Professional Documents
Culture Documents
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
1
ce
cp
n
In
Jn
tsn
ten
qn
PP F C n
p(t)
pac (t)
Emax
Pmax
sn
sen
coste,n
costp,n
N OMENCLATURE
electricity purchasing and selling price
penalty rate for PFC regulation failure
interval index
length of the nth I interval
length of the nth J interval
start time of the nth I interval
end time of the nth I interval
indicator variable of nth excursion event
PFC power requested in the nth J interval
battery charging/discharging power at time t
power exchanged with the AC bus at time t
battery charging and discharging efficiency
battery capacity
maximum charging power of battery
SoC at the beginning of the nth I interval
SoC at the end of the nth I interval
charging cost incurred in the nth I interval
penalty assessed in the nth J interval
This work was supported in part by the National Basic Research Program
(973 program Program number 2013CB336701), two grants from the Research
Grants Council of Hong Kong under General Research Funding (Project
number 2150828 and 2150876) and Theme-Based Research Scheme (Project
number T23-407/13-N).
Y. J. Zhang and W. Tang are with the Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. They are also with
Shenzhen Research Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
C. Zhao and S. Low are with the Engineering and Applied Science Division,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 91125, USA.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The instantaneous supply of electricity in a power system
must match the time-varying demand as closely as possible.
Or else, the system frequency would rise or decline, compromising the power quality and security. To ensure a stable frequency at its nominal value, the Transmission System Operator
(TSO) must keep control reserves compensate for unforeseen
mismatches between generation and load. Frequency control
is performed in three levels, namely primary, secondary, and
tertiary controls [1]. The first level, primary frequency control (PFC), reacts within the first few seconds when system
frequency falls outside a dead band, and restores quickly the
balance between the active power generation and consumption.
Due to its stringent requirement on the response time, PFC
is the most expensive control reserve. This is because PFC
is traditionally performed by thermal generators, which are
designed to deliver bulk energy, but not for the provision of
fast-acting reserves. To complement the generation-side PFC,
load-side PFC has been considered as a fast-responding and
cost-effective alternative [2][6]. Nonetheless, the provision of
load-side PFC is constrained by end-use disutility caused by
load curtailment.
Battery energy storage systems (BESSs) have recently been
advocated as excellent candidates for PFC due to their extremely fast ramp rate [7], [8]. Indeed, the supply of PFC
reserve has been identified as the highest-value application
of BESSs [9]. According to a 2010 NREL report [10], the
annual profit of energy storage devices that provide PFC
reserve is as high as US$236-US$439 per KW in the U.S.
electricity market. The use of BESS as a frequency control
reserve in island power systems dates back to about 20 years
ago [11]. Due to the fast penetration of renewable energy
sources, the topic recently regained research interests in both
interconnected power systems [8], [12] and microgrids [13],
[14].
In view of the emerging load-side PFC markets instituted
worldwide [15], [16], we are interested in deriving profitmaximizing planning and control strategies for BESSs that
participate in the PFC market. In particular, the optimal BESS
control aims to minimize the operating cost by scheduling
the charging and discharging of the BESS to keep its state
of charge (SoC) in a proper range. Here, the operating cost
includes both the battery charging/discharging cost and the
penalty cost when the BESS fails to provide the PFC service
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
2
+1
0
0
Fig. 1.
+1
+1
+1
+1
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
3
Emax (1sen )
c
E
if qn = 1
p
P
F
C,n
,
costp,n (sen ) =
c (E
e +
E
s )
if q = 1
p
P F C,n
max n
(2)
where (x)+ = max(x, 0) and EP F C,n = PP F C,n Jn is an auxiliary variable indicating the PFC energy supplied or absorbed
during Jn . Since PP F C,n s and Jn s are i.i.d., respectively,
EP F C,n are also i.i.d. variables with PDF fEP F C (x) and
CCDF FEP F C (x). Due to the battery charging/discharging
E
efficiency, EP F C,n and P FC,n are the energy charged to or
discharged from the BESS during the PFC deployment time.
To avoid penalty, the BESS must be charged or discharged
during I intervals to maintain a proper level of SoC. Suppose
that the electricity purchasing and selling price, denoted by
ce , varies at a much slower time scale (i.e., hours) than that
at which the PFC operates (i.e., seconds to minutes), and thus
can be regarded as a constant during the period of interest.
Then, the battery charging cost incurred in In is calculated as
Z tsn +In
coste,n = ce
pac (t)dt,
(3)
tsn
where tsn and ten are the starting and end times of In ,
respectively. As a result, sn and sen are related as
R ts +I
sn Emax + tsn n p(t)dt
e
n
sn =
,
(5)
Emax
subject to the constraint in (4). Likewise, the SoC at the
1 SoC
e(t)
.
Emax
[x]10
where
= min(1, max(0, x)) and 1A is an indicator
function that equals 1 when A is true and 0 otherwise.
III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
As mentioned in the previous section, the remuneration
the BESS receives from the TSO is proportional to the
standby reserve capacity R and the tendering period, but
independent of the actual amount of PFC energy supplied
or absorbed. With fixed remuneration, the problem of profit
maximization is equivalent to the one that minimizes the
capital and operating costs. In this section, we formulate the
optimal
P BESS control problem that minimizes the operating
cost n (coste,n + costp,n ) for a given BESS capacity Emax .
The optimal BESS planning problem that finds the optimal
Emax will be discussed later in Section V.
At the beginning of each interval In , the optimal p(t) during
this I interval is determined based on the observation of sn .
When making the decision, the BESS has no prior knowledge
of the realizations of Ik , EP F C,k , and qk for k = n, n +
1, . As such, the problem is formulated as the following
stochastic dynamic programming, where sn is regarded as the
system state at the nth stage, and the state transition from sn to
sn+1 is determined by the decision p(t) as well the exogenous
variables In , EP F C,n , and qn .
At stage n, solve
Hn (sn ) =
min
EIn ,EP F C,n ,qn [coste,n + costp,n (sen )]
p(t),t[tsn ,ten ]
EIn ,EP F C,n ,qn Hn+1
(g(sn , p(t), In , EP F C,n , qn ))
+
s.t. (1), (4), and
Pmax p(t) Pmax t [tsn , ten ],
(7)
where costp,n , coste,n and sen are defined in (2), (3), and (5),
respectively. Hn (sn ) is the optimal value at the nth stage of
the multi-stage problem, (0, 1) is a discounting factor,
and g(sn , p(t), In , EP F C,n , qn ) := sn+1 describes the state
transition given by (5) and (6).
In practice, the tendering period of the service contract
signed with the TSO (in the order of months) is much longer
than the duration of one stage in the above formulation (in
the order of seconds or minutes). Moreover, the distributions
of In , EP F C,n , and qn are i.i.d. Thus, Problem (7) can be
regarded as an infinite-horizon dynamic programming problem
with stationary policy. In other words, the subscripts n and
n + 1 in (7) can be removed.
Problem (7) requires the optimization of a continuous time
function p(t). When the electricity price ce remains constant
within an I period, there always exists an optimal solution
where battery is always charged or discharged at the full
rate Pmax until a prescribed SoC target has been reached
or the I interval has ended. Then, finding the optimal charging/discharging policy is equivalent to finding an optimal target
SoC [0, 1]. This is because charging/discharging cost
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
4
SoC falls outside the range, and remains idle when its SoC is
in the range. In other words, at each stage, the optimal target
SoC is set as
.
(16)
:= (s) = high
if s > high
s
if s [low
, high
]
ce
beginning of each I interval. Interestingly, this is not necessary
if sn <
min(Pmax In , ( sn )Emax )
in our problem. The following theorem states that the optimal
ce min(Pmax In , (sn )Emax ) if sn > .
0
if sn =
BESS SoC s at each stage. Furthermore, the range converges
to
a single point that is independent of s when 1
Likewise, (5) can be written as a function of sn and :
or ce cp ,. This result is extremely appealing: we can prePmax In
sen (sn , ) = sn + sgn( sn ) min
, | sn | , (9) calculate for all stages offline. This greatly simplifies the
Emax
system operation.
where sgn() is the sign function.
Theorem 1. The optimal target SoC that minimizes the cost
We are now ready to rewrite Problem (7) into the following H (s) in (10) is a range [ , ], where and
low
high
low
high
Bellmans equation, where subscript n is omitted because the are fixed in all stages regardless of the system state s. During
problem is an infinite-horizon problem with stationary policy. each I interval, the BESS is charged or discharged when its
(10)
where
h(s, ) = EI [coste (s, )] + EI,EP F C ,q [costp (se (s, ))]
(11)
is the expected one stage cost. With a slight abuse of notation,
define
g(s, , I, EP F C , q) =
Emax
1
0
!
Z Q1
Pmax xfI (x)dx + | s|Emax FI (Q1 ) ,
0
where
Q1 =
| s|Emax
Pmax
(13)
R
Q1 costp s +
0
R
Q1 costp s
0
Pmax x
Emax fI (x)dx
Pmax x
fI (x)dx
Emax
Moreover, low
and high
converge to a single point when
1 or ce 0.
where
H(s, ) = h(s, ) + EI,EP F C ,q [H (g(s, , I, EP F C , q)] .
(17)
,
we
obtain
the
folTaking the first order derivative H(s,)
max
R (1)E
+ p1 FI (Q1 ) 0
+ p1 FI (Q1 )
where
costp (se ) = EEP F C ,q [costp (se )]
(15)
"
+ #
e
Emax (1 s )
= cp p1 EEP F C
EP F C
h
i
+
+cp p1 EEP F C (EP F C Emax se )
R Emax
0
(18)
H (s)
fEP F C (e)de
s
e
s=+ Emax
H (s)
fEP F C (e)de.
s
e
s= Emax
Specifically,
h(s, )
=
EI [coste (s, )] +
EI costp (se (s, )) ,
(19)
where
(
1
ce Emax FI (Q1 ) if > s
(20)
EI [coste (s, )] =
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
5
costp ()
EI [costp (se )] =
FI (Q1 )
(21)
Emax (1 )
Emax
FEP F C
=
cp p1
cp p1 Emax FEP F C (Emax ) FI (Q1 )
as a result of differentiating (14)(15). Note that EI [coste (s, )]
is not differentiable at = s unless 1 ce = ce (or equivalently
when = 1 or ce = 0).
Substituting (20) and (21) to (18), we have
H(s, )
= r(s, )Emax + u() FI (Q1 ) ,
define high
[0, 1] as the root of the equation
r2 ()Emax + u() = 0.
max
Z (1)E
u(0)
>
0,
and
=
1
if
r
(1)E
+
u(1) < 0.
2
max
H + Emax
high
0
u() for any given . Thus, it always holds that low
high
.
Z Emax H e
From
the
sufficient
and
necessary
conditions
in
(24)
and
(25),
Emax
+ p1
fEP F C (e)de. (23) we can conclude that
.
(26)
= high
if s > high
FI (Q1 ) > 0 for all s, . Thus, the sign of
H(s, ) is
s
if s [low
, high
]
determined by that of r(s, )Emax + u(). As a result, the
necessary condition for optimal is
=
r
(0)E
+
u(0)
0
if
=
0
Since
r
()E
+
u()
and
r
()E
+
u()
are
not
2
max
1
max
2
max
= r ( )E
functions of s, low
and high
are independent of s. Thus,
2
max + u( ) = 0 if (0, s)
,
r(s, )Emax + u( )
]
is
fixed
for
all stages regardless of the
,
the
range
[
=
r
(
)E
+
u(
)
=
0
if
(s,
1)
1
max
high
low
system state s.
= r1 (1)Emax + u(1) 0
if = 1
(24)
Furthermore, when = 1 or ce = 0, r1 () = r2 () for all
Proposition 1. H (s) is convex in s. In other words, the optimal decision corresponding to a system state. In our
problem, the system state s is continuous in [0, 1]. Discretizing
2 H (s)
0 for all s.
s2
it can lead to a large N . Fortunately, the results in this section
2 H (s)
A key step to prove Proposition 1 is to show that s2 is show that the optimal decision is characterized by two scalars
the fixed point of equation f (s) = T f (s), where operator T low and high that remain constant for all system states. Thus,
the
calculation
of the optimal decision is greatly simplified. A
is a contraction mapping. The details of the proof are deferred
brief
discussion
on the algorithm to obtain low
and high
can
to Appendix A.
be
found
in
Appendix
D.
Proposition 1 implies the following Lemma 1, which further
leads to Proposition 2.
Lemma 1. Both r1 ()Emax + u() and r2 ()Emax + u()
are increasing functions of . Moreover, r(s, )Emax + u()
is an increasing function of .
The proof of the lemma is deferred to Appendix B.
Proposition 2. H(s, ) is a quasi-convex function of . In
other words, one of the following three conditions holds.
(a)
H(s, ) 0 for all .
(b)
H(s, ) 0 for all .
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
6
r2 () := ce +
cp p1
Emax (1)
FEP F C
cp p1
Emax (1)
F
EP F C
Es [H (s)]
Q(Emax )
=
.
Emax
Emax
(22)
if < s
60.06
60.04
60.02
60
59.98
59.96
59.94
59.92
59.9
0
Fig. 2.
0.5
1
1.5
Sample number
2.5
6
x 10
1
FI(x)
Empirical CDF of I
0.5
0 0
10
10
10
10
FJ(x)
1
Empirical CDF of J
0.5
0 0
10
Pr{q=x}
cp p1 FEP F C (Emax )
60.08
60.1
System frequency
r(s, ) =
r1 () := 1 ce +
10
x
10
10
Empirical PMF of q
0.5
Fig. 3.
10
, high
] is a relatively wide interval. The interval
is low, [low
narrows when becomes large, and converges to a single point
when 1. This is consistent with Theorem 1. Recall that
there is no need to charge or discharge the battery during an
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
7
0.7
low*
Autocorrelation of I
0.5
high*
0.6
0
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5
1
Autocorrelation of J
0.5
0
0.5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5
4000
0.4
0.3
0.2
Autocorrelation of q
0.5
0
0.5
4000
0.1
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Fig. 4.
Auto-correlations of I, J, and q
Fig. 7. low
and high
versus when ce = $0.1/kWh and cp = $10/kWh.
0.5
Crosscorrelation of I and J
0
0.5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5
Crosscorrelation of I and q
0
0.5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5
Crosscorrelation of J and q
0
0.5
4000
Fig. 5.
3000
2000
1000
0
n
1000
2000
3000
4000
460
= 0.3
= 0.5
= 0.7
= 0.9
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
In Fig. 8, low
and high
are plotted against cp when
ce = $0.1/kWh and BESS efficiency = 0.8. The figure
ce , low
and high
converges to a single point, as proved in
seen that both low and high become low when Emax is very
large. This can be intuitively explained as follows. Recall that
se is to denote the BESS SoC at the end of an I interval (or the
beginning of a J interval). If se Emax and (1 se )Emax are
both larger than the maximum possible EP F C , then regulation
failures are completely avoided, and the operating cost would
be dominated by the charging cost during I intervals. When
Emax is large, there is a wide range of se that can completely
prevent regulation failures. Out of this range, smaller se s
are preferred, so that the charging cost during I intervals is
lower. This, the optimal target SoCs must be low when Emax
becomes large.
300
280
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
s
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
8
0.55
0.5
low*
0.45
high*
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
10
Optimal algorithm
No recharging
Aggressive recharging
Heuristic recharging
0.15
0.1
0
Fig. 8.
10
20
cp
30
40
50
0.5
max
,
[low
high ] vs. cp when ce = $0.1/kWh and =0.8
0.6
(MWh)
1.5
low*
x 10
high
0.55
2.5
0.5
0.45
1.5
Cost ($)
0.4
Optimal algorithm
No recharging
Aggressive recharging
Heuristic recharging
0.5
0.35
0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Emax (MWh)
0.7
0.8
0.9
,
Fig. 9. [low
high ] vs. Emax when ce = $0.1/kWh and cp = $10/kWh.
In particular, we run a time-response simulation using the realtime frequency measurement data in Fig. 2. The probability
of encountering regulation failures is plotted in Fig. 10. Moreover, the time-aggregate operating costs (without discounting)
are plotted in Figs. 11 and 12 when Emax = 0.1MWh and
Emax = 1.5MWh, respectively. It can be seen from Figs. 11
and 12 that both No recharging and Aggressive recharging
algorithms yield much higher cost than the optimal algorithm
proposed in the paper. This is because the battery SoC is
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
Time (hour)
60
70
80
often too low (with No recharging) or too high (with Aggressive charging), yielding much higher regulation failure
probabilities, as shown in Fig. 10. On the other hand, with
optimal target SoC, the proposed algorithm reduces both the
operating cost and regulation failure probability compared with
Heuristic recharging.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
9
12
x 10
10
Optimal algorithm
No recharging
Aggressive recharging
Heuristic recharging
Cost ($)
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 1
Proof: First, calculate
2
0
10
20
30
40
Time (hour)
50
60
70
h(s, )
H (s)
=
(27)
s
s
Z Q1 Z Q2
H (Q3 )
fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
+ p1
s
0
0
Z Q1 Z Q4
H (Q5 )
+ p1
fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
s
0
0
80
where
1000
H*(0.1)
H*(0.3)
H*(0.5)
H*(0.7)
H*(0.9)
900
800
700
Q2 =
(28)
Q3 =
(29)
H*
600
500
Q5 =
400
300
(30)
(31)
200
100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
H (s)
s2
and
a(s) =
sgn( s)Emax
r(s, )Emax + u( ) fI (Q1 )
Pmax
Z Q1 2
costp (s0 )
+
fI (i)di.
(33)
0
s02
0
s =s+ Pmax i
Emax
2
cp Emax
p1
2
fE
(Emax (1 s)) + p1 fEP F C (Emax s)
2 P F C
0,
(34)
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
10
where the equality is obtained by taking the second-order Here, the inequalities are due to the fact that the integrals of
derivative of (15) over se at se = s, and the inequality is PDF functions are no larger than 1. Since is a discounting
due to the fact that PDF functions are non-negative. Thus, factor that is smaller than 1, the Discounting condition holds.
a(s) 0.
Define two operators D and T such that
A PPENDIX B
Z Q1 Z Q2
P
ROOF
OF L EMMA 1
Df (s) = p1
f (s0 ) s0 =Q fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
3
Proof:
0
0
Z Q1 Z Q4
u()
+ p1
f (s0 ) s0 =Q fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi,
5
0
0
max
Z (1)E
and
= p1
H (2) (s) s=+ e fEP F C (e)de
T f (s) = a(s) + Df (s).
(35)
Emax
0
Z Emax
It will be shown in Lemma 2 that the operator T is a
+p1
H (2) (s) s= e fEP F C (e)de
(2)
Emax
contraction mapping. Thus, H
(s) is the fixed point of
0
0,
(38)
equation f (s) = T f (s), and the fixed point can be achieved
by iteration
where the equality is obtained by differentiating (23) over
f (k+1) (s) = T f (k) (s).
, and the inequality is due to the fact that H (2) (s) 0
(0)
Letting f (s) = 0 for all s, we can calculate the fixed point for all s, as proved in Proposition 1. Thus, u() increases
with . Meanwhile, both r1 () and r2 () are increasing
as
X
functions of , because FEP F C (x) is a decreasing function of
(2)
Ki (s),
H
(s) =
x. Hence, both r1 ()Emax + u() and r2 ()Emax + u() are
i=0
increasing functions of . Moreover, when increases
from
where K0 (s) = a(s) and Ki (s) = DKi1 (s). Note that D is
1
+
s to s , r(s, )Emax + u() increases by ce from
a summation of two integrals, and therefore is non-negative
+
+
when the integrand is non-negative. Thus, all Ki (s) 0, r2 (s )Emax +u(s ) to r1 (s )Emax +u(s ). This completes
because K (s) = a(s) 0. As a result, H (2) (s) 0 for the proof.
0
Proof: Obviously, Df (s) Dg(s) for any pairs of functions f (s) g(s), because the operators is a summation of two
integrals with non-negative integrands. Thus, T f (s) T g(s),
and the Monotonicity condition holds.
To prove the discounting property, notice that
T (f + b)(s) = a(s) + D(f + b)(s) = a(s) + Df (s) + Db
= T f (s) + Db,
(36)
A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
Proof: The proof of convexity of H (s) with respect to
Emax is similar to that for Proposition 1, and thus is shortened
here. We first calculate
2 H (s)
2
Emax
=
a(s, Emax )
Z Q1 Z
+ p1
Q
2
2 H(s0 )
0 fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
2
Emax
0
0
s =Q3
Z (1)Emax 2
H(s0 )
+ p1 FI (Q1 )
0 Emax +e fEP F C (e)de
2
Emax
0
s=
Emax
Z Q1 Z Q4 2
0
H(s )
+ p1
0 fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
2
Emax
0
0
s =Q5
Z Emax 2
H(s0 )
+ p1 FI (Q1 )
fEP F C (e)de,
0
2
Emax
e
0
s =
Emax
a
(s, Emax )
sgn( s)| s|2
fI (Q1 ) (r(s, )Emax + u( ))
=
Pmax Emax
2
1
(1 )Emax
fEP F C
FI (Q1 )
+ cp p1
+
cp p 1
fEP F C (Q2 ) + p1 (s) fEP F C (Q4 ) fI (i)di.
Q
1
+p1
Q
4
!
fEP F C (e)fI (i)dedi
Z
b p1
Q
1
Z
fI (i)di + p1
b(p1 + p1 )
= b.
Q
1
(39)
where
!
fI (i)di
(37)
(40)
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
11
We claim that a
(s, Emax ) 0 for all s and Emax . To see
this, note that the first term is always non-negative, because
sgn( s) (r(s, )Emax + u( )) 0
due to (24) and (25). Moreover, the remaining terms are nonnegative due to the non-negativeness of PDFs and CCDFs.
Same as the proof in Proposition 1, we can show that the
right hand side of (39) is a contraction mapping. Thus, we can
2
as long as Hk1
(s) Hk1
(s) for all k. Taking k to infinity,
+
+
max
2 H (s) X
=
Ki (s, Emax ),
2
Emax
i=0
A PPENDIX D
p1 (1 )
Emax (1 )
cp
FI (Q1 )
FEP F C
cp p1
Emax (1 1st )
FEP F C
FI (Q1 )
0,
(43)
AND
high
pij (i)
low i high
d
d
Let Pd be the matrix of pd
ij , and H be the vector of H (i).
d
th
Likewise, define vector h , whose i entry is h(i, low ) when
i < low , h(i, high ) when i > high , and h(i, i) when low
i high . Then, Hd can be obtained as the solution of
I Pd Hd = hd .
(46)
(44)
be the contraction operator corresponding to the Bellman
equation in (10). Then,
H (s) = lim (T k H0 )(s)
k
for all s.
Starting with H0 (s) = 0, we have
H1 (s) = T H0 (s) = h (s).
Let h+ (s) (or Hk+ (s)) and h (s) (or Hk (s)) denote h (s)
+
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[2] F. C. Schweppe, R. D. Tabors, J. L. Kirtley, H. R. Outhred, F. H.
Pickel, and A. J. Cox, Homeostatic utility control, IEEE Trans. Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-99, no. 3, pp. 11511163, 1980.
[3] C. Zhao, U. Topcu, N. Li, and S. Low, Design and stability of load-side
primary frequency control in power systems, IEEE Trans. Automatic
Control, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 11771189, 2014.
[4] C. Zhao, U. Topcu, and S. H. Low, Optimal load control via frequency
measurement and neighborhood area communication, IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 35763587, 2013.
3 The fact that
low and high minimize H(i) for all i implies that the
optimal solution to (47) is the same for all .
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
12
Ying Jun (Angela) Zhang (S00-M05-SM11) received her PhD degree in Electrical and Electronic
Engineering from the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, Hong Kong in 2004. Since
2005, she has been with Department of Information
Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
where she is currently an Associate Professor. She
was with Wireless Communications and Network
Science Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) during the summers of 2007 and
2009, and with Netlab at California Institute of
Technology during the summer of 2014. Her research interests include mainly
wireless communications systems and smart power systems, in particular
optimization techniques for such systems.
She is an Executive Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications. She is also an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on
Communications. Previously, she served many years as an Associate Editor
of the IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications and Security and
Communications Networks (Wiley), and a Guest Editor of a Feature Topic in
the IEEE Communications Magazine. She has served as a Workshop Chair
of IEEE ICCC 2014 and 2013, TPC Vice Chair of Wireless Networks and
Security Track of IEEE VTC 2014, TPC Vice-Chair of Wireless Communications Track of IEEE CCNC 2013, TPC Co-Chair of Wireless Communications
Symposium of the IEEE GLOBECOM 2012, Publication Chair of the IEEE
TTM 2011, TPC Co-Chair of Communication Theory Symposium of the
IEEE ICC 2009, Track Chair of ICCCN 2007, and Publicity Chair of the
IEEE MASS 2007. She was a Co-Chair of the IEEE ComSoc Multimedia
Communications Technical Committee and the IEEE Communication Society
GOLD Coordinator.
She was the co-recipient of the 2014 IEEE ComSoc APB Outstanding
Paper Award, the 2013 IEEE SmartgridComm Best Paper Award, and the
2011 IEEE Marconi Prize Paper Award on Wireless Communications. She
was the recipient of the Young Researcher Award from the Chinese University
of Hong Kong in 2011. As the only winner from engineering science, she has
won the Hong Kong Young Scientist Award 2006, conferred by the Hong
Kong Institution of Science.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2562672, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
13
Steven H. Low (F08) is a Professor of the Department of Computing & Mathematical Sciences and
the Department of Electrical Engineering at Caltech.
Before that, he was with AT&T Bell Laboratories,
Murray Hill, NJ, and the University of Melbourne,
Australia.
He is a Senior Editor of the IEEE Transactions on
Control of Network Systems and the IEEE Transactions on Network Science & Engineering, is on the
editorial boards of NOW Foundations and Trends
in Electric Energy Systems, and Foundations and
Trends in Networking. His interests are in power systems and networking.
He received his B.S. from Cornell and PhD from Berkeley, both in EE.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.