal generators, wind farms, and solar PV plants. Because
of the uncertainty of the wind and solar energy and load demand
available at any given time, factors for overestimation and
underestimation of available wind and solar energy and load
demand must be included in the model [23]. Therefore, the
objective function is formulated as follows.
Minimize

N sub 
NG
CGi (PGi )
t=1 i=1

N sub 
NW
+ [Cr,Wj (PWj PWj,av )+Cp,Wj (PWj,av PWj )]
t=1 j=1

N sub 
NS
+ [Cr,Sk (PSk PSk,av )+Cp,Sk (PSk,av PSk )]
t=1 k=1

N sub 
NL
[Cr,Dl (PDl PDl,av )+Cp,Dl (PDl,av PDl )] . (24)
t=1 l=1
The terms in the aforementioned expression are explained as
follows:
The first term in the objective function (24) is the fuel cost of
conventional thermal generators, and is given by
2
CGi (PGi ) = ai + bi PGi + ci PGi . (25)
The second term is the reserve requirement cost, which repre-
sents the cost due to the available wind power being less than
the scheduled wind power. This cost function helps to deter-
mine the deficit power it might produce, from the distribution
function. This reserve cost function is given by
Cr,Wj [PWj PWj,av ] = kr,j [PWj PWj,av ]
PWj
= kr,j (PWj p)fp (p)dp (26)
0
where kr,j is the reserve cost coefficient for the jth wind
generator.
The third term is the penalty cost; this is obtained from the
concept of underestimation of wind power. This cost function
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY 1445

helps to determine the excess power it might produce, from the III. W IND AND S OLAR E NERGY S YSTEMS
scheduled value. That is
A. Wind Energy System
Cp,Wj [PWj,av PWj ] = kp,j [PWj,av PWj ] The wind power derived will follow the stochastic nature as
compared to the wind speed [24], [25]. For each wind power

Prj
unit, the power output for a given wind speed input is given by
= kp,j (p PWj )fp (p)dp (27) [26], [27]
PWj
0,   for vw,t < vi and vw,t > vo
vw,t vi
where kp,j is the penalty cost coefficient for the jth wind p = pr vr vi , for vi vw,t vr (32)

generator. pr , for vr vw,t vo
The fourth term in the objective function is the reserve
cost for solar PV power generation. This is obtained from the where vw,t is the forecasted wind speed (m/s) at t, vi is the
concept of overestimation of solar PV power. That is cut-in wind speed, vr is the rated wind speed, and vo is the cut-
out wind speed. pr is the rated power output for wind power
Cr,Sk [PSk PSk,av ] = kr,k [PSk PSk,av ] generation.

PSk
= kr,k (PSk ps )fps (ps )dps (28) B. Solar Energy System
min
PSk The solar irradiation to energy conversion function of the PV
generator or power output from PV cell is given by [28]
where kr,k is the reserve cost coefficient for the kth solar PV  
power. PSr G2
, for 0 < G < Rc
The fifth term represents the penalty cost for solar PV power, PS (G) =  Gstd Rc (33)
PSr G , for G > Rc
which is obtained from the concept of underestimation of solar Gstd

PV power. That is
where it is noted that PV cell temperature is neglected and
Cp,Sk [PSk,av PSk ] = kp,k [PSk,av PSk ] G solar irradiation forecast in W/m2 ;
Gstd solar irradiation in the standard environment set as
max

PSk
1000 W/m2 ;
= kp,k (ps PSk )fps (ps )dps (29) Rc a certain irradiation point set as 150 W/m2 ;
PSk
PSr equivalent rated power output of the PV generator.
The solar PV active power generation can either be controlled
where kp,k is the penalty cost coefficient for the kth solar PV by the power tracking control scheme or to be charged into
power. batteries. Therefore, the maximum penetration of PV to system
The sixth term in the objective function is the reserve cost for is given by
load demand. This is obtained from the concept of overestima-
tion of load demand. That is PS,k PS,k
max
(34)

where PS,k (MW) is the solar PV active power output/generation,

Cr,Dl [PDl PDl,av ] = kr,l [PDl PDl,av ] max
and PS,k (MW) is the available maximum active power gener-

PDl ation (known) subject to solar irradiation and temperature.
= kr,l (PDl l)fl (l)dl (30) Wind, solar PV, and load demand uncertainty models are
min
PDl
presented in Appendixes A, B, and C, respectively.

where kr,k is the reserve cost coefficient for the kth load
demand.
The seventh term represents the penalty cost for load de-
mand, which is obtained from the concept of underestimation
of load demand. That is
Cp,Dk [PDk,av PDk ] = kp,k [PDk,av PDk ]
max
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
We will now use the objectives described in Section II on
modified IEEE 30- and 118-bus test systems to examine the
effectiveness of the proposed optimum scheduling approach for
the windsolarthermal power system. These test systems are
used to find the impact of variability with a high penetration of
renewable power generation and load demand.

PDk
The prescribed time interval for the real-time dispatch for
= kp,k (l PDk )fl (l)dl (31) energy bids are every 515 min, and optimizes over a 60-min
PDk period. In our study, we have considered real-time dispatch for
every 10 min (each interval time T is 10 min), and optimizing
where kp,k is the penalty cost coefficient for the kth load energy for 60 min (the total scheduling period is 60 min). This
demand. 60-min scheduling period is only for dynamic approach and
1446
Fig. 1. Nominal solar irradiation used in IEEE 30-bus system.
also for comparing benefits of proposed sequential approach
over conventional one.
The following four different models, considering variability
based on sequential and dynamic approaches, are investigated.
Model 1: Pricing energy using conventional sequential
RTED approach.
Model 2: Pricing energy and variability costs using pro-
posed sequential RTED approach.
Model 3: Pricing energy using conventional dynamic
RTED approach.
Model 4: Pricing energy and variability costs using pro-
posed dynamic RTED approach.
Simulation results for proposed sequential RTED approach
(Model 2), considering both variability and uncertainty, are also
presented. The optimization programs are coded in MATLAB
and solved using a MATLAB Optimization Toolbox (FMIN-
CON function).
A. Results on IEEE 30-Bus System
The IEEE 30-bus 41-branch test system [29] consists of six
generators located at buses 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 13. Here, the IEEE
30-bus system is modified to accommodate the wind and solar
injections at buses 11 and 13. In this paper, wind and solar
units are considered as nonschedulable, and they can supply
the power up to the maximum available wind and solar irradi-
ation. The solar irradiation data with 1-min time resolution are
made available by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), and can be found in [30]. Scheduling period is consid-
ered as 60 min (six intervals, each of 10-min duration) to show
the effects of sequential and dynamic approaches. This 10-min
interval T is subdivided into ten 1-min subintervals t.
In practice, wind farms consist of number of wind-driven
doubly fed induction generators. Here, for simplicity, all the
wind turbines are considered to be identical. The forecasted
load assumed in each interval are 283.4, 286.234, 289.068,
291.902, 294.736, and 297.57 MW, respectively. The variations
in solar irradiation, wind speed, and load demand for IEEE
30-bus system is presented in Figs. 13, respectively.
IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015
Fig. 2. Nominal wind speed used in IEEE 30-bus system.
Fig. 3. Nominal load variation used in IEEE 30-bus system.
1) Model 1 (Pricing Energy Using Conventional Sequen-
tial RTED Approach): Table I shows the optimum generation
schedules and energy costs in each interval using conventional
sequential RTED approach (Model 1). In each interval, the
present generation levels and GRCs of each generator will
decide the minimum and maximum generation limits. The
actual use of these energy services within the determined limits
will however be decided by the optimization, based on cost and
constraint considerations.
In each interval, system demand is determined by using load
forecast. In this sequential approach, each interval is optimized
independently, but the generation schedules obtained in the
present interval are the starting point (base generation) for the
next interval.
In this model, the objective function (1) is optimized in each
interval T . For the comparison purpose, the variability cost
(i.e., cost due to solar, wind, and load variability in each 1-min
subinterval) is calculated after obtaining the optimum schedules
using constant PFs in each interval T . This variability cost is
added to the energy cost to get the total cost in that interval.
The obtained generation cost in the first interval is
1999.4316 $/hr, and the variability cost in this interval is
calculated using the PFs obtained from the converged gen-
eration schedules. The variability cost obtained in this inter-
val is 36.0289 $/hr. The second interval uses the generation
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY 1447

TABLE I
O PTIMUM G ENERATION S CHEDULES AND O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 1 W ITH IEEE 30-B US S YSTEM

TABLE II
O PTIMUM G ENERATION S CHEDULES AND O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 2 W ITH IEEE 30-B US S YSTEM

TABLE III
O PTIMUM G ENERATION S CHEDULES AND O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 3 W ITH IEEE 30-B US S YSTEM

schedules obtained from first interval as base points. The
optimum total (generation and variability) cost obtained in
interval 2 is 2045.4599 $/hr. This sequential optimization pro-
cess will be repeated throughout the scheduling period (60 min
or six intervals). The optimum total cost (sum of all six
intervals cost) obtained over the 60-min period using this
conventional sequential approach (Model 1) is 13195.7165 $/hr.
2) Model 2 (Pricing Energy and Variability Costs Using
Proposed Sequential RTED Approach): Table II shows the
optimum best-fit generation schedules and energy costs in
each interval using proposed sequential RTED with variable
energy cost (Model 2). In each interval of 10 min, the best-fit
PFs are evaluated considering minute-to-minute variability of
solar, wind, and demand. The variability cost for each minute is
calculated using these best-fit PFs. Here, in each interval, (9)
is optimized sequentially over the scheduling period (60 min).
In the first interval (10 min), (9) is posed as objective
function, and the obtained generation and variability costs are
2000.1082 $/hr and 34.0175 $/hr, respectively. The second
interval uses the generation schedules obtained from the first
interval as base points, and optimizes (9). The optimum total
cost (generation and variability cost) obtained in this interval is
1981.3660 $/hr. This sequential optimization process consider-
ing variability cost will be repeated throughout the scheduling
period (60 min, i.e., six intervals). The optimum total cost (sum
of all six intervals cost) obtained over the 60-min period using
the proposed sequential approach is 12 919.2331 $/hr, which is
2.1% less than the cost obtained from Model 1.
3) Model 3 (Pricing Energy Using Conventional Dynamic
RTED Approach): Table III shows the optimum generation
schedules and energy and variability costs in each inter-
val for the conventional dynamic/integrated RTED approach
(Model 3). In this conventional dynamic approach, the objective
function (22) is optimized over the scheduling period (i.e.,
60 min). This objective (sum of all intervals cost) optimizes
the cost of all intervals simultaneously. For the comparison
1448 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

TABLE IV
O PTIMUM G ENERATION S CHEDULES AND O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 4 W ITH IEEE 30-B US S YSTEM

TABLE V
O PTIMUM G ENERATION S CHEDULES AND O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR P ROPOSED S EQUENTIAL
RTED C ONSIDERING VARIABILITY AND U NCERTAINTY W ITH IEEE 30-B US S YSTEM

purpose, the variability cost is calculated after getting the
generation schedules using constant PFs in each interval. The
optimum generation cost (sum of all six intervals) obtained
is 12 808.0363 $/hr, and the variability cost is 186.5388 $/hr.
Therefore, the total cost obtained with this conventional dy-
namic RTED approach (Model 3) is 12994.5751 $/hr.
4) Model 4 (Pricing Energy and Variability Costs Using
Proposed Dynamic RTED Approach): Table IV shows the op-
timum best-fit generation schedule and energy and variability
costs in each interval for the proposed dynamic/integrated
RTED approach. In this proposed dynamic approach, (23) is
optimized over the scheduling period. This objective (sum of all
intervals cost) optimizes the energy and variability costs of all
intervals (six intervals or 60 min) simultaneously. The optimum
generation and variability costs obtained in the first interval are
2025.0597 $/hr and 33.1087 $/hr, respectively, which are less
than the costs obtained from the conventional dynamic RTED
approach. The optimum total (sum of all six intervals) cost
obtained in this approach is 12720.8953 $/hr, which is 2.1%
less than the cost obtained from Model 3.
Hence, in the results obtained from the aforementioned mod-
els for IEEE 30-bus system, it can be seen that the optimum cost
obtained over the scheduling period using Model 4 is 3.6% less
than the cost obtained from Model 1, 1.5% less than the cost
obtained from Model 2, and 2.1% less than the cost obtained
from Model 3.
5) Simulation Results on Proposed Sequential RTED Con-
sidering Variability and Uncertainty: As explained earlier, a
methodology of finding out a different set of constant PFs,
which are evaluated taking into account the expected variations
in loads and renewable power generations over the entire in-
terval, is proposed. In this sense, the new PFs can be termed
as best-fit PFs. Here, other than the method of calculation of
PFs, the regulation/AGC modalities remains the same as that in
the conventional one.
Table V shows the optimum generation schedules and energy
costs in each interval using the proposed sequential RTED
approach considering variability and uncertainty. In this case,
the objective function (24) is optimized in each interval T .
The optimum variability and uncertainty costs obtained with
this approach are 185.7141 $/hr and 50.3901 $/hr, respectively.
From this, it can be seen that, in the real time, uncertainty
has lesser impact on results compared to the variability. The
total cost (sum of all six intervals) obtained in this case is
13 110.8728 $/hr, which is 1.46% higher compared to the cost
obtained from Model 2, as given in Table II.
B. Results on IEEE 118-Bus System
The modified IEEE 118-bus 186-branch test system [31]
consists of 19 generators. For these studies, we have modified
this system with wind power injected at buses 92 and 111 and
solar PV power injected at buses 31, 46, and 87. The rated
capacity for each wind farm is considered as 100 MW, and for
solar PV plant is 80 MW.
1) Model 1 (Pricing Energy Using Conventional Sequen-
tial RTED Approach): Table VI shows the objective function
values in each interval over the scheduling period of 60 min
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY 1449

TABLE VI
O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 1 W ITH IEEE 118-B US S YSTEM

TABLE VII
O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 2 W ITH IEEE 118-B US S YSTEM

TABLE VIII
O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 3 W ITH IEEE 118-B US S YSTEM

TABLE IX
O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES FOR M ODEL 4 W ITH IEEE 118-B US S YSTEM

using the conventional sequential RTED approach. Here, each
interval is optimized to obtain the energy cost. For the com-
parison with the proposed sequential RTED (Model 2), the
variability cost is calculated using constant PFs obtained from
converged generation schedules in each interval. The optimum
generation and variability costs obtained over the scheduling
period is 1 095 775.2217 $/hr and 16 811.2405 $/hr, respec-
tively. Therefore, the total cost obtained in this model is
1 112 586.4622 $/hr.
2) Model 2 (Pricing Energy and Variability Costs Using
Proposed Sequential RTED Approach): Table VII shows the
objective function values in each interval using proposed se-
quential RTED with variable energy cost. The optimum energy
and variability costs obtained over the scheduling period (sun of
all intervals cost) is 1 046 264.4601 $/hr and 15 625.7689 $/hr,
respectively. Hence, the total cost (sum of generation and
variability costs) is 1 061 530.2290 $/hr, which is 4.6% less than
the cost obtained from Model 1.
3) Model 3 (Pricing Energy Using Conventional Dynamic
RTED Approach): Table VIII shows the objective function
values in each interval over the scheduling period using the
conventional dynamic RTED approach (Model 3). In this
model, for the comparison purpose, the variability costs due
to solar, wind, and load variability in each interval are calcu-
lated using constant PFs obtained from the converged solution.
The obtained optimum energy and variability costs over the
scheduling period using this approach are 1 079 318.3591 $/hr
and 16 175.8546 $/hr, respectively. Therefore, the total cost
obtained in this model is 1 095 494.2137 $/hr.
4) Model 4 (Pricing Energy And Variability Costs Using
Proposed Dynamic RTED Approach): Table IX shows the
objective function values in each interval over the scheduling
period using proposed dynamic RTED with variable costs
(Model 4). In this approach, generations will vary minute to
minute based on the PFs. The optimum energy and variability
costs obtained with this approach are 1 031 804.7163 $/hr and
14 746.2947 $/hr, respectively. Therefore, the total cost (sum
of generation and variability costs) obtained in this model is
1 046 551.0110 $/hr. Hence, the total cost obtained in this model
is 4.46% less than the total cost obtained from Model 3.
From the case studies on modified IEEE 118-bus test sys-
tem, it can be observed that the optimum cost obtained from
Model 4 is 5.9% less than the cost obtained from Model 1, 1.4%
less than from Model 2, and 4.46% less than from Model 3.
The case studies show the benefit of proposed RTED approach
over conventional RTED on sequential and dynamic variants
considering solar, wind, and load variabilities.
V. C ONCLUSION
Conventional RTED ignores the impact of renewable gen-
eration variability during the scheduling interval. This paper
proposes a model, which incorporates the variability cost in
the optimization using sequential and dynamic models. The
proposed approach uses best-fit PFs to find the optimal
schedules. Here, the variability cost is calculated in every
minute, using these PFs between two successive stages of ED
executions within the real-time dispatch. The dimensionality
of this approach is same as that in the conventional approach.
Hence, the amount of effort in optimization does not increase.
Results on IEEE 30- and 118-bus test systems demonstrate the
benefit of the proposed approach over the conventional ones.
1450 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2015

A PPENDIX A According to the transformations of random variables, the lin-

W IND E NERGY S YSTEM U NCERTAINTY M ODEL ear transformation accomplished with G as the solar irradiation
random variable is given by
A major barrier to the integration of the wind power into
the grid is its variability, i.e., the future wind speed and power ps = aG + b = g(G) (38)
are unknown at any time. A method of estimating wind profile  
   dg 1 (ps ) 
using Weibull probability density function (PDF) [32] is used fps (ps ) = fG g 1 (ps )  
dps 
in most parts of the world. This probability distribution method      
1 ps b 1
has certain degree of accuracy in wind speed forecasting when  
= fG (G)   = fG   (39)
compared with any other methods. In order to obtain a value for a a a
the reserve and penalty costs, it is necessary to assume the PDF
where g is a transformation function, ps is a solar power random
for the wind and solar power outputs and load forecasts. The
variable. That is
wind speed profile at a given location most closely follows a
 
Weibull distribution over time [33]. Here, by virtue of inherent PSr
simplicity, the Weibull PDF for the wind speed is assumed and ps = G = aG, for G > Rc (40)
Gstd
then transformed to the corresponding wind power distribution
for use in the market-clearing model. The advantages of the where
Weibull distribution are presented in [23]. However, other dis-  
PSr
tribution functions can also be used, if deemed appropriate. a= (41)
Gstd
According to the theory for function of random variables [25], p  1  
wind power output in continuous range (vi v vr ) is given by s ps Gstd Gstd
fps (ps ) = fG = fG . (42)
 hp (k1)  k a a PSr PSr
khvi 1+ pr vi 1+ hp v i
exp (35)
pr
fp (p) = The quadratic transformation accomplished with solar irradia-
pr c c c tion random variable (G) is given by
 
where h = (vr /vin ) 1 is the intermediary parameter. In this PSr
ps = G2 = aG2 , for 0 < G < Rc (43)
paper, the wind power output in discrete range [23] is also Gr Rc
considered.
where
 
PSr
A PPENDIX B a= (44)
Gr Rc
S OLAR PV E NERGY S YSTEM U NCERTAINTY M ODEL      
1 ps ps
The output of PV mainly depends on irradiation. The distri- fps (ps ) = fG + fg . (45)
2 aps a a
bution of irradiation at a particular location usually follows a bi-
modal distribution, which can be seen as a linear combination of Therefore, using (45), the Weibull PDF of solar PV power
two unimodal distribution functions. The unimodal distribution output random variable then takes the form
functions can be modeled by Beta, Weibull, and Log-normal
1
PDFs [34]. Here, the Weibull distribution is employed and is fps (ps ) =
PSr ps
explained as follows: 2 Gstd Rc
   k1 1          
k ps Gstd Rc ps Gstd Rc
k1 G G 1 fG
fG (G) = exp PSr
+ fG
PSr
. (46)
c1 c1 c1
   k2 1   k 2 
k2 G G
+ (1 ) exp , 0<G< A PPENDIX C
c2 c2 c2
L OAD D EMAND U NCERTAINTY M ODEL
(36)
The future system load is uncertain at any given time. Two
where is the weighted parameter, and its range is 0 < < 1; commonly used PDFs are the normal PDF and uniform PDF.
k1 , k2 , c1 , and c2 are the shape factors and scale factors. For the Here, normal PDF is used to model demand distribution. The
Weibull PDF (36), the corresponding cumulative distribution PDF of the normal distribution for uncertain load l is given
function (CDF) is given by by [35]
       
k 1 (l )2
G 1 fl (l) = exp (47)
F (G) = 1 exp 2 2 2
c1
     where is the mean value of the uncertain load. It is also
k
G 2 called the location parameter. is the standard deviation of the
+ (1 ) 1 exp . (37)
c2 uncertain load. It is also called the scale parameter.
SURENDER REDDY et al.: RTED CONSIDERING POWER GENERATION VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY 1451

R EFERENCES [24] G. M. Masters, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems.

New Jersey, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2004.
[1] M. Milligan et al., Integration of variable generation, cost-causation,
[25] X. Liu and W. Xu, Minimum emission dispatch constrained by stochastic
integration costs, Elect. J., vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 5163, Nov. 2011.
wind power availability and cost, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 3,
[2] E. Ela and M. OMalley, Studying the variability and uncertainty impacts
pp. 17051713, Aug. 2010.
of variable generation at multiple timescales, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
[26] S. Roy, Market constrained optimal planning for wind energy conversion
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 13241333, Aug. 2012.
systems over multiple installation sites, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
[3] Y. V. Makarov et al., Incorporating wind generation and load fore- vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 124129, Mar. 2002.
cast uncertainties into power grid operations, Pac. Northwest Nat.
[27] X. Liu and W. Xu, Economic load dispatch constrained by wind power
Lab., Richland, WA, USA, Tech. Rep., Jan. 2010.
availability: A here-and-now approach, IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy,
[4] M. H. Albadi and E. F. El-Saadany, Impacts of wind power variability
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29, Apr. 2010.
on generation costsAn overview, J. Eng. Res., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2431, [28] R. H. Liang and J. H. Liao, A fuzzy-optimization approach for generation
2010.
scheduling with wind and solar energy systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
[5] M. Milligan and B. Kirby, Calculating wind integration costs: Separating
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 16651674, Nov. 2007.
wind energy value from integration cost impacts, Nat. Renew. Energy
[29] [Online]. Available: http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca
Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep., NREL/TP-550-46275, Jul. 2009. [30] [Online]. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/midc/
[6] Ancillary Services Manual, NYISO, Rensselaer, NY, USA, Apr. 2012.
[31] S. Blumsack, Network topologies and transmission investment under
[7] B. Kirby and E. Hirst, Customer-specific metrics for the regulation and
electric-industry restructuring, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Inst. Tech-
load-following ancillary services, Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak Ridge, TN,
nol., Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May, 2006.
USA, Tech. Rep. ORNL/CON-474, Jan. 2000.
[32] C. G. Justus, W. R. Hargraves, A. Mikhail, and D. Graber, Methods
[8] P. Wang, H. Zareipour, and W. D. Rosehart, Characteristics of the prices
for estimating wind speed frequency distributions, J. Appl. Meteorol.,
of operating reserves and regulation services in competitive electricity
vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 350353, 1978.
markets, Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 32103221, Jun. 2011. [33] M. R. Patel, Wind and Solar Power Systems. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
[9] W. Katzenstein, Wind power variability, cost, effect power plant emis-
Press, 1999.
sions, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
[34] M. Q. Wang and H. B. Gooi, Spinning reserve estimation in microgrids,
Jul. 2010.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 11641174, Aug. 2011.
[10] X. Ma, Y. Chen, and J. Wan, Midwest ISO co-optimization based real- [35] F. Bouffard and F. D. Galiana, Stochastic security for operations planning
time dispatch and pricing of energy and ancillary services, in Proc. IEEE
with significant wind power generation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23,
Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., Jul. 2009, pp. 16.
no. 2, pp. 306316, May 2008.
[11] Y. Zhu and Y. Chen, Modeling short-term stored energy resources under
real time look-ahead dispatch on energy and ancillary service market, in
Proc. IEEE Energytech, May 2012, pp. 16.
[12] L. Xie, X. Luo, and O. Obadina, Look-ahead dispatch in ERCOT: Case
study, in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., Jul. 2011, pp. 13.
[13] E. Nelson, NYISO Market Overview, Transmiss. Wholesale Markets S. Surender Reddy (S12) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
School, Edison Electric Inst., Washington, DC, USA, Jun. 2009. from the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India, in 2013.
[14] N. Yorino, H. M. Hafiz, Y. Sasaki, and Y. Zoka, High-speed real-time He was a Postdoctoral Researcher with Howard University, Washington,
dynamic economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, DC, USA, from 2013 to 2014 before joining Woosong University, Daejeon,
pp. 621630, May 2012. Korea, where he is currently an Assistant Professor with the Department of
[15] E. Ela, M. Milligan, B. Parsons, D. Lew, and D. Corbus, The evolution of Railroad and Electrical Engineering. His areas of interests include power sys-
wind power integration studies: Past, present, future, in Proc. IEEE PES tem restructuring issues, i.e., ancillary service pricing, real and reactive power
Gen. Meet., Jul. 2009, pp. 18. pricing, congestion management, and market clearing, including renewable
[16] Western wind and solar integration study, Nat. Renew. Energy Lab., energy sources, demand response, smart grid development with integration of
Golden, CO, USA, May 2010. wind and solar photovoltaic energy sources, artificial intelligence applications
[17] J. C. Smith, M. Milligan, E. Demeo, and B. Parsons, Utility wind inte- in power systems, and power system analysis and optimization.
gration and operating impact state of the art, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 900908, Aug. 2007.
[18] E. Ela, V. Diakov, E. Ibanez, and M. Heaney, Impacts of variability
and uncertainty in solar photovoltaic generation at multiple timescales,
Nat. Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5500- P. R. Bijwe (SM99) received the Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of
58274, May 2013. Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India.
[19] H. Yu and W. D. Rosehart, An optimal power flow algorithm to achieve He is currently a Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
robust operation considering load and renewable generation uncertain- Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. His research interests include power
ties, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 18081817, Nov. 2012. system restructuring issues, ancillary service pricing, power system analysis
[20] P. Meibom et al., Stochastic optimization model to study the operational and optimization, and distribution systems analysis and optimization.
impacts of high wind penetrations in Ireland, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 13671379, Aug. 2011.
[21] Z. Zhou and A. Botterud, Dynamic scheduling of operating reserves in
co-optimized electricity markets with wind power, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 160171, Jan. 2014. A. R. Abhyankar (M04) received the Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute
[22] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY, USA: of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. He is currently an Assistant Professor with the Department of Electrical
[23] J. Hetzer, D. C. Yu, and K. Bhattarai, An economic dispatch model Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India. His
incorporating wind power, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 2, research interests include power system restructuring issues and power system
pp. 603611, Jun. 2008. analysis and optimization.