IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, No.
6, Nov/Dec 197b 2031
PENALTYFACTORS FROM NEWTON'S METHOD
F. L. Alvarado, Member, IEEE
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of Wisconsin-Madison
ABSTRACT
The penalty factors calculated by the
classical B-coefficients method are shown to
be proportional (but not equal) to the penalty
factors calculated directly from the trans-
posed Jacobian. It is also shown that the
economic operating point is independent of the
load and generation distribution factors Z.
Expected computational times in examples with
up to 5873 buses and 943 generators are given.
The evidence presented supports conclusions
also reached by others indicating that the
transposed Jacobian approach is superior to
classical B-coefficients based on its compu-
tational speed.
INTRODUCTION
On line economic dispatch is based on the
knowledge of the generator incremental costs
and the transmission penalty factors. The in-
tent of this paper is to establish a clear
relationship between classical B-coefficient
methods for the calculation of these penalty
factors and the newer "transposed Jacobian"
approach for the direct calculation of these
same factors. A second goal of this paper is
to serve as a tutorial paper on the details
and subtleties of transposed Jacobian penalty
factor calculations.
The B-coefficients method is based on an
approximation of the system losses as a quad-
ratic function of the generation powers [1].
Classic calculation of B-coefficients requires
resorting to Kron's power-invariant transfor-
nations. Kirchmayer's calculation method [2]
was followed by later digital implementations
by Kirchmayer,et al. [3] and Happ, et al. [4].
More recently, the calculation of B-coeffi-
cients has been improved upon by Meyer [5],
who not only streamlined and clarified the
calculations, but also made them compatible
with sparsity techniques.
An alternate approach to the B-coeffi-
cients methods is the direct exact calculation
of the penalty factors without the need for an
approximate loss formula. The first such pro-
cedure was introduced in 1956 by Shipley and
Hochdorf [6]. Exact calculation of penalty
factors for systems of practical size remained,
however, impractical until after the introduc-
tion of the sparsity-oriented Newton power flow
by Tinney and Walker in 1967 (7]. The exact
calculation of penalty factors from the trans-
posed Newton power flow Jacobian was first sug-
gested by Dommel and Tinney's work in 1968 (8].
F 78 266-9. A paper recarvrnded and approved by
the IzZEEEPc r System Engieering Camiittee of the
IEEE Pc*wer Engineering Society for presentation at the
IEEE *PES Winter Maeting, New York, NY, January 29 -g
February 3, 1978. Manuscrpt submitted January 10,
1977; made availale for printing Novnuser 30, 1977.
0018-9510 /78/l100 -2031$00. 75
The procedure was probably first utilized by
Dy Liacco, who briefly mentions it in papers
during 1971 [9], 1974 [10] and 1975 [11]. A
slightly more detailed presentation of the
method has been recently presented also by
Dy Liacco as a discussion to a paper by Happ
[12, 13]. There is evidence that other re-
searchers are also aware of the method [14,
15]. Nevertheless, a paper entirely dedicated
to this important method, and in particular
dedicated to contrasting this method with the
classicalB-coefficientsmethod, is not avail-
able.
One feature of this paper is its use of
the distribution factors L to provide the link
with classical B-coefficients methods. These
distribution factors are interpreted in terms
of the frequency participation factors K of
loads and generators. It is shown that the
economic operating point is (as it should be)
independent of these factors. It is also shown
that the transposed Jacobian method does not
produce penalty factors that are equal to the
classical ones, only proportional to them.
However, knowledge of the distribution factors
does in fact allow the calculation of factors
that are equal to the classical ones and there-
fore correct incremental losses can be eval-
uated if so desired.
It is not the intent of this paper to do
a survey of related work in economic dispatch
nor to argue the virtues of the penalty fac-
tors approach. For these and related matters
the reader is referred to a recent and thor-
ough survey paper by Happ [12].
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
Consider a system with n buses. Let buses
1,2, ...,m be generation buses. Let bus 1 be
the bus that would be selected as slack bus in
a powerflow study. Let Ai be the incremental
cost of operating the generator at bus i . In
the absence of network losses, the most eco-
nominal operating conditions for the network
are when:
_ X (1)
1 -2 - m
Let PL be the network losses and Pqi the
power injection at generation node i. If the
incremental losses are known, the optimal op-
erating point occurs when:
L X = L X L X (2)
1 1 2 2 m m
where Li- is the penalty factor for generator
i. These penalty factors can be determined
from:
L. - 1 3
i dPJ
1 - dP.
©) 1978 IEEE
2032
As mentioned in the introduction, classi- Therefore
cal methods call for the calculation of the
incremental losses by first calculating an ap- _P_ _
proximate quadratic expression for the losses: (f - f ) = n (8)

P -Pt[B
g GG IP g
+ BtGO P g + B
00 (4) i=l
L Define the normalized load coefficients 9Q as:

From this approximate expression the vec- p

tor of incremental losses can be found from: p AA K.
1 (9a)

_L
dP
-
2Pt[B
g GG
] + BtO
GO (5) i-l
g
K9
This paper does not use (4) and (5). In- kgI A 1 (9b)
stead, it calculates dPL/dfg directly. Before n P
proceeding with this calculation, it is useful L i
to gain some physical insight into the nature i
of these incremental losses.
It should be apparent that
Since the early days of load flow analysis
it has been recognized that it is not realistic
to specify the power at all generators and at
all loads. One generator is normally chosen
1Pi
9 = 1 (10)
as "slack" generator and its power Pgl is left i
deliberately unspecified. The reason for this
is that the losses of the system are not pre- Substituting (8) and (9) into (6) and simplifying
cisely known prior to starting the calculations.
Once the problem is solved, the power at this p
slack generator can be readily determined. di =
zpi D (lla)
In an actual system there is always agree-
ment between input power (total of all genera- Qodi + p (llb)
tion) and output power (total of all loads plus Qdi =
k
i D
losses). If the penalty factors are calculated
using a mathematical model of the system it Equation (11) merely states that the load
must also be required that generation match at any bus can be expressed as a constant load
total load plus losses,
in addition to a fraction of the system's total
. .
The derivative of the losses with respect ~~~~~~frequency-sensitive load. The explicit depen-
to a single generator power requires an infin- dency on the frequency has been eliminated,
itesimal incrementation of oone~gi while hold- since frequency itself is of no importance.
ingsmall theremaininggenerator
ing all the powers
remaining generator powersconstant. eonsant Every bus (including generation and
allowed to have a load. The
slack) is
constants are 9Q
Even though infinitesimal, this power must be intimately related to the k-factors of classi-
matched by an equal increment in losses and cal B-coefficients. They can be determined by
loads. In a practical system this is accom- running two case studies for the same system.
plished by an infinitesimal increment in fre-
whc.eut runnin
They can two be studied by a
sam e of
quency which results innicrae
quency, increased loads
od.BtBoth the type of be determined
alsoload present atby each bus. As of
a knowledge in
active and reactive loads might increase as a all previous papers on the subject, this paper
result. In addition, the power supplied by any assumes that these values are either available
generator operating on a frequency-bias mode . .
may also be affected. Each bus of the system cor
willcan
be be reasonably
shown that the estimated. bpoint
Ultimately
economic operating it
can therefore be assumed to have a frequency- is independent of these factors anyway.
sensitive component to its load (which includes
any frequency-sensitive generation). For the CALCULATION OF THE PENALTY FACTORS
infinitesimal increments of interest, this
function, whatever it might be, can be linear-
ized. Thus, the load at a bus can be expressed The losses of the system can be determined
as follows: from:
P di = Po.
di + KPi (f - f ) (6a) m
.
n
.(12)
iL l gi _ di

= 0di + KQ(f - f ) (6b) Substitution from (12) and (11) yields:

Let PD be the total frequency-sensitive m

load of the system. That is, let: P = I P. - LI di ~D (13)

-
KP(f
D~~0=f° ()(7
p During the operation of an actual system
certain quantities are either known or can be
 2033
controlled independently. Other quantities are The following equations provide the neces-
only indirectly controllable. This distinction sary equality constraints. Notice that no
is also possible in the mathematical model of special treatment is given to the slack bus,
the system. The reduced gradient approach to since Kirchhoff's law must be applicable to it
the optimum power flow problem makes such a too. Also notice that reactive power balance
distinction [6]. Among the quantities that are equations at generation buses are not neces-
either constant or independently controllable sary.
are the following: + -
a) Parameters of the linear passive portion AP1 Pg +d Z1PD + P1(v) = 0
of the system (such as transmission lines,
transformers or shunt capacitors). These
parameters include equivalent fr imped- AP - -p PO + P ) 0
ances, tap settings, phase shifts, etc. 2 g2 d2 +2D 2 0
Knowledge of these parameters permits * g
finding the nodal admittance matrix. ,)
b) Active power at generators (P i, for i =1,
2, ..,m). g P
AP =-P + p0 + k + p (v) =0
c) The frequency-independent component of the n gm dm m D m
active and reactive loads (P0 and Q0. for
i l, 2,..,n). di di o P
d) The frequency-sensitivity coefficients for
i =m+l = +Pdm+l +Rm+l D P m+(v) 0 (15)
all the loads nd for i= 1, 2,.., + Q P + Q () =

m~
e) n).
The voltage magnitude at
buses (IViI for i =1, 2,...,
all generation
m)
AQ + dm+l +km+l PD +Qm+l
tv a
f) The voltage phase angle at one bus chosen
as reference, generally the so-called slack
bus (61).
A +Po
dn
+ P
nD
+ P(v)=
n V

Once the parameters and independent vari- + Q

ables mentioned above are specified, the fol-
lowing variables can be determined or measured:
AQ Qdnn + nPD + Qn(v) = 0

a) The voltage magnitude at all load buses Let Pg be the vector of all generation
(IV i for i =m+l, m+2, ...., n) . powers:

b) The voltage phase angle at all buses ex- Pt A [p p P ] (16 )

cept reference (6.i for i= 2, 3, .., n). g gl g2l 'gm
c) The total frequency-sensitive load (PD). The calculation of the penalty factors
requires knowledge of the derivative of PL
d) The reactive power supplied by each one of with respect to the independent variables P9
the generators (Q i for i =1, 2, ...,m). subject to the equality constraints (15). This
gi is simply the reduced gradient of the loss PL.
Making an inventory of dependentvariables, The best way to determine this reduced gradi-
we see that there is a total of 2n variables. ent is to define the Lagrangian:
However, since the reactive powers supplied by
the generators (item d) are of no interest, the A p + PAP + AP + P AP
variables of interest are 2n-m. It must, there- L 1 1 222 m+l m+l
fore, be possible to establish 2n-m equations.
These equations come from Kirchhoff's current Q A
law. The net power injected into a bus (gener- +m+l Qm+l +--
ation minus load) must be equal to the total
power Pi flowing into-the linear passive por- where theres are the Lagrange multipliers and
tion of the system at each bus. This power P are interpreted further later on. Replacing
can be readily expressed in terms of the un- L (
known bus voltages and phase angles. Since the m n n
manner in which this is done is well known [9] P - P - PD + iX AP.
it will not be repeated here. - g i d
Let v be the vector of all unknown volt-
age angles and magnitudes: n7 Q
+ RAQ. (17)
i=m+l

v [62 '6m' dm lml' 'n' ln] The reduced gradient can then be found by
(14) evaluating:
2034

to aa
a- . 0l Let A be the vector of all normalized
subject av- = 0 and DP = ° load coefficients excluding reference:
g
-t Qkp
The partials of £ with respect to gener- ==I .2* ..
m+l m+l ... N Q
N] (24)
24

ation powers Pgi are readily found from (17):

as 1 -
P= i1, 2, ...,m (18) Based on the notation established in (22)-
aPgi 1 , (24) it is possible to write equations (19)-
The partials of £ with respect to voltages, (21) in a much more compact form (notice that
a.C a c = 0)
angles and PD are also found from (17) and set
equal to zero: alvIi = 0 implies IV. i
|alv'I
a
=
P
3AP 1 p 3APn Q DAQm+1 P"
t 1
a6. = l a6.l + + Pn 36. + 3m+l JM
6. + - -= 0 (25a)

+ 3Qnad 3AQ~
+***+~Q t- ~p
P
n 2, (25b)
+
6
=
0 i ==2
3, ..., n (19) t ff ++ l
3 = 1

Solving for 6l from equation (25b):

a___ al a+ P + + Sn ; P+ m+l a 1 = 1 (1- It ) (26)

a AQ
+ +Q n - 0 Substituting into equation (25a) and re-
n - ......arranging:

i =m+l, ,n (20) + ' [ =t X lpl(27)i

asn n
___

D
-
1 + i t +i
1,+
ili=m+l
= 0
(21) which can also be expressed as:

Let J denote the Jacobian used for an aJ H p P [ (28)

ordinary Newton power flow. This Jacobian is L l1 1vli av
given by:
If this paper were to conclude here, it
would have already achieved an important re-
3AP2 1
MpP MP2 sult. Equation (28) can be used to solve for
as
2 ... '| ad m+i Iv-j
|. I m+l the Lagrange multipliers
used in (26) and (18) to find all the desiredbe , which can then
_ - _-- - - - - - - - - - - r - - incremental loss factors; these can in turn be
. , , . substituted directly into (3) to find the pen-
. , . alty factors L. A remarkable simplification is
. . possible, however. This simplification is based
_ - - - -
-
r _ _ on the well known Matrix Inversion Lemma [16],
J = 3AP | CAP aAP 1 also known in the power literature as network
adM+l IV I alw
IVm+1 compensation 17]and a variety of other names.
2I ad The form of the Matrix Inversion Lemma used in
, , paper is as follows.
this
3AQ IaAQM~'AQm~
M+1m+ ll
M+11 Let be the solution to:
26
2

_,_ _ _,_ _ _ _
I IVI
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_ _ _
x

Ax = b (29)
., , . Let (x+AR) be the solution to:
(22) (A+a r c t)(x
+Ax) = b (30)

It may be observed that this Jacobian where a and c are vectors and r is a scalar.
does not contain a row for the reference bus If x is known, the value of the correction
active power mismatch. Let 6 be the vector of term Ax can be found from:
all Lagrange multipliers excluding reference:
Ax = w(ctx) (31)
L
[2 63 *-. m Sm+l Sml *- 'n~rn 2) t
 2035
where the vector w is determined from: The calculation of the penalty factor at
the slack generator must follow a slightly
Aw = a (32) different procedure. From (26):

Using equation (27) it is possible to p 1 -t -

identify x+ AR with B, A with Jt,bwith (3P,/ 1 (1 - Q ) (26)
av)t, r with (1/i) and c with 9. The solution
to (27) or (28) can thus be found by first Substitution into (18) and (3) yields:
solving:

it i, = _pa~lj (33) L1 =P + it (42)

An important remark is in order at this

Compensating this result by AS: point. It should be apparent that using the
from (33) directly without compensating it
-wr(- ) + it[t (34) does not result in the traditional penalty
factors unless ky
= 1 and all the other kP's
are zero. This is equivalent to saying that
where w is determined from: all the frequency dependent load of the system
is located at the slack bus. Experimentation
t UP lj t (35)
by the author has shown that substantial dis-
W (35)
crepancies can be incurred if such an assump-
av tion is made. However, if the penalty factors
are to be used only for economic dispatch under
equal modified incremental generation cost
Comparing (35) and (33), it can be ob- LfXi, then it does not make any difference if
served that: ail the penalty factors are multiplied by the
same constant factor. If all the L's are di-
w -a' (36) vided by L the following new penalty factors
L' are obtained:
Therefore no separate solution for w is LI 1 (43a)
required and (34) can be reduced to: 1

AS = I
-t i )37) L! 1 i=2,
3,...,m (43b)
-1Pt 0'
1

The value of 6' can therefore be compen- There are several implications of this
sated to yield 6", which is the solution to observation. The most striking one is that the
(27) but scaled by a factor 9. distribution factors ., are, in fact, not re-
quired at all. Neither, of course, are the s-
.. =t .. (38)factors
')(Q _ 6 ' of classical B-coefficients.
P + (38) Another remark of interest pertains to
the accuracy of the calculations. The crucial
which reduces to step (the solution of (33)) involves the Newton
power flow Jacobian (without a slack bus). This
__P matrix is generally diagonal dominant and is
_
_ 1 known to be well behaved. The result is that,
6= 6' -Pt (39) provided the Jacobian has been correctly cal-
culated, little numerical difficulties can be
expected. This is in contrast to other methods
where nearly singular matrices result.
Therefore the solution to (27) is:
Regarding computational requirements of
_~ 1-the method, known results can be used to esti-
1
R = P -t ~~ --IS (40) mate these requirements [18,19]. The method
(. + i9 't has, nevertheless, been tested successfully in
a variety of systems as indicated in a later
section. Some additional computational consi-
Once the Lagrange multipliers 6 are known, derations are also given there.
the penalty factors can be determined from
(18) and (3). Equation (18) states that:
SUMMARY OF THE ALGORITHM
L= 1 - Si (18 ) A very concise review of the algorithm is
a~~~gi 1 ~~~now given.
A. Preliminary steps
Substitution into (3) yields
These steps may be done as part of a
L. = 1 (41) power flow prior to the calculation of the
1 SPpenalty factors.
2036
Table I. Approximate Time Required for Various Operations (sec. CPU Univac 1110)

System Size Calculation of

Jacobian Penalty Factors
Buses Generators Ordering Calculation Factorization (Transposed Solution)
30 5 .035 .011 .048 .022
118 54 .172 .048 .203 .089
662 69 1.70 .328 2.36 .602
5837 943 15.1 2.90 21.0 5.59

1) Knowing the topology of the system, order The penalty factors were then calculated
the rows and columns of the Jacobian to using a transposed repeat solution and modify-
reduce fill-in. ing the results as indicated earlier in this
paper. The factored Jacobian from the last
2) Solve the power flow problem by Newton s Newton power flow iteration was used. If this
method. At each iteration: factored Jacobian had not been available, it
would have been necessary to first construct
a) Construct the Jacobian J ,
it and factor it. Furthermore, if it had not
b) Factor J been ordered, it would have been necessary to
do so.
c) Solve JAv = Mismatch
The CPU requirements for each of the test
systems are given in Table I. The times are
B. Penalty factor steps: those for a Univac 1110 computer.

to optimize execution time was

1) Solve Jt = _| ja 1 made. No Inattempt
particular, considerable savings in
computation time could be realized by two sim-
ple modifications:
2) Let: L1= 91
P + it
1) All buses connected to the slack generator
L could be renumbered toward the bottom of
3) Let: L. = for all generators the Jacobian. This could reduce the
a of interest . amount of computation required for the
forward elimination step of the transposed
repeat solution to a nearly trivial num-
As outlined in the previous sections, it is ber of operations.
possible to simply let L1= 1 and dispatch based
on Li = l/6{lP. The resultant penalty factors 2) All generation buses of interest would
will not be the traditional ones, but the re- also be located more or less toward the
sultant operating conditions will be the same. bottom of the Jacobian. This could reduce
Furthermore, no c distribution factors are the amount of computation required for
needed the back substitution step of the trans-
posed repeat solution to a relatively
small number of'operations.
CONCLUS IONS
Classical B-coefficients require an amount
of computation proportionalin to of
square The
EXAMPLES the number of generators the the
system.
The penalty factors for a variety of sys- transposed Jacobian method, on the other hand,
teams have been calculated using the method requires an amount of computation that is less
described in this paper. The systems tested than quadratic on the total number of buses
range from 30 buses to 5837 buses. In each [18]. If the ratio of generators to total
case an ordinary Newton Power Flow was first buses is approximately constant, it can be
required: safely concluded that the transposed Jacobian
solved.This operation .
will be faster in all systems except small sys-
ordering the Jacobian tems or those systems with few generators. In
addition, of course, the transposed Jacobian
2) 2)
Evaluating the Jacobian
Evaluatin
each the Jacobiaemethod
iteration . does
. not require the knowledge of the
~~~~~~~~~~distribution
factors and yields exact rather
3) Factoring the Jacobian each iteration than approximate values.
theIt is thus hoped that this paper has pre-
4) Performing. arepeat
acoban ech
factred
solutionwith
ieraton.the
sented the necessary evidence to help establish
transposed Jacobian method as the method
of choice for all future economic dispatch.

REFERENCES
[1] W. D. Stevenson, Jr., "Elements of Power
System Analysis", Chapter 10, Third Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, 1975.
[2] L. K. Kirchmayer, "Economic Operation of
Power Systems", Wiley, 1958.
[3] L. K. Kirchmayer, H. H. Happ, G. W. Stagg,
J. F. Hohenstein, "Direct Calculation of
Transmission Loss Formula-I", AIEE Trans.,
Part III, Vol. 79, December 1960, pp. 962-
969.
[4] H. H. Happ, J. F. Hohenstein, L. K. Kirch-
mayer, G. W. Staff, "DirectCalculationof
Transmission Loss Formula-II", IEEE Trans.,
Vol. PAS-83, 1964, pp. 702-707.
[5] W. S. Meyer, "Efficient Computer Solution
for Kron and Kron-Early Loss Formulas",
PICA Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis,
Minn., June 3-6, 1973, pp. 428-432.
[6] R. B. Shipley and M. Hochdorf, "Exact Eco-
nomic Dispatch-Digital Computer Solution",
AIEETransactions, Part III (PAS), Vol. 75,
December 1956, pp. 1147-1153.
[71 W. F. Tinney and C. E. Hart, "Power Flow
Solution by Newton's Method", IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-86, pp. 1449-1460, November 1967.
[8] H. W. Dommel and W. F. Tinney, "Optimal
Power Flow Solutions", IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
87, pp. 1866-1876, October, 1968.
[9] T. E. DyLiacco, B. F. Wirtz, D. A. Wheeler,
"Automationof the CEI System for Security,"
1971 PICA Conference Proceedings, pp. 93-
102.
2037
[10] T. E. DyLiacco, "Real Time Computer Control
of Power Systems", Proceedings of the IEEE,
July 1974, pp. 884-891.
[11] T. E. DyLiacco, "System Control Center
Design", Proceedings 1975 Henniker Confer-
ence, pp. 196-230.
[12] H. H. Happ, "Optimal Power Dispatch-A Com-
prehensive Survey", IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-96,
No. 3, May/June 1977, pp. 841-854.
[13] T. E. DyLiacco, discussion to [12].
[14] B. F. Wollenberg and W. O. Stadlin, "A Real
Time Optimizer for Security Dispatch",
IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-93, Sept.-Oct. 1974,
pp. 1640-1649.
[15] C. L. Wadhwa, J. Nanda, "New Approach to
Modified Coordination Equations for Eco-
nomic Load Dispatch", Proc. IEE, Vol. 123,
No. 9, Sept. 1976, pp. 923-925.
[16] A. P. Sage and J. L. Melsa, "Estimation
TheorywithApplications to Communications
and Control", Appendix A, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
[17] W. F. Tinney, "Compensation Methods for
Network Solutions by Optimally Ordered
Triangular Factorization", IEEE Trans.,
Vol. PAS-95, July-August 1976, pp. 123-127.
[18] F. L. Alvarado, "Computational Complexity
in Power Systems", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-
95, July-August 1976, pp. 1028-1037.
[19] F. L. Alvarado, "A Comparative Study of
Power Network Algorithms", 14th Annual
Allerton Conference, Sept., 29-Oct. 1, 1976,
Monticello, Illinois.

Fernando L. Alvarado (M'67)

ws born in Lima, Peru on
September 15, 1945. He re-
ceived the B.E.E. and Pro-
fessional Engineering degrees
from the National University
of Engineering in Lima, Peru,
in 1966 and 1967 respectively.
He received the M.S. degree
| lSi from Clarkson College of Tech-
nology in 1968 and the Ph.D.
degree from the University of
Michigan in 1972.
From 1972 to 1974 he was with the Univer-
sity of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, where he was in
charge of courses and laboratories in power
systems and electromechanical energy conver-
sion. In 1975 he joined the University of Wis-
consin at Madison, where he is currently an
Associate Professor. His research activities
have been centered around computational prob-
lems in power systems.
Dr. Alvarado is a member of Eta Kappa Nu
and Sigma Xi.
2038
Discussion
R. P. Sood (Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra, India): The
author is to be complimented for presenting a novel and useful
algorithm for economic dispatch of large scale power systems. The
discusser would offer the following comments and seek some clarifica-
tions.
The economic dispatch of a power system is based upon scheduling
generation so that the cost of supplying the system load is minimised
while accounting for the effect of generator operating limitations and
transmission losses. Earlier loss formulas involved the application of
co-ordination equations using Kron's classic B coefficient method to
represent system losses. However, the calculation of loss formula itself
involves considerable computational effort and the simplified form of
loss formulas introduce appreciable errors due to assumptions made in
the network behaviour. Practical procedures avoid this difficulty by
using a set of B matrices for different network structures and loadings.
Meyer [5] has presented efficient computer solution method using
Kron's loss formulas. Kirchmayer [2, 3, 4] and Happ [12] also have
made very valuable contributions in this area.
Podmore [A] has developed a simplified and improved method
from computational point of view for economic power dispatch using
D.C. load flow loss formula. In the D.C. load flow loss formula, the
generation on the slack bus is the dependent variable whereas in Kron's
B coefficient loss formula, the total system load is dependent variable at
a hypothetical load centre. Consequently calculation of dP/6P8,i from the
D.C. load flow loss coefficients give the incremental loss when an incre-
ment of power is delivered from generator i to the slack generator. On
the other hand, calculation of dPL/tAPi from Kron's B coefficients
give the incremental loss when an increment of power is delivered from
generator i to the total load.
The development of the modern nonlinear programming methods
for optimal economic dispatch are based on the Carpentier's formula-
tion of maximising or minimising a function of several variables subject
to constraints. The present advances in this area are based on the im-
(D) K. Takahashi, J. Fagan, M. Chen, "Formation of a sparse Z-bus
impedance matrix and its application in short circuit studies,"
IEEE PICA Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis, pp. 63-71,
1973.
Manuscript received February 2, 1978.
Walter O. Stadlin (Leeds & Northrup Company, North Wales, PA):
The author has shown how the classical definition of incremental losses
can be related to the loss sensitivity coefficients derived from the load
flow Jacobian. Generation schedules obtained from either an accurate
loss formula or from the Jacobian will be very nearly the same. The
classical approach computes a system Lambda (incremental cost of
delivering power to the loads) while the contemporary approach, utiliz-
ing the Jacobian, computes an incremental cost of delivering power to a
specified reference bus. When the Jacobian is used to derive transmis-
sion loss penalty factors it is not necessary to compute a system Lambda.
The manner in which system Lambda and the reference bus in-
cremental cost are related depends on ones viewpoint. Dr. Alvarado has
chosen to relate his derivations to system frequency. Another popular
point of view is to relate individual bus load changes to total system
load change. Most loss formulas are derived on this basis, ignoring fre-
quency effects. The following equations summarize the resulting rela-
tionship between System Lambda and the Reference Bus Lambda.
System Lambda Method-
ac a P cPL
?\s = - -&= (& l- )
s PD Pg D Pg \
for any generator
fo a g t
p CR bCR aPR ?
s =PD - = -PD -PD
PR
=

provement of Sasson's [B], Dommel and Tinney [8] approaches in the

area of power system static optimization methods, to include security for reference bus generator
and other constraints.
Recent interest is centered around refinement and extension of Reference Bus Lambda Method: ?\R =
aCA
p
(ap
Dommel and Tinney's approach. This is evident, as in the last 3-4 Cg g
years, significant advances have been made for calculation of incremen- Incremental Generating Cost:
tal losses and penalty factors using transposed Jacobian of Newton's g
load flow and sparsity techniques for maximum overall efficiency as
well as economy of programming. Its usefulness both as an on-line and Loss Sensitivity Vector:
off-line computational tool is quite promising. bPR t3-1 jR =
The author has demonstrated its application for medium to very
large systems consisting of as many as 5837 buses and 943 generators.
P
g $
-= [J] J-R -2d,_q
Table 1 of the paper presents time required for the various operations of Reference Bus Versus
the proposed algorithm. The discusser would be interested to know Total Load Sensitivity:
whether the author has applied the above algorithm to decoupled N
Newton load flow method to these Systems, since fast decoupled load _PR _PR bPdi +PR_Qdi
flow algorithm [C] in Dommel and Tinney's approach achieves signifi-
cant savings in computer storage. If so, how do the computational times
-D =
___

di TD
aP
aP a d

of the proposed algorithm compare with the decoupled version? It

would also be interesting to compare the overall storage requirements
Bus Load Factors:
6Pdi aQdi
and arithmetic operations in both methods as well as with D.C. load -P and a
flow loss formula.
Would the author please comment about the extension of the effi- In summary the numerical value of system Lambda will depend on
cient sparse Z-Bus [DI for computing B coefficients as they can be con- -how the incremental losses are defined. The Jacobian or reference bus
sidered as an equivalent network model containing generator nodes, ho the definedneedto
other aredoesn't To acobian incrental
boundary nodes and an equivalent load point for application to
economic dispatch.
approach, onghthebtherhand, assume any incremental
relationship among the bus loads. Only the magnitudes of the bus loads
I once again commend the author for presenting a valuable are required to solve for the Jacobian.
theoretical and a practical contribution in the area of economic dispatch Manuscript received February 15, 1978.
of large scale power systems.

REFERENCES
(A) Podmore, R., "A simplified and improved method for calculating
transmission loss formulas," in Proc. 8th PICA Conf., 1973, pp.
428-432.
(B) Sasson, A. M., "Nonlinear programming solutions for load flow,
minimum loss, and economic dispatching problems" IEEE
PAS-88, pp. 399-409, 1969.
(C) Shoults, R. R., "A simplified economic dispatch algorithm using
decoupled network models" IEEE paper No. A 77 738-8.
B. Stott and 0. Alsac (CEPEL, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil): The paper re-
publicizes a technique for computing penalty factors directly from the
bus voltages. Thus the method is applicable in modern control centers
where up-to-date values of these voltages are provided by on-line state
estimation/load flow. The technique, which is very simple and elegant,
has received frequent brief treatments (many not referenced) in the
literature. It is not essential to employ Lagrange functions or multipliers
in the derivation. The direct approach used in say, Refs. A and 1, seems
to be clearer and more obvious. The present derivation is quite unusual.
It is constructed around the assumption that the load-frequency

characteristics are relevant to the basic economy-dispatch calculation,
and ends up showing this assumption to be incorrect. In the process, the
technique is considerably more obscured than elucidated.
The industry is interested in quantifying the benefits of deriving
penalty factors on-line. In some cases, large fuel savings have already
been estimated (see Ref. B, for example). On-line penalty factors have
the important advantage over off-line B-coefficients that they corres-
pond to the actual configuration and loading of the network. The ac-
curacy with which the penalty factors need to be computed on-line may
not itself be too critical: simpler and/or faster variants on the technique
under discussion may well be quite adequate.
The direct use of the Jacobian matrix is most appropriate when its
triangular factors (this means storing the lower one) are automatically
available from an ordinary or optimal Newton power flow. Ref. C
shows how to compute the penalty factors from a fast decoupled load
flow, avoiding the explicit Jacobian matrix. The method is iterative in
principle, but starting with previous values, a single iteration should be
adequate in practice.
The most computationally attractive version of the technique is ob-
tained where it is justified to assume that following generator MW
rescheduling, the change in active losses is nearly all due to the change
in MW flows in the network. Then three quarters of the Jacobian
matrix drops out of the analysis, leaving the formula:
a
[PL/ a P] = [HI]-' a PL/ a ej
where [H] is the Jacobian submatrix [ a P/ a 0e. This version, presented
in Ref. 1 (page 263), simplifies further for EHV systems, replacing [H]
by the dc load flow matrix as used in the fast decoupled load flow.
REFERENCES
A. H. H. Happ, "Optimal Power Dispatch", IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst., vol. PAS-93, pp. 820-830, May/June 1974.
B. J. L. Scheidt, "A Survey of Power System Control Center
Justifications", paper F 78 016-8, presented at IEEE PES Winter
Meeting, New York, 1978.
C. 0. Alsac and B. Stott, "Decoupled Algorithms in Optimal Load
Flow Calculations", paper A 75 545-4, IEEE PES Summer
Meeting, San Francisco, July 1975.
Manuscript received February 21, 1978.
E. F. Richards (University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO) and A. B. R.
Kumar (Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI): This
paper is an excellent application of using the transposed Jacobian ap-
proach for obtaining a fast method of calculating penalty factors. The
author has made effective use of the information available from the
load flow program which, of course, is always used as a part of an
economic dispatch program.
We are a bit confused from the author's explanation of the
algorithm. In the paper, the author states on Page 6, "The factored
Jacobian from the last Newton power flow iteration was used". Does
this imply that the penalty factors and generator powers are recomputed
in every iteration of the load flow program?
Would the author explain why he chose to use both refactorization
and compensation? Isn't it true that normally one or the other would be
used?
Manuscript received February 23, 1978.
F. D. Galiana (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada): I found
this paper by Dr. Alvarado very stimulating and well written. He has
discussed an established area in a very clear manner, while at the same
time developing some very interesting results.
In this paper Dr. Alvarado very neatly calculates the partial
derivatives aPL/.aaP under the assumption that all other generations
including that of the swing bus are constant, in addition to the base
loads and the generation bus voltages. This derivative is well defined in
this case by the introduction of a frequency dependent load component,
PD, which acts as a new dependent variable or state, adjusting its value
to compensate for the change in P., and PL through
8 ~~~~~~~~(2)
m (A)
I dP,. = dPL + dPD
i-1
2039
A crucial point about which clarification would be appreciated is
this:
Since PD essentially acts as a slack generator thereby allowing all Pg,
(including Pre) to be independently variable, then the best strategy
(although unrealistic) to minimize F appears to be to decrease all Pi to
zero. We can see this by minimizing
m m
L = I Fj (Pa) - A[ I Pl - PD - PLU
j=1 =1
with respect to all Pg. It can be argued that PD is a dependent variable
(depending on all Pg,), hence differentiating partially with respect to Pg.
holding all other Pe constant yields,
dFi/dP8i - A [1 - a PD/ a Pgi - a PL/ a Pgi] = 0
However from (A) it follows that
1 - a PD/ a Pgi - a PL/ a P8i = 0
so that the conditions for a minimum become,
dF,/dPgi = 0 (B)
for i = 1, 2, ..., m. One can see from (B) that the usual coordination
equations do not hold under the assumption of a free PD, since no cost
was placed on this variable as is the case when Pgref is a dependent
variable. The strategy is therefore to decrease P.i and let PD, for which
no cost is incurred, take up the slack.
Such an ambiguity does not appear if the load is constant and the
reference generator is allowed to be a dependent variable, interpreting
a PL/ a P8g as the partial derivative of PL with respect to Pgi holding all
other Pj, constant except for Pgrefw
To summarize then, this paper describes an elegant method of
determining aPL/aPPi when all other P,,, including that of the swing
bus, are held constant (i.e. all Pgi are independent). However the
assumption needed to derive these quantities (frequency dependent
load, PD) makes the usual coordination equations not applicable. In
fact, it appears, that unless an additional cost or constraint are imposed
on PD, no minimum of F will exist, except for the trivial case of F = 0
when Pg, = 0.
Manuscript received February 23, 1978.
Kavuru A. Ramarao (Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Cleveland,
OH): This is an interesting tutorial paper.
as
This tecu eas first implemented in an off-line computer pro-
gram as a result of research in Ref. 1 and the results used in the ADS
(analog) system at the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Subsequently
the same technique was implemented in real-time at the System Opera-
tion Center and has been in operation since 1973.
With the subsequent replacement of the Newton load flow by the
Fast Load flow we found the calculation of A' by the eq 33 to be ineffi-
cient in the use of time and core.
A decoupled version of solving the eq 33 to obtain (' is possible by
the use of the same triangular factors of (' and (3" used in Fast Load
flow instead of triangularizing the Jacobian transpose matrix.
Without being aware of this decoupled algorithm first reported in
Ref. 2, we obtained the same algorithm in our independent research.
This has been implemented in real-time and has been in operation since
November 1977.
REFERENCES
(1) T. B. Dy Liacco, "Control of Power Systems Via the Multi-Level
Concept" SRC-68-19, Systems Research Center, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, 1968.
0. Alsac and B. Stott, "Decoupled Algorithms in Optimal Load
Flow Calculations" A75 545-4, IEEE Summer Meeting 1975.
Manuscript received February 27, 1978.
2040
F. L. Alvarado: The author thanks the discussers for their interest in Both Dr. Sood and Dr. Ramarao mention the fast decoupled ver-
this paper. sion of the algorithm, which was originally reported by Alsac and Stott
Mr. Stadlin's comments provide a valuable observation, evident (Reference [C] of Stott and [21 of Ramarao). It is gratifying to see that
from the paper itself: that the calculation of the traditional incremental real-time operation of the algorithm has been achieved.
losses (as well as system A) is dependent on the incremental "bus load Dr. Galiana's comment is most interesting and worthy of detailed
factors", whether these factors are assumed to be a result of frequency- consideration. Recall that the equations that impose the physical system
dependence of loads and generators (as done in the paper) or any other constraints are (15). They can be compactly written as:
dependence mechanism. The formulas provided by Mr. Stadlin provide h(P, v PD) = 0 (A 1)
an alternate direct means of comparison between the "system A" and TicdisThe i t fAl
the "reference A". These formulas are a valuable addition to the stated objective of economic dispatch is to find the total incremental
objective of the paper, which was to illustrate these relationships. It dodtA df(P,)/dP, (A.2)
should be perhaps noted that some of Mr. Stadlin's partial derivatives
would be better denoted as total derivatives. Subject to the additional constraint that the load should not drift
In reference to Dr. Richards and Dr. Kumar's discussion, it should from its present value:
be mentioned that the calculation of penalty factors is not done every PD = O (A.3)
iteration but only after a "converged solution" is obtained, therefore T a c
explicit, but it is, of
the Jacobian in question is the one for the last iteration. Network com Thc s additional constraint tsseldomaremade
pensation (also known as the Matrix Inversion Lemma) is used merely course, very real. At this point there total (m-d)
only independent
for the purposes of the derivation and not for any computational pur- variables Therefore evaluation of the derivative (Ao2)aerniael
poses; its use illustrates the power and generality of the concept. As in- resortingeither to the "chain rule" of differentiation ort alteri notI
that P ie e t
dicated in the paper, the computational algorithm uses a correctly fac- (and preferably) to Lagrange multipliers, Noticea also one
tored Jacobian and no explicit use of network compensation is needed. treated as a known quantity. Rather (Ad3) is treated as is tsubl
Dr. Stott is of the opinion that the "direct" approach to proving tconc whilePa remains that
among the dependent variables It is this subtle
leads to the apparent paradox outlined by
the method is preferable. There is evidence, however, that what may conceptual difference
seem obvious now hasn't always been so. The use of "distribution fac- A new variable (the losses) along with a new equation (equation 13)
tors" (whether those factors are interpreted as "frequency originated", can be appended to the original set without altering the problem in any
as in the paper, or not) is still widely regarded as a necessary step for cay
way:
economic dispatch calculations. A direct path leading from one for- (13)
mulation to the other appears to have had positive tutorial value, as m n PO
evidenced by other comments received by the author. Although no at- PL = E - 1: di - PD
tempt at an exhaustive list of references was made, we agree that all 1 i 1
three references provided by Dr. Stott are very pertinent.
The approximations mentioned by Dr. Stott involve using only ac- Thus, the original problem of evaluating (A.2) subject to (A. 1) and
tive powers and replacing [HI with the dc load flow matrix. These are (A.3) has been embedded into a larger equivalent problem. This larger
clearly desirable if further computational and/or storage gains are problem can then be solved without (at first) taking into consideration
desired at the expense of an (admittedly small) sacrifice in accuracy. the constraint imposed by (A.3); only at the end is the constraint (A.3)
These all follow rather directly from the general procedure presented in imposed. It is easy to verify that the evaluation of (A.2) is not affected
the paper, while the converse is not true. Thus, only the most general by (A. 3) as long as PD is, in fact, zero. This is precisely what is implicitly
case was deemed worthy of detailed study. done during "traditional" economic dispatch; this is also done in the
The paper by Podmore mentioned by Dr. Sood is indeed a most in- paper for illustrative purposes. A more straightforward approach to the
teresting one, particularly when one realizes that it was presented entire problemlisaof course, not to introduce(3)andtomerely replace
alongside [5]. It can now, in retrospect, be interpreted as an approxima- the known value for PD in (A. 1). Thus (A-2) can be evaluated subject to
tion to the more general transposed Jacobian procedure, as mentioned (A. 1) alone. This approach leads to the more direct but less enlightening
by Dr. Stott. With regard to the computation of B-coefficients using the procedure referred to by Mr. Stadlin and Dr. Stott and previously used
sparse inversion algorithm of Takahashi, this author remains somewhat by Happ and others to introduce the transposed Jacobian method.
skeptical as to its practicality and efficiency for the intended purpose.
Manuscript received May 11, 1978.