Professional Documents
Culture Documents
fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
Electricity markets have arisen as result of the power sector
restructuration and power systems deregulation. The players
participating in the competitive electricity markets must define
strategies and take decisions using all the available information
and business opportunities to accomplish their goals [1]-[3].
Demand Response (DR) has proved to be a good opportunity
for loads to participate in this environment, gaining competitive
advantage, and represents significant benefits for the whole
electricity market performance. DR programs may produce an
increase in power consumption efficiency through active
consumer participation, making evident the value that each
consumer attributes to his individualized additional demands.
Recent efforts are aiming at improving wholesale markets
with more intensive use of DR. This includes, for example, the
acceptance of demand bids/offers for ancillary services; the
specification by the DR resources of the frequency, duration and
the amount of their participation in consumption reduction; and
the existence of aggregators that bid into the market on behalf of
customers [4].
Making full use of all the advantages due to active consumers
participation requires an infrastructure able to accommodate all
centralized and distributed energy resources, including intensive
use of renewable and distributed generation, storage, electric
vehicles, and demand response, seeing consumers as active
players, in the context of a competitive business environment.
This structure corresponds to the practical implementation of the
x Pedro Faria , Z ita V ale, Joo Soares and Judite Ferreira are with GECA D
Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support Research Group /
Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal. E-mail: pnf@isep.ipp.pt, zav@isep.ipp.pt,
japs@isep.ipp.pt, mju@isep.ipp.pt .
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
2
'Quantity
'Price
Quantity
(1)
Price
http :/ / w w w .gams.com /
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
PEDRO FARIA ET AL.: DEMAND RESPONSE MANAGEMENT IN POWER SYSTEMS USING A PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
ELoad ( c ) ELoadRed ( c ) u
1
Price
Price
EnergyInitial ( c )
EnergyVar ( c )
nc
Min Cost
u
c
(2)
PLoadRed ( c ) d MaxPLoadRed ( c )
(3)
PriceEnergyVar ( c ) d MaxPriceEnergyVar ( c )
(4)
PMain PReserve
nc
nc
Load ( c )
c 1
Elasticity( c )
PLoadRed ( c )
(5)
c 1
PLoadRed ( c ) u PriceEnergyInitial ( c )
PriceEnergyVar ( c )
w here
PLoad ( c ) u PriceEnergyVar ( c )
PriceEnergyVar (T ), c T
(7)
Cost
Price
EnergyInitial (c)
Initial
electricity
consu m er c
(6)
price
for
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
4
Price
EnergyVar(c)
Elasticity
(c)
E
LoadRed (c)
E
Load (c)
nc
MaxP
LoadRed (c)
P
Load (c)
P
LoadRed (c)
P
Main
P
Reserve
Reserve pow er
Consu m er type
4 SIMULATOR
DemSi is a demand response simulator that has been
developed by the authors to simulate the use of DR programs.
PSCAD is used as the basis platform for the network simulation
allowing to have detailed models of electrical equipment and to
consider transient phenomena. This is very relevant to analyze the
technical viability of the DR proposed solutions, both for steady
state and transients although network response to the changes in
the loads is not being presented in this paper.
DemSi considers the players involved in the DR actions and
results can be analyzed from the point of view of each specific
player. This includes four types of players: electricity consumers,
consumer aggregators, electricity retailers (suppliers) and
Distribution Network Operator (DNO). In this paper the case
study is analyzed from the point of view of a consumers
aggregator.
Consumers can be characterized on an individual or in an
aggregated basis. Based on their profiles, some clients can
establish flexible supply contracts with their suppliers. The
information concerning the quantity of load that can be cut or
reduced and the corresponding compensations for each client are
considered by DemSi.
The loads are classified in 5 main types in function of their
peak power consumption, destination of energy, and load diagram.
These types are:
x Domestic (DM);
x Small Commerce (SC);
x Medium Commerce (MC);
x Large Commerce (LC);
x Industrial (IN).
Figure 1 shows the general architecture of DemSi.
1. START
2. Initialization of parameters (maximum velocities, minimum
velocities, position limits, maximum iterations)
3. Random generation of initial values (swarm)
4. REPEAT
5. Reproduction: Each particle generates 1 new descendent
(movement, new position)
6. Evaluation: Each particle has its fitness value, according to its
current position in search space
7. Store the best solution of swarm
8. UNTIL termination criteria (Number of generations)
9. END PSO
The results and the performance of this technique were then
compared with those obtained with conventional techniques using
the professional optimization tool GAMS.
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
PEDRO FARIA ET AL.: DEMAND RESPONSE MANAGEMENT IN POWER SYSTEMS USING A PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
START
Network data
Supply information
Network simulation
(PSCAD)
Consumer
knowledge base
Simulation
timeline events
END
Yes
Simulation
timeline end
?
No
Demand response
program management
5 CASE STUDIES
This section illustrates the use of the proposed methodology in
the developed demand response simulator DemSi. The case study
considers a distribution network with 32 buses from [22] which
the authors evolved to 2040 in terms of load characterization [23].
All the results presented in this paper are obtained for two
scenarios with 32 and with 320 consumers.
5.1 Case characterization
In the first scenario, with 32 consumers, the results are
obtained for a period for which the load demand is presented in
Table I. For the second scenario, there are 10 consumers in each
bus, corresponding to a total of 320 consumers. In this scenario,
the 10 loads connected to each bus have the total power presented
in Table I and are of the same load type. Table I also presents the
type of each consumer.
In both scenarios, it was considered that all the loads of the
same type have the same price variation during the application of
demand response program. Each scenario and reduction need are
solved by two approaches - with the developed PSO module and
with Non-Linear Programming (NLP) implemented in GAMS;
results are compared in terms of time of execution and solutions
values.
The values of elasticity are 0.14, 0.12, 0.20, 0.28, and 0.38,
respectively for DM, SC, MC, LC, and IN consumers types. The
corresponding values for electricity price, which correspond to the
values of flat-rate tariff of retailer are 0.18, 0.19, 0.20, 0.16, and
0.12, in /kWh.
As a restriction of the proposed formulation, a price cap and a
power cap are considered; these cap values can be parameterized
for each case study. For this case study the price cap is equal to
150% of the value of energy price and the power cap is 15% of
the power consumption value for every customer.
The demand response program use is triggered by a load
reduction required by the supplier. A set of seven reduction values
are considered for each scenario. For each reduction requirement,
the energy price for each consumer type and the load reduction for
each consumer are obtained as a result of the optimization
problem.
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
6
Power (kW)
Consumer Type
Bus
Power (kW)
Consumer Type
Bus
Power (kW)
Consumer Type
169.1
MC
12
91.3
DM
23
674.8
IN
148.9
SC
13
181.3
MC
24
669.3
IN
147.1
SC
14
91.1
DM
25
93.8
DM
145.5
SC
15
91.1
DM
26
93.2
DM
94.2
DM
16
91.9
DM
27
92.2
DM
311.1
LC
17
135.5
SC
28
183.0
MC
308.7
LC
18
152.4
MC
29
295.3
MC
89.3
DM
19
151.7
MC
30
225.4
MC
90.6
DM
20
151.6
MC
31
315.1
LC
10
67.0
DM
21
151.5
MC
32
89.8
DM
11
91.1
DM
22
147.3
SC
Total
5831.3
--
Max. vel
Min. vel
N o. of iterations
Solutions w ithout
violations
Mean fitness
Worst fitness
Best fitness
Mean tim e (s)
0.01
- 0.1
200
94 %
0.01
- 0.01
200
93 %
0.01
- 0.1
100
82 %
0.01
- 0.01
100
82%
1422.20
1482.00
1379.80
0.0716
1427.00
1534.00
1377.50
0.0715
1426.60
1.527.10
1366.70
0.0387
1433.10
1654.70
1378.50
0.0382
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
PEDRO FARIA ET AL.: DEMAND RESPONSE MANAGEMENT IN POWER SYSTEMS USING A PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
Figure 3(a), results for the major reduction need are grouped by
consumer type according to the nomenclature presented in section
4. For this reduction need, all loads are required to participate.
The slight differences between the two approaches solutions are
due to the fact that PSO is a stochastic method. As finding the
global optimum cannot be guaranteed, the obtained solution tends
to be a local optimum with an objective function value close to the
global optimum. Although the value obtained for the objective
function is close to the one obtained by the NLP approach, the
solution itself can present some differences, namely in what
concerns the consumers involved in the load reduction for each
specific DR event. In Figure 3(b), for each reduction need, the
maximum variation on energy price is compared with the
maximum allowed variation. In all results, the variations are
largely bellow the maximum permitted since the formulation
considers both price and power cap and the power cap became
prevalent, limiting higher response from loads.
Finally, Figure 4 concerns the participation of loads in the
demand response program, in the two scenarios. In general,
comparing the results for the two scenarios, one can say that the
behavior is similar. In terms of the number of loads affected, the
PSO solutions tend to correspond to a more distributed
participation of the loads. For the loads that reached the maximum
power variation, NLP makes a rational management of loads,
scheduling loads like using an order of merit: the next load is used
when the load under consideration has no more capacity. On the
contrary, PSO spreads the variation among the loads, so the
maximum variation is not reached except for higher reduction
needs when load variations are forced to the limit.
Figure 2 Values of objective function for each approach and reduction needs, for each scenario ((a) - 32 loads; (b) - 320 loads)
Figure 3 Detailed results for energy price variation, for 32 loads scenario: (a) price variation in the major reduction need for each consumer,
grouped by consumer type; (b) major energy price variation in comparison with the maximum permitted.
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
8
Figure 4 Number of loads that have participated in DR program and the ones that reached maximum load variation, in function of reduction
need, for 32 loads scenario (a) and 320 loads scenario (b).
6 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
[1]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[11]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[12]
[13]
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Intelligent Systems but has not yet been fully edited.
Some content may change prior to final publication.
PEDRO FARIA ET AL.: DEMAND RESPONSE MANAGEMENT IN POWER SYSTEMS USING A PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
[14] Z. Vale, C. Ramos, H. Morais, P. Faria, and M. Silva, The role of demand
response in future power systems, Transmission and Distribution Conf. &
Exposition: Asia and Pacific (T&D), Seoul, Korea, Oct. 2009.
[15] R.A. Arnold, Economics, Cengage Learning, South-Western College Pub, 9th
ed., 2008.
[16] M.H. Albadi, and E.F. El-Saadany, A summary of demand response in
electricity markets, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 78 Issue 11, pp.
1989-1996, Nov. 2008.
[17] J. Bushnell, B. Hobbs, F. Wolak, When It Comes to Demand Response, Is
FERC Its Own Worst Enemy?, The Electricity Journal, vol. 22 Issue 8, pp. 9-18,
Oct. 2009.
[18] L. A. Greening, Demand response resources: Who is responsible for
implementation in a deregulated market?, Energy, vol. 35 Issue 4, Demand
Response Resources: the US and International Experience, pp. 1518-1525, April
2010.
[19] K. Hamilton, N. Gulhar, "Taking Demand Response to the Next Level", Power
and Energy Magazine, IEEE , vol.8, no.3, pp.60-65, May-June 2010.
[20] S. Chua-Liang, D. Kirschen, "Quantifying the Effect of Demand Response on
Electricity Markets" IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.24, no.3,
pp.1199-1207, Aug. 2009.
[21] A. Engelbrecht, Computational Intelligence: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd, 2007.
[22] M. Baran, and F. Wu, Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for
loss reduction and load balancing, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol.4, no.2, pp.1401-1407, Apr. 1989.
[23] P. Faria, Z. Vale and J. Ferreira, DemSi A Demand Response Simulator in
the context of intensive use of Distributed Generation, Proc. 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC 2010),
Istanbul, Oct. 2010.
AUTHORS
Pedro Faria is a graduate student in the Knowledge Engineering and Decision
Support Research Group (GECAD) of the School of Engineering at the
Polytechnic of Porto. His research interests include electricity markets, distributed
generation, and demand response. Faria has a BSc in power systems from the
Polytechnic of Porto. Contact him at pnf@isep.ipp.pt.
Zita Vale is the director of the Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support
Research Group (GECAD) and a tenured Coordinator Professor at the School of
Engineering of the Polytechnic of Porto. Her main research interests concern AI
applications to power system operation and control, electricity markets, and
distributed generation. Vale has a PhD degree in Electrical and Computer
Engineering from University of Porto, Portugal. Contact her at zav@isep.ipp.pt.
Joo Soares is a graduate student in the Knowledge Engineering and Decision
Support Research Center (GECAD) of the School of Engineering at the
Polytechnic of Porto. His research interests include heuristic optimization in power
and energy systems. Soares has a BSc in informatics from the Polytechnic of
Porto. Contact him at japs@isep.ipp.pt.
Judite Ferreira is a professor and researcher in the Knowledge Engineering and
Decision Support Research Center (GECAD) of the School of Engineering at the
Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal. Her main research interests include electricity
markets operation. Ferreira has a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the
University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro. Contact her at mju@isep.ipp.pt.