1220

IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 3, August 1997

Minimum loss predispatch model for hydroelectric power systems

S. Soares, Senior Member, IEEE Faculty of Electrical Engineering UNICAMP 13081-970 Campinas Brazil

C.T. Salmazo Operation Planning Division COPEL 80710-000 Curitiba Brazil

Abstract A predispatch model that minimizes generation and transmission losses on hydroelectric power systems is presented and applied to the hydroelectric power system of COPEL, a Brazilian utility located in southern Brazil. Power loss in the generation and transmission systems is minimized on an hourly basis throughout a day. Load demand as well as generation, transmission and interchange operational constraints are satisfied. Hydroelectric generation characteristics are described in detail. Power loss in hydroelectric generation is associated with a reduction in turbine-generator efficiency and effective water head. The latter is due to an increase in tailrace elevation and penstock head loss. Power loss upon transmission is calculated as a quadratic function of active power flow, as represented in a DC load flow model. The predispatch model was evaluated under typical operational conditions, achieving significant savings with respect to actual operation.

Short term hydrothermal scheduling has been the subject of many papers during the past few decades. The result is a vast and diversified literature. Mathematical programming models have constituted the most frequent approach to the problem, and techniques such as dynamic programnling [ 1,2], the progressive optimality principle [3,4] and network flow algorithms [5,6,7] have been suggested. These models, however, have taken only simple thermal and hydraulic constraints into consideration. Other papers have proposed more complete formulations, with transmission constraints being represented through AC [8,9] or DC [10,11,12] load flow equations. None of these papers, however, has taken the detailed representation of hydroelectric generation characteristics into account, which is important for short term scheduling of hydroelectric systems. The present paper describes a predispatch model for hydroelectric power systems which aims to minimize power loss in generation and transmission systems on an hourly basis throughout a single day. Load demand as well as generation and transmission systems operational conshraints are satisfied. Interchange with neighbouring systems is also considered. The model is then applied to the hydroelectric power system of COPEL (Compania Paranaense de Energia EIBtrica), a Brazilian utility located in the southern part of the country. Power loss upon hydroelectric generation is a consequence of reduction in turbine-generator efficiency and effective water head. Water head is a function of tailrace elevation and penstock head loss, since forebay elevation does not vary significantly during a single day. Power loss in the transmission system is calculated as a quadratic function of active power flow in the branches according to a DC load flow model. The evaluation of this predispatch model under the operational conditions of a typical day shows that significant savings with respect to actual operation can be achieved. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the predispatch model with special focus on modeling of hydroelectric generation performance as a function of effective water head and turbine-generator efficiency. Section 3 describes the technique developed for its solution, which is a combination of heuristic and Lagrangian Relaxation approaches. Section 4 Provides the test results in a case-study with the COPEL hydroelectric power system. The final section summarizes the conclusions.

I. INTRODUCTION Operational planning of hydrothermal power systems is usually decomposed into long, mid and short term periods. Long and mid term planning are concerned with optimal management of reservoir storage on a monthly/weekly basis for a few years in the future, seeking minimum expected thermal generation costs under uncertain inflow conditions and projecting weekly generation for each individual plant. Short term planning, on the other hand, is concerned with operation on a dailykourly basis during a single week, attempting to optimize operation electric and hydraulic points of view under deterministic inflow conditions so that optimal longlmid term operational policy can be implemented. Limiting such short term planning to daily planning on an hourly basis gives rise to the predispatch problem, which is the object of this paper.

96 SM 508-2 PWRS A paper recommended and approved by the lEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the ,EEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the 1996 IEEBPES Summer Meeting, July 28 - August 1, 1996, in Denver, Colorado Manuscript submitted January 2,1996; made available for printing June 27, 1996.

0885-8950/97/$10.00 0 1996 IEEE

1221

11. PREDISPATCH MODEL

solution. This is particularly true in the case of hydroelectric systems with large reservoirs.

The predispatch problem is concerned with minimizing loss in generation and transmission systems on an hourly basis for a On the other hand, tailrace elevation varies considerably in the single day while satisfying load demand as well as generation, period of a day and must therefore be properly taken into transmission and interchange constraints. Generation account. It usually depends on water release from the reservoir constraints include the daily generation targets established by and is represented by a fourth degree polynomial function: long/mid term planning and plant operational constraints, whereas interchange constraints include the daily interchange hti =a,+a,u+a,u 2 +a,u3+a,u4 (3) targets also imposed by longmid term planning and interchange limits. Transmission constraints are imposed by limits on power flow through branches, as represented by a DC where: load flow model. ak = coeficient k (k=O,1,2,3,4) A. Generation system u = release (m3I S) The generation system is constituted by a set of hydroelectric power plants composed of generating units. The active power output in a generating unit is given by: The relation between water release and discharge is given by:

uj =dj+sj

(4)

p. rl . =1066pq, hVd,
where:
j = index of hydroelectric plant (j=1,2,...,n)

(1)

where: s = spillage

(m3I s)

i = index of generating unit (i=1,2,..., mjm )

p = active power generation (MW) 6 = water density (kg I m3)
p = gravity acceleration ( m I s2 ) = turbine-generator eflciency ( 9 6 ) h = effective water head (m)

Note that the total discharge in a hydroelectric plant is the summation of discharge in ad1 its generating units:
m;

dj= z d ,
i=l

where: mi = number of units in operation (mi mimax) Another factor that affects the effective water head is penstock head loss. This represents the reduction in potential energy due to friction of water on the penstock wall and depends on the discharge from the generating unit:

d = discharge ( m3 1 s )
Discharge is the main variable for determining hydroelectric generation. Because of the influence of discharge on effective water head and turbine-generator efficiency, however, the relation between discharge and generation is nonlinear. Effective water head is given by

hlV=P,,d;
(2)

h.. rl =hfi- htj-hli

where:

where: p = penstock characteristic (in

s2 1m5)

hf =forebay elevation (m) ht = tailrace elevation (m) hl = penstock head loss (m)
Forebay elevation is a function of reservoir storage. As the planning period of the predispatch problem is a single day, variations in reservoir storage are negligible so that forebay elevation can be considered constant, with no effect on the

The key factor in hydroelectric system generation performance, however, is turbine-generator efficiency. Turbine efficiency is usually expressed as a function of effective water head and water discharge (or power output) from the generating unit. Generator efficiency, however, depends only on the generation of power. Combined turbine-generator efficiency is the product of the efficiency of both turbine and generator and can be expressed as a function of effective water head and power generation:

of the Foz do Areia hydroelectric plant for a given forebay elevation. As power output increases from the minimum value (Point A), turbine-generator efficiency also increases up to the Due to its shape, function (7) is known as'a hill curve. Fig. 1 maximum efficiency point (Point B), after which it diminishes shows the typical hill curve for a generating unit of the largest to the point of maximum output of the generating unit (Point hydroelectric plant in the system investigated (Foz do Areia). C). The loss curves of the Foz do Areia hydroelectric plant with 4 units in operation, as calculated by the simulation program, are depicted in Fig. 2.
200 180 160 1 40

-Tailrace loss Penstock loss

;loo
v,

(m) Fig. 1. Hill curve of a generating unit of the Foz do Areia hydroelectric plant

230W,' 95

119

Effectim head

'

80 60
20

40

0 962 1002 1049 1103 1156 1262 1358 1480 1535 1596

POWER OUTPUT (MW)

Given the relations between generation variables expressed by equations (1)-(7), the proposed predispatch model sets its generation goal by attempting to reduce power loss through control of three major aspects:
1. Tailrace elevation; 2. Penstock head loss; 3. Turbine-generator efficiency.

Fig. 2. Generation loss curves of the Foz do Aceia hydroelectric plant with 4 units in operation

To realize this goal, power generation loss must be expressed as a function of power output in each generating unit. In order to obtain this function, a simulation program has been developed whereby water discharge from the generating unit increases by small increments from the minimum to full capacity, with the resultant increase in tailrace elevation and penstock loss, as well as the consequent reduction in effective water head, computed by equations (3), (6) and ( 2 ) , respectively. Forebay elevation is assumed constant and assigned the current value. Using these values for water discharge and the resulting effective water head, the power output and the turbine-generator efficiency are determined simultaneously through an iterative procedure based on equation (1).
As the objective unction pursued should represent power generation loss, loss at the best point of operation for each of the three aspects was assigned to zero. For the tailrace elevation and the penstock head loss, the best point of operation is that of minimum discharge. For turbine-generator efficiency, the best point of operation occurs at the culmination of the trajectory of turbine-generator efficiency in the hill curve which results from the increase in power output (discharge). Fig. 1 illustrates such a trajectory in the hill curve

Input for the simulation program is usually limited to the current forebay elevation of the hydroelectric plant under consideration. If, however, the tailrace elevation of the plant is under the influence of the forebay elevation of its immediate downstream neighbor, the current value of the forebay elevation of the downstream neighbor must also be supplied. Generation loss curves can be computed by assuming that the hydroelectric plant under consideration is operating with mj units ( m j=1,2,..., mj
max

) . If these generating units are

equal, the curves are calculated by assuming that output (discharge) is equally distributed between the units. However, if a hydroelectric plant is composed of unequal generating units, the total output (discharge) must be optimally distributed among the various units to compute the generation loss curves properly. From the comparison of loss curves for different numbers of operating units, the optimal number of operating units for each power output level can be easily determined. Fig. 3 shows the generation loss curves (due only to penstock head loss and turbine-generator efficiency) of the Foz do Areia hydroelectric plant with 1, 2, 3, and 4 generating units in operation. As can be seen, the optimal number of generating units for each power output level is easily identified. Fig. 3 also shows two narrow zones which should be avoided due to cavitation. Using the least square error method, quadratic functions are fitted to the total generation loss curves for each hydroelectric

FOZDO AREU HYDRO PLANT

f min5 f 5f

1223

Another partial objective of the predispatch model is to reduce power loss in the transmission system. For a DC load flow representation, this loss can be approximated by a quadratic function of power flow through the network branches
241
298 342 541

646 722 895 1007 1083 1291 POWER OUTPUTiiUW

J 2 = f tRf
where:

Fig. 3. Loss curves of the Foz do Areia hydroelectric plant with 1,2,3, and 4 units in operation.

plant given the number of units in operation. For COPELs J2 = Power loss in the transmission system plants, fitting accuracy was quite good with the average R = Resistance diagonal matrix absolute error less than 1%. Thus, the total generation loss .Interchange, generation and mid term constraints objective function for a given configuration of units can be C stated as If the power system under consideration is linked to other systems, the power interchange through the interconnections must be represented. Since the predispatch model is concerned with optimization of power loss exclusively in the specific system under consideration, only the generation and transmission systems of this system must be represented. The where: total interchange with each neighboring system has thus been represented by a dummy power injection bus with bounds on J1 = power loss in the generation system injection established by the total flow capacity of the links glj,k = quadratic generation loss function of hydroelectric between the systems. Total interchange is thus represented in the model as a dummy power injection bus which must satisfy plant j with k units in operation the same types of constraints as generation busses. B. Transmission system One set of such constraints is represented by bounds on power The transmission system is represented by a DC load flow injection vector consisting of generation and interchange model with bounds on active power flow. In order to express busses: generation and transmission variables in the model simultaneously, Kirchoff s laws have been stated separately [13]:

Af = p - 1
X f =Q
where:

(9)
(10)

Another set of constraints is concerned with total daily generation and interchange with neighboring systems established by long/mid tenm planning:
T

CPt=4
r=l

A = Network incidence matrix X = Network loop reactance matrix f = Active powerflow vector p = Active power generation vector
1 = Active load demand vector
Equation (9) represents the Kirchoff Current Law (node law) whereas equation (10) represents the Kirchoff Voltage Law (loop law). Bounds on active power flow through the branches of the network are also imposed:

where:

t = Index of time interval T = Number o f time intervals q = vector o f generatiodinterchange targets

The interchange target constraint included in (14) is imposed on the total interchange with neighboring systems rather than on each interchange link in particular. In order to represent the individual interchange links in the model, each one has been

1224

connected to a dummy bus that represents the corresponding the continuous problem workmg as a subroutine. This heuristic neighboring system. In this way, the power flow through each is described later for the specific case-study performed. particular interchange link is represented and can be limited to In order to take advantage of the special structure of the capacity. continuous problem, a decomposition method based on Based on a reference load flow solution for the total Lagrangian Relaxation has been implemented for the solution interconnected power system (the system under consideration [ 151. Associating a Lagrange multiplier vector to constraint and its neighbors) the reaction of interchange flow through the (14) the corresponding Lagrangian function is: interconnecting links to changes in generation inside and T outside the system under consideration are obtained by electrical simulations using the superposition factor program t=l [14]. The objective is to identify the percentage of total interchange variations with neighboring systems that flow through each interchange link in particular. These percentages where: are used to split the total interchange through the links that it is composed of and represents a simple external equivalent of the h = Lugrange multiplier vector remaining network. Since the Lagrangian function (16) is an additive separable 111. SOLUTION TECHNIQUE function, its minimization for each time interval t, subject to constraints (91, (lo), (11) and (13), can be carried out by T The proposed predispatch model is designed to solve the independent subproblems, each one corresponding to a problem of minimizing a weighted composition of objective capacitated optimal DC load flow with quadratic objective functions (8) and (12) function. The results provided by the subproblems are supplied to the coordinator, permitting an evaluation of the dual r function, which is defined as:

H ( A )=min L s.t.(9),( 10),(11),(14)'v't

subject to constraints (9), (lo), (11) and (13) for each time interval t, as well as constraint (14). The weights can represent interchange tariffs associated with generation and transmission or can be selected as to provide a two-objective analysis. The problem is a mixed integer programming problem that requires a great computational effort to be solved exclusively by mathematical programming techniques, specially in the case of large scale hydroelectric systems. However, given the number of generating units in operation at each time interval, the resulting continuous problem is much easier to solve due to the block angular structure of its constraints. In fact, equations (9),(1Q),(ll)and (13) are time independent and only constraint (14) establishes a temporal link, as illustrated in Fig. 4.

(17)

Thus, instead of solving the original problem, the decomposition approach maximizes dual function (17) with respect to h . The procedure can be viewed as a two level decomposition method. On the higher level (master) a coordinator is responsible for the unconstrained maximization of the dual function (17), whereas on the lower level (slaves) the subproblems are responsible for minimizing (16) in a decomposed way. Fig. 5 illustrates the two level hierarchical structure of the decomposition approach:

Fig. 5. Hierarchical structure of thc dzconipositiori approach

Fig 4 Block angular structure of the predispatch problem

The optimal number of generating units in operation at each time interval can be determined by an heuristic approach With

A conjugate gradient method with lalse position line search has becn implemented to cxecutc the coordinator task. The result is an updating rule for the multiplicrs that are scnt back to the subproblems on the lower level. The subproblems are solved separately using the code MINQS 5.4 [16]. Convergence in the decomposition procedure is quite fast due to the highly interconnected nature of the predispatch problem.

1225

In fact, since load demand is satisfied for each time interval approach based on Fig. 3. The heuristic is carried out as throughout the solution of the optimal DC load flow follows: First, the predispatch problem is solved considering subproblems, the mismatches in constraint (14) are strongly only one generating unit in operation at each plant. In order to interdependent. This means that an adequate update of a single satisfy the system load demand, the power capacity constraint Lagrangian multiplier will tend to reduce not only its own of the generating unit is irelaxed. Then, the predispatch mismatch but all other mismatches as well. problem is solved again considering the optimal number of generating units for the power output obtained in the previous step. The procedure is repeated until the number of operating Iv. TEST RESULTS units remains unchanged from one iteration to the other. In all The hydroelectric power system under consideration in the tests performed with COPEL's system the convergence of the case-study reported here belongs to COPEL, an utility located heuristic procedure was achieved in one iteration. in southern Brazil. COPEL's hydroelectric system is composed of three hydroelectric plants with operational characteristics Table I11 and Fig. 7 show thie optimal number of generating given in Table I. The transmission system is composed of 63 units in operation and the generation and transmission loss for branches, with 13 interconnecting links with the Southern and the solution under condition A. Table IV and Fig. 8 show the Southeastern neighboring systems. The voltage levels are same information for the solution under condition B. As can be seen, savings are concentrate in the generation system, and are presented in Table 11. more substantial under condition B. This can be explained by The system load demand curve is characterized by a peak load the fact that under condition I3 the predispatch model was able of 2394 MW and a load factor of 0.69. In order to evaluate the to maintain the generation loss almost constant and minimum predispatch model, the same operational conditions of a recent (Fig. 8) since the load traclung was mainly performed by the day (06/06/95) were considered. The generation weighting interchange. factor was equal to the long term interchange tariff and the TABLEIII transmission weighting factor was the sum of the long and NUMBER OF GENERATING UNITS IN OPERATION WITH FIXED INTERCHANGE short term interchange tariffs. This is an appropriate choice considering the legislation of the Brazilian interconnected power system. The model was tested under two sets of conditions: A. Allowing redispatch of generating units, while maintaining daily generation targets; hourly interchange with neighboring systems remains fixed. B. Allowing redispatch of generating units and interchange with neighboring systems while maintaining fixed daily generation and interchange targets.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 2 1 22 23 24
HOURS

FOZ DO AREIA (FOA)

4 4 4

419
315

SEGREDO (SEC) CAPIVARI-CACHOEIRA (CAP)

62

TABLE I1

TRANSMISSION NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS

Number of branches Voltage (kV)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
HOURS

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5 N

Fig. 7. Optimum and verified generation and transmission losses (with fixed interchange),

The optimal number of generating units for each hour and each hydroelectric plant was obtained by a simple heuristic

It must also be pointed out that the solution under condition A presents more changes in the number of generating units in operation during the day than did the solution under condition

1226

B, thus indicating that the predispatch model has modified interchange to avoid such changes. This also means that the heuristic approach for establishing the number of generating units in operation is quite efficient for the case-study performed. In fact, it seems that the heuristic approach would provide good results for systems with hydroelectric plants composed of equal generating units, since in this case there is a constant proportion between losses in each plant for different number of units.
TABLE IV
NUMBER OF GENERATING UNITS (WITH FREE INTERCHANGE)

equation (14) of OS%, the solution, under condition B, was obtained after 4 iterations of the coordinator, consuming 2.28 minutes of CPU time in a 486 66MHz PC with 16Mb of RAM memory. Under condition A, where the number of decision variables in the problem is lower, the convergence was slightly faster. It should be pointed out that convergence was attained in a few iterations of the master level because dual function (17) is approximately quadratic (the primal problem is a quadratic programming problem) and has 6 variables in the case-study performed (three hydroelectric plants and three interchange neighbors). Therefore, its maximization by the conjugate gradient method was expected to converge in approximately the same number of iterations. Furthermore, as already mentioned, since the slaves subproblems satisfy the load at each time interval, the mismatches in equation (14) are strongly dependent. It should be pointed out that the suggested decomposition approach is perfectly suitable for parallel processing, which can greatly improve computational efficiency making more effective its application to large scale hydroelectric systems.

F O A 2 C A P 3

2 3

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2
3

2 2

2 3

2 3

MW

GENERATION LOSS

120

'"I

UMODEL

-------

SAVINGS OF 597 MWh

VI. CONCLUSIONS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
HOURS

This paper presents a predispatch model for hydroelectric systems that aims at the minimization of generation and transmission losses while attaining load demand as well as generation, transmission and interchange operational constraints. Special attention was given to the representation of details of hydroelectric generation. The influence of tailrace elevation, penstock head loss and turbine-generator efficiency on the power output of the generating units was considered.

The predispatch model was solved using heuristics and a decomposition approach based on Lagrangian relaxation. The HOURS heuristic is responsible for determining the number of generating units in operation. The decomposition approach Fig. 8. Optimum and verified generation and transmission losses (with free solves the resulting continuous predispatch problem. The interchange). coordinator level was solved by a conjugate gradient method Considering the monetary value of the savings in generation using false position line search. The subproblems, and transmission obtained with the predispatch model, as corresponding to the optimal DC load flow for each hour of evaluated by the current tariffs in the interconnected Brazilian the day were solved by a general purpose optimization code. power system, COPEL's daily operational economy would be around US$ 2574 under condition A and US$ 4676 under The proposed predispatch model was applied to the condition B. hydroelectric power system of a Brazilian utility. Operational conditions of a typical day were considered. The results show Such generation scheduling would also provide benefits by significant savings with respect to actual operation, mostly due reducing maintenance costs and increasing life time of the to power loss reduction in the generation system. generating units due to less maneuver of the units and a better turbine-generator efficiency. VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2324

1227

acknowledge I. C. Nasser for her useful comments and suggestions and J. B. Soares for editing support. VIII. REFERENCES 1. J. S. Yang, N. Chen, Short Term Hydrothermal Coordination Using Multi-Pass Dynamic Programming, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 4, no 3, pp. 1050-1056, August 1989. 2. S . Chang, C. Chen, I. Fong, P. B. Luh, Hydroelectric Generation Scheduling with an Effective Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5 , no 3, pp.737-743, August 1990. 3. A. Turgeon, Optimal Short Term Hydro Scheduling from the Principle of Progressive Optimality, Water Resources Research, vol. 17, no 3, pp. 481-486, June 1981. 4. S. M. Amado, C. C . Ribeiro, Short Term Generation Scheduling of Hydraulic Multi-Reservoir Multi-Area, Interconnected Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 2, no 3, pp.758-762, August 1987. 5. A. Merlin, R. Louzanne, J. F. Maurras, J. Auge, M. Ziglioli, Optimization of Short Term Scheduling of EDF Hydraulic Valley with Coupling Constraints: The OVIDE model, Proceedings of Power System Computational Conference, pp. 345-354, Lausanne, 1981. 6. F. Wakamori, S. Masui, K. Morita, T. Sugiyama, Layered Network Model Approach to Optimal Daily Hydro Scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no 9, pp.3310-3314, September 1982. 7. H. Brannlund, D. Sjelvgren, J. A. Bubenko, Short Term Generation Scheduling with Security Constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 3, no 1, pp.310-316, February 1988. 8. J. Nanda, P. R. Bijwe, Optimal Hydrothermal Scheduling with Cascaded Plants Using Progressive Optimality Algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 100, no 4, pp.2093-2099, April 1981. 9. G. X. Luo, H. Habibollahzadeh, A. Semlyen, Short Term Hydrothermal Dispatch Detailed Model and Solution, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 4, no 4, pp.1452-1462, November 1989. 10. M. F. V. Pereira, L. M. V. G. Pinto, A Decomposition Approach to the Economic Dispatch of Hydrothermal Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no 10, April 1981. 11. H. Habibollahzadeh, J. A. Bubenko, Application of Decomposition Techniques to Short Term Operation Planning of Hydrothermal Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 1, no 1, pp.41-47, February 1986. 12. T. Ohishi, S. Soares, M. F. Carvalho, Short Term Hydrothermal Scheduling Approach for Dominantly Hydro Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, no 2, pp.637-643, May 199 1.

13. M. F. Carvalho, S . Soares, T. Ohishi, Optimal Active Power Dispatch by Network Flow Approach, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 3, no 3, pp.16401647, August 1988. 14. Philadelphia Electric Clompany, Superposition Factors program, Users Guide, 1972. 15. L. Lasdon, Optimization Theory for Large Systems, Macmillan, New York, 1!>70. 16. B. A. Murtagh, M. A. Saunders, Minos 5.4 Users Guide, Technical Report SOL 83-20R, Stanford University, 1992.

m. BIOGRAPHY
Secundino Soares (M 89, SM 92) was born in Santos, Brazil, in 1949. He received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from ITA, Brazil, in 1972, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from UNICAMP, Brazil, in 1974 and 1978, respectively. He joined the staff at UNICAMP in 1976. From 1989 to 1990 he was with the Department of Electrical Engineering at McGill University in Canada as a visiting associiate professor. He is currently a professor in the Faculty of Electrical Engineering at UNICAMP, and his research interests are concerned with planning and operation of electric energy systems. Clovis Tadeu Salmazo was born in Cruzeiro do Oeste, Brazil, in 1960. He received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from CEFET-PR, Brazil, in 1985. Since 1985 he has been on the staff of the Operation ]Planning Division of COPEL. In 1993 he participated in a graduate course on operational planning of hydrothermal systems at UNICAMP, where he is currently working towards a masters degree.

1228
Discussion

Swedish Power Producers, 96 WM 167-7 PWRS, IEEE PES Winter Meeting in Baltimore 21-25 January, 1996 Manuscript received August 20, 1996.
SSoares and C.T.Salmazo. We would like to thank Mr. Nilsson for the interesting comments on the paper. In the following we address the three points of his proposed discussion: First, the weighting factors in the objective function of the model can be arbitrarily chosen. This introduces a desirable flexibility in the model in terms of assigning different priorities to generation and transmission power losses. In the case study reported, the weights were chosen in accordance with the Brazilian interconnected power system legislation, which is too specific and intricated that is not worthwhile to be described here. On the other hand, in the COPEL power system case we realized that the weighting factors do not affect the solution. This means that there is not a real conflict between minimizing the transmission loss and assigning the generating units to its best efficiency point. In other power systems, however, there could exist an effective tradeoff between generation and transmission losses and therefore the weights could have an influence in the solution. As mentioned by Mr. Nilsson, in most cases the weighting factors could be associated with interchange costs and water value provided by seasonal planning tools. Second, the unit commitment of units is an important aspect of the predispatch problem due to the start-up cost involved. Mr. Nilsson is right when say that this consideration will lead to a more complex problem which would require the implementation of a second hierarchical level in the proposed approach. This is one of the on going improvements of the methodology. In the case study reported, however, this is not a crucial matter because the heuristic procedure lead to very few unit start up, specially in case B. It should be pointed out that a start up cost of $3 per MW, as suggested by Mr. Nilsson, seems to be too high for large generating units as the ones we have in the COPEL system. Third, with respect to the possibility of applying the methodology to systems with several hydro plants in cascade, it should be noted that this is possible if the reservoirs are large enough to absorb the storage oscillations that result from the independent dispatch of the units without significant variations in their forebay elevations. This is the case of Foz do Areia and Segredo power plants in the COPEL system (they are located in the I g u a p river) and is also the case of most hydro plants in Brazil. In other words, since the predispatch horizon is only a single day, the many different ways that the generation targets imposed by mid-term planning can be decomposed in an hourly basis do not cause significant variations in forebay elevation and should not be accounted for in the model. If, however, this is not the case, additional constraints must be included in the model to assure hydraulic coupling of cascaded plants, what will increase the complexity of the problem.

sson. (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden). First, I wish to congratulate the authors on a god job reported in an interesting paper. It is the first time I have seen the combination of high degree of detailed modelling in both the hydro generation system and the transmission network. There are three things in this paper I would like to discuss. The first is the objective function (15). The goal of the optimization is to minimize a weighted composition of the losses in the hydro generation system and the losses in the transmission network. In the reported test the weighting factors where chosen as the long term interchange tariff and the sum of short and long term interchange tariffs respectively. I would like to know some more about the reasons for these choices. Would it change the result, if the objective instead was chosen as the sum of the costs for interchange with neighbouring systems and used water? In this case we have to assume that the value of the water can be achieved from some long term or seasonal planning tool. The second thing I would like to discuss i s the commitment of the hydro units in the test examples. In case A units sometimes are started and stopped for only one hour. This is normally not allowed by operators since start and stops among other things lead to an increased maintenance cost. In [I] data is given for how the Swedish power producers estimate the hydro unit start-up cost. An average estimate of the hydro unit start-up cost based on this study is around $3 per MW unit nominal output. If this cost is applicable in Brazil and the units in the in the paper are identical in each plant, the total start-up cost will be around $2100 and $100 for case A and B respectively. If the authors had included this cost in their model, the total start-up cost had probably been lower while the losses in the system would increase, at least for case A. It would be interesting to know how much such a modification of the model would affect the total savings, since the total start-up cost is of the same magnitude as the reported savings. The consideration of start-up costs will lead to a more complex problem and it might be necessary to extend the proposed method with a hydro unit commitment part. The simplest way to do that could be to have a two step method with the hydro unit commitment as the first step and then apply the authors method for the committed units. The final issue I wish to discuss is if it would be possible to include a generation system with several hydro plants in cascade in the model presented by the authors. Cascade systems will lead to a strong coupling between the plants and it will thereby increase the complexity of the problem.

References [1 3

0. Nilsson and D. Sjelvgren, Hydro Unit Start-up Costs and Their Impact on Short Term Scheduling Strategies of