Optimal Power Scheduling of a GenCo Using Two-Point Estimate Method

  • Kittisak JermsittiparsertEmail author


Optimal scheduling of a generating company (GenCo) is necessary in the day-ahead electricity market to obtain maximum profit. But, the market price uncertainty may lead to negative effects for GenCo which should be modeled in the uncertain environment. First, a deterministic-based model via Mixed-Integer Quadratic Constrained Program (MIQCP) is formulated in this study to obtain optimal scheduling of GenCo. Then, a two-point estimate method (TPEM) is proposed to model the market price uncertainty in order to obtain uncertainty-based scheduling of GenCo. The proposed approach is investigated on two GenCo comprising 5-unit and 54-unit thermal generation to show the capabilities of the proposed approach in a large test system. Furthermore, the obtained results based on proposed approach are compared with the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) and deterministic approach in order to show the efficiency of the proposed approach in the uncertain environment.


Generating company (GenCo) Two-point estimate method (TPEM) Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) Mixed-integer quadratic constrained program (MIQCP) 




Index of time interval


Index of generation units


Auxiliary index for linear modeling of minimum up-time and minimum down-time constraints

Known Parameters

ai, bi, ci

Quadratic, linear, and fixed coefficients of operation cost function for generation unit


Shut-down and start-up costs of generation unit

\( {P}_i^{\mathrm{G},\min } \),\( {P}_i^{\mathrm{G},\max } \)

Minimum and maximum powers of generation unit


Ramp-up and ramp-down limits of generation unit


Minimum down/up time limits of generation unit

Dni, j,Upi, j

Auxiliary parameters for the MDT and MUT constraints

\( {\lambda}_t^D \)

Electricity price

Decision Variables

Ui, t

Binary variable {0,1}, It is 1 if generation unit is ON; otherwise, it is 0.

\( {P}_{i,t}^{\mathrm{G}} \)

Generation power of unit

ΔPi, t

An auxiliary variable for using the power generation of unit

SDCi, t,SUCi, t

Shut-down and start-up costs of generation unit


Cost (t)

Total cost of GenCo at each time

F(PG, λD)

Total profit of GenCo


  1. 1.
    P.M. Joshi, H.K. Verma, An improved TLBO based economic dispatch of power generation through distributed energy resources considering environmental constraints. Sust. Energ. Grids Netw. 18, 100207 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.O. Adu-Kankam, L.M. Camarinha-Matos, Towards collaborative virtual power plants: Trends and convergence. Sust. Energ. Grids Netw. 16, 217–230 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Nojavan, K. Zare, M.A. Ashpazi, A hybrid approach based on IGDT–MPSO method for optimal bidding strategy of price-taker generation station in day-ahead electricity market. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 69, 335–343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Nojavan, K. Zare, Risk-based optimal bidding strategy of generation company in day-ahead electricity market using information gap decision theory. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 48, 83–92 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Attaviriyanupap, H. Kita, E. Tanaka, J. Hasegawa, New bidding strategy formulation for day-ahead energy and reserve markets based on evolutionary programming. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 27, 157–167 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Vahidinasab, S. Jadid, Stochastic multi-objective self-scheduling of a power producer in joint energy and reserves markets. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 80, 760–769 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.S. Derk, Simultaneous bidding in day-ahead auctions for spot energy and power systems reserve. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 29, 470–479 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Akbari Foroud, M. Amir ahmadi, M. Bahmanzadeh, A. Akbar Abdoos, Optimal bidding strategy for all market players in a wholesale power market considering demand response programs. Eur. T. Electr. Power 21, 293–311 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Haghighat, H. Seifi, R.K. Ashkan, Gaming analysis in joint energy and spinning reserve markets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22(4), 2074–2085 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Mashhour, S.M. Moghaddas-Tafreshi, Bidding strategy of virtual power Plant for Participating in energy and spinning reserve markets—Part I: Problem formulation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26(2), 949–956 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Azadeh, S.F. Ghaderi, B. Pourvalikhan Nokhandan, M. Sheikhalishahi, A new genetic algorithm approach for optimizing bidding strategy viewpoint of profit maximization of a generation company. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 1565–1574 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Vahidinasab, S. Jadid, Multi objective environmental/techno-economic approach for strategic bidding in energy markets. Appl. Energy 86, 496–504 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Kanakasabapathy, K. Shanti Swarup, Bidding strategy for pumped-storage plant in pool-based electricity market. Energy Convers. Manag. 51, 572–579 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Vahidinasab, S. Jadid, Normal boundary intersection method for suppliers’ strategic bidding in electricity markets: An environmental/economic approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 51, 1111–1119 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Peng, H. Sun, J. Guo, G. Liu, Multi-objective optimal strategy for generating and bidding in the power market. Energy Convers. Manag. 57, 13–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Soleymani, Nash equilibrium strategies of generating companies (Gencos) in the simultaneous operation of active and reactive power market, with considering voltage stability margin. Energy Convers. Manag. 65, 292–298 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Niknam, S. Sharifinia, R. Azizipanah-Abarghooee, A new enhanced bat-inspired algorithm for finding linear supply function equilibrium of GENCOs in the competitive electricity market. Energy Convers. Manag. 76, 1015–1028 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.B. Naghibi-Sistani, M.R. Akbarzadeh-Tootoonchi, M.H. Javidi-Dashte Bayaz, H. Rajabi-Mashhadi, Application of Q-learning with temperature variation for bidding strategies in market based power systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 47, 1529–1538 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Soleymani, A.M. Ranjbar, A.R. Shirani, New approach to bidding strategies of generating companies in day ahead energy market. Energy Convers. Manag. 49, 1493–1499 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Boonchuay, W. Ongsakul, Optimal risky bidding strategy for a generating company by self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimization. Energy Convers. Manag. 52, 1047–1053 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. Bigdeli, K. Afshar, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, Bidding strategy in pay-as-bid markets based on supplier-market interaction analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 51, 2419–2430 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Z. Yuan, D. Liu, C. Jiang, Analysis of equilibrium about bidding strategy of suppliers with future contracts. Energy Convers. Manag. 48, 1016–1020 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, H. Zareipour, M. Ehsan, N. Amjady, Economic impact of price forecasting inaccuracies on self-scheduling of generation companies. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 81(2), 617–624 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Wen, A.K. David, A genetic algorithm based method for bidding strategy coordination in energy and reserve markets. Artif. Intell. Eng. 15, 71–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Rahimiyan, H. Rajabi Mashhadi, Risk analysis of bidding strategies in an electricity pay as bid auction: A new theorem. Energy Convers. Manag. 48, 131–137 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. Song, C.C. Liu, J. Lawarrée, R.W. Dahlgren, Optimal electricity supply bidding by Markov decision process. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15(2), 618–624 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Li, M. Shahidehpour, Z. Li, Risk-constrained bidding strategy with stochastic unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22(1), 449–458 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.L. Tseng, W. Zhu, Optimal self-scheduling and bidding strategy of a thermal unit subject to ramp constraints and price uncertainty. IET Gener. Trans. Distrib. 4(2), 125–137 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Verbic, C.A. Cañizares, Probabilistic optimal power flow in electricity markets based on a two-point estimate method. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21(4), 1883–1893 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Mohammadi, A. Shayegani, H. Adaminejad, A new approach of point estimate method for probabilistic load flow. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 51, 54–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Niknam, F. Golestaneh, A.R. Malekpour, Probabilistic energy and operation management of a microgrid containing wind/photovoltaic/fuel cell generation and energy storage devices based on point estimate method and self-adaptive gravitational search algorithm. Energy J. 43, 427–437 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    X. Li, J. Cao, D. Du, Probabilistic optimal power flow for power systems considering wind uncertainty and load correlation. Neurocomputing 148, 240–247 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A.R. Soroudi, M. Aien, M. Ehsan, A probabilistic modeling of photo voltaic modules and wind power generation impact on distribution networks. IEEE Syst. J. 6(2), 254–259 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Shrestha, B. Pokharel, T. Lie, S. Fleten, Price-based unit commitment for bidding under price uncertainty. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 1(4), 663–669 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, H. Zareipour, N. Amjady, M. Ehsan, Application of information-gap decision theory to risk-constrained self-scheduling of GenCos. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(2), 1093–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.M. Arroyo, A.J. Conejo, Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15(3), 1098–1104 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Kazemi, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, M. Ehsan, Risk-based bidding of large electric utilities using information gap decision theory considering demand response. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 114, 86–92 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. Baringo, A.J. Conejo, Offering strategy via robust optimization. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26(3), 1418–1425 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.M. Morales, J. Perez-Ruiz, Point estimate schemes to solve the probabilistic power flow. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22, 1594–1601 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    [Online].−118 test.xls. Accessed Feburary 2011Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, GAMS User’s Guide, (The Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA, 1990). [Online].
  42. 42.
    The GAMS Software Website (2019). [Online]>

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Research InstituteChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations