1998 long-term hydro scheduling based on stochastic models
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 1/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
Long-term Hydro Scheduling based on Stochastic Models
Mario Pereira Nora Campodónico Rafael Kelman
Power Systems Research Inc., PSRI Rio de Janeiro, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract: This paper describes some methodologies and tools being developed to address the
new challenges - and opportunities - posed by power sector restructuring in hydrothermalsystems: (a) optimal stochastic dispatch of multiple reservoir systems; (b) joint representation
of equipment outage and inflow uncertainty; (c) distortion of short-run marginal costs signals
when applied to cascaded plants with different owners; (d) economic efficiency and market
power issues in bid-based hydrothermal dispatch. The issues are illustrated with case studies
taken from the Colombian system.
Keywords: Hydrothermal Scheduling, Stochastic Optimization, Probabilistic Production
Costing, Market Power, Decentralized Dispatch.
1 Introduction
Electric utilities all over the world have been undergoing radical changes in their market and
regulatory structure. A basic trend in this restructuring process has been the replacement of
traditional expansion planning and operation procedures, based on centralized optimization, by
market-oriented approaches:
• Generators bid prices for their energy production (typically on an hourly basis for the next
day) in a Wholesale Energy Market – WEM. Units are then loaded by increasing price until
demand is met. Dispatched generators are remunerated on the basis of the system spot
price, which corresponds to the offer of the most expensive loaded unit.
• Instead of following an expansion schedule produced by a central planning agency, private
agents are free to decide on the construction of generating units and to compete for energy
sales contracts with utilities and individual customers. One of the key components in the
private investment decision is the forecast of WEM spot revenues for each plant, which are
then compared with the plant construction cost.
According to its proponents, one of the conceptually attractive aspects of the spot pricing
scheme is that, under perfect competition, it provides efficient economic signals for system
expansion, i.e. if the system is optimally dimensioned, the spot-based remuneration will match
investment costs plus operating expenses [1]. For similar reasons, it has also been argued that
the bidding scheme induces an efficient use of system resources in system dispatch.
However, the theoretical and practical validation of the above claims was primarily based on
thermal systems, and cannot be simply extrapolated to hydrothermal systems. The objective of
this paper is to describe some methodologies and tools being developed to address the new
challenges - and opportunities - posed by power sector restructuring in hydrothermal systems.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 2/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present an overview of hydrothermal
scheduling concepts and discuss the computational difficulty of finding an optimal strategy for
a multi-reservoir system, the so-called “curse of dimensionality”. We then describe a class of
solution procedures - stochastic dual dynamic programming - which is able to alleviate these
computational problems. In section 3, we discuss the integration of probabilistic production
costing models traditionally used in thermal system analysis into a hydrothermal scheduling
framework. In section 4, we analyze the distortion of economic signals resulting from WEM
spot prices when there are reservoirs in cascade, and describe an extended spot market where both energy and water are traded. Finally, in section 5 we address economic efficiency and
market power issues in bid-based hydrothermal dispatch.
2 Overview of Hydrothermal Scheduling
2.1 Purely Thermal Systems Characteristics
In purely thermal systems, the operating cost of each plant depends basically on its fuel cost.
Therefore, the scheduling problem is to determine the plant combination that minimizes the
total fuel cost required to meet the system load. In its simplest version, the scheduling problem
is formulated as:
z t = Min ∑ j=1
J
c( j) g t( j)
subject to (2.1)
∑ j=1
J
g t( j) = d t (2.1a)
g t ≤ g _
(2.1b)
where z t, c, d t, g t and g _ represent respectively the system operating cost in stage t , unit
operation costs, system load, power production and generation capacities. In turn, constraints
(2.1a) and (2.1b) represent respectively load supply and limits on generation capacity.
The thermal generation dispatch problem (2.1) can be solved by inspection: load generators by
increasing operating cost until demand is met. Although the actual scheduling problem is more
complex due to factors such as losses, transmission limitations, start-up costs, ramping rates
etc., the purely thermal scheduling problem retains some basic characteristics:
• it is decoupled in time, that is, an operating decision in stage t (e.g. this week) does not
affect next week’s operating decisions;• generating units have a direct operating cost, i.e. unit cost c( j) does not depend on the
output of the other system plants; besides that, plant operation does not affect the
generation capacity or availability of other plants; this provides a natural coordination
mechanism for energy purchase and sale
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 3/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
2.2 Hydrothermal System Characteristics
2.2.1 Time Dependence
Hydro plants can use the “free” energy stored in their reservoirs to meet demand, thus avoiding
fuel expenses with thermal units. However, the availability of this hydro energy is limited by
reservoir storage capacities. This introduces a relationship between the operative decision in a
given stage and the future consequences of this decision. For example, if the storedhydroelectric energy is used today, and a drought occurs, it may be necessary to use expensive
thermal generation in the future, or even interrupt the energy supply. If, on the other hand,
reservoir levels are kept high through a more intensive use of thermal generation, and high
inflows occur in the future, reservoirs may spill, which is a waste of energy and, therefore,
results in increased operation costs. Figure 2.1 illustrates the decision tree.
wet
dry
OK
deficitdry
wet
future inflows
usereservoirs
decision
do not usereservoirs
OK
consequencesoperating
spillage
Figure 2.1 - Decision Process for Hydrothermal Systems
In contrast with thermal systems, whose operation is decoupled in time, hydro system
operation is coupled in time, that is, a decision today affects operating costs in the future.
2.2.2 Immediate and Future Operating Costs
The tradeoff between immediate and future operating costs is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
immediateoperatingcost
futureoperatingcost
final storage
Figure 2.2 - Immediate and Future Costs versus Final Storage
The immediate cost function - ICF - is related to thermal generation costs in stage t . As the final
storage increases, less water is available for energy production in the stage; as a consequence,
more thermal generation is needed, and the immediate cost increases.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 4/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
In turn, the future cost function - FCF - is associated with the expected thermal generation
expenses from stage t +1 to the end of the planning period. We see that the FCF decreases with
final storage, as more water becomes available for future use.
The FCF is calculated by simulating system operation in the future for different starting values
of initial storage and calculating the operating costs. The simulation horizon depends on the
system storage capacity. If the capacity is relatively small, as in the Spanish or Norwegian
system, the impact of a decision is diluted in several months. If the capacity is substantial, as inthe Brazilian system, the simulation horizon may reach five years. This simulation is made more
complex by the variability of inflows to reservoirs, which fluctuate seasonally, regionally, and
from year to year. In addition, inflow forecasts are generally inaccurate, in particular when
inflow comes from rainfall, not snowmelt. As a consequence, FCF calculation has to be carried
out on a probabilistic basis, i.e. using a large number of hydrological scenarios (dry, medium
and wet years etc.), as illustrated in Figure 2.3.
1 2 3 4 time
spillage
rationing
replacesthermalgeneration
max. storage
Figure 2.3 - FCF Calculation
In contrast with thermal plants, which have direct operating costs, hydro plants have an indirect
opportunity cost, associated to savings in displaced thermal generation now or in the future.
2.2.3 Water Values
The optimal use of stored water corresponds to the point that minimizes the sum of immediate
and future costs. As shown in Figure 2.4, this is also where the derivatives of ICF and FCF with
respect to storage become equal. These derivatives are known as water values.
ICF
FCF
final storage
water value
ICF + FCF
optimaldecision
Figure 2.4 - Optimal Hydro Scheduling
The optimal hydro dispatch is at the point which equalizes immediate and future water values.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 5/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
2.3 Formulation of One-Stage Hydrothermal Dispatch
2.3.1 Objective Function
As seen above, the objective is to minimize the sum of immediate and future operating costs:
z t = Min ∑ j=1
J
c( j) g t( j) + αt+1(vt+1) (2.2)
The immediate cost in (2.2) is given by the thermal operating costs in stage t , ∑c( j) g t( j). In
turn, the future cost is represented by the function αt+1(vt+1), where vt+1 is the vector of
reservoir storage levels at the end of stage t (start of stage t+1). The operating constraints in
the stage are discussed next.
2.3.2 Water balance - As illustrated in Figure 2.5, the water balance equation relates storage
and outflow: reservoir storage at the end of stage t (beginning of stage t +1) is equal to initial
storage minus outflow volumes (turbined and spilled) plus inflow volumes (lateral inflow plus
releases from upstream plants):
vt+1(i) = vt(i) - ut(i) - st(i) + at(i) + ∑m∈U(i)
[ut(m) + st(m)] for i = 1,..., I (2.3)
where:
i indexes hydro plants (I number of hydro plants)
vt+1(i) stored volume in plant i at the end of stage t (decision variable)
vt(i) stored volume in plant i at the beginning of stage t (known value)
at(i) lateral streamflow arriving at plant i in stage t (known value)
ut(i) turbined outflow during stage t (decision variable)
st(i) spilled outflow volume in plant i during stage t (decision variable)
m∈U(i) set of plants immediately upstream of plant i
upstream
plant outflow
lateral inflow
outflow
Figure 2.5 - Reservoir Water Balance
2.3.3 Limits on Storage and Outflow
vt(i) ≤ v _
(i) for i = 1, ..., I (2.4)
ut(i) ≤ u _
(i) for i = 1, ..., I (2.5)
where v _
(i) and u _
(i) are respectively the maximum storage and turbine capacities.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 6/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
2.3.4 Limits on Thermal Generation - same as in thermal dispatch (2.1):
g t( j) ≤ g _
( j) for j = 1, ... , J (2.6)
2.3.5 Load Supply
∑i=1
I
ρ(i) ut(i) +∑ j=1
J
g t( j) = d t (2.7)
where ρ(i) is the production coefficient of plant i (MWh/hm3) (known value).
2.4 Problem Solution and Marginal Costs
Problem (2.2)-(2.7) is usually solved by a linear programming (LP) algorithm. In addition to the
optimal scheduling decision, the LP scheme produces a set of simplex multipliers associated to
the problem constraints. These multipliers provide the marginal cost information required in
competitive schemes. In particular, the WEM spot price is the multiplier associated to the load
supply equation (2.7), and the water value of each hydro plant is the multiplier associated its
water balance equation (2.3).
2.5 Calculation of Future Cost Function - SDP Recursion
The future cost function in each stage is calculated through a stochastic dynamic programming
(SDP) recursion:
a) for each stage t (typically a week or month) define a set of system states, for example,
reservoir levels at 100%, 90%, etc. until 0%. Figure 2.6 illustrates the system state
definition for a single reservoir. Note that the initial state (i.e. storage levels at the
beginning of the first stage) is assumed to be known.
1 2 T-1 T
system states
(initial storage level)
for stage T
initial
state
Figure 2.6 - Definition of System States
b) start with the last stage, T, and solve the one-stage hydrothermal dispatch problem (2.2)-
(2.7) assuming that the initial reservoir storage corresponds to the first storage level
selected in step (a) - for example, 100%. Because we are at the last stage, assume that the
future cost function is zero. Also, because of inflow uncertainty, the hydro scheduling
problem is successively solved for N different inflow scenarios, i.e. different possible values
for inflows in that stage. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 2.7.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 7/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
1 2 T-1 T
one-stage operationsubproblem - inflow scenario 1
one-stage operationsubproblem - inflow scenario 2
one-stage operationsubproblem - inflow scenario N
Figure 2.7 - Optimal Strategy Calculation - Last Stage
c) Calculate the expected operation cost associated to storage level 100% as the mean of the
N one-stage subproblem costs. This will be the first point of the expected future cost
function for stage T-1, i.e. αT(vT). Repeat the calculation of expected operation costs for
the remaining states in stage T. Interpolate the costs between calculated stages, and
produce the FCF αT(vT) for stage T-1, as illustrated in Figure 2.8.
1 2 T-1 Tcost
FCF for stage T-1
Figure 2.8 - Calculation of the FCF for Stage T-1
d) The process is then repeated for all selected states in stage T-1, T-2 etc. as illustrated in
Figure 2.9. Note that the objective is now to minimize the immediate operation cost in
stage T-1 plus the expected future cost, given by the previously calculated FCF.
1 2 T-1 future cost
minimize immediate cost in T-1
+ expected future cost
storage in T
Figure 2.9- Calculation of Operation Costs for Stage T-1 and FCF for stage T-2
The final result of the SDP scheme (a)-(d) is the set of future cost functions αt+1(vt+1) for each
stage t . Note that the calculation of this function requires the representation of joint system
operation, with full knowledge of the storage state and inflows of all hydro plants in the
system. In other words, the FCF is a non-separable function of hydro plant states.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 8/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
2.6 SDP Scheme Limitations
The SDP scheme is straightforward to implement and has been used for several years in most
hydro-dominated countries (e.g. [2],[3]). However, due to the need to enumerate all the
combinations of initial storage values, computational effort increases exponentially with the
number of reservoirs, the well-known “curse of dimensionality” of dynamic programming. For
this reason, it has been necessary to resort to approximations such as the aggregation of system
reservoirs into one reservoir that represents the energy production capability of the cascade [3]and the use of partial dynamic programming schemes (typically, calculation of separate future
cost functions for each basin) [4]-[7].
When all plants belonged to state-owned utilities, those approximate schemes were felt to be
satisfactory, because plant revenues usually came from long-term contracts, and eventual
differences in individual plant generation with respect to an ideal dispatch would cancel out in
the long-run. However, the implementation of a competitive environment raised a series of
concerns:
• in contrast with thermal systems, where spot price calculation is straightforward and easy
to interpret, hydrothermal spot prices are difficult to explain and to audit (as shown above,they reflect the expected opportunity cost along several inflow scenarios and stages)
• because plant revenues depend both on spot prices and on individual generation, there is a
greater need for detailed system modeling, which prevents the use of aggregation schemes
For these reasons, there has been a renewed interest in the development of stochastic
optimization algorithms able to handle detailed hydrothermal system dispatch. We will describe
one approach, stochastic dual dynamic programming [8]-[10], which has been used in several
countries in South and Central America, plus USA, New Zealand, Spain and Norway1.. An
alternative approach, based on Lagrangian relaxation, is described in [12].
2.7 The Dual Dynamic Programming Scheme
The Dual DP scheme is based on the observation that the FCF can be represented as a piecewise
linear function, i.e. there is no need to create an interpolated table. Furthermore, it is shown
that the slope of the FCF around a given point corresponds to the expected water values which,
as seen in section 2.4, are given by the simplex multipliers associated to the water balance
equations. Figure 2.10 illustrates the Dual DP calculation of expected operation cost and FCF
slope for the last stage, initial state = 100% (step (c) of the traditional DP procedure)
1 2 T-1 Tcost
expected operation cost
slope = derivative of op. cost
with respect to storage
Figure 2.10 - Dual DP - Calculation of First FCF Segment
1 A related scheme, called constructive dynamic programming, has been applied to the Australian system [11]
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 9/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
Figure 2.11 illustrates the calculation of operation cost and FCF slopes for each state in stage T.
The resulting piecewise cost surface is the FCF αT(vT) for stage T-1.
1 2 T-1 Tcost
piecewise future cost
surface for stage T-1
Figure 2.11 - Calculation of a Piecewise FCF for Stage T-1
In addition to the analytical representation of the FCF, the Dual DP scheme uses an iterative
simulation/optimization scheme to select only those states which are relevant for the scheduling
decisions. As a consequence, it becomes possible to solve the stochastic scheduling problem
for a large number of reservoirs with a reasonable computational effort.
2.8 Case Study
Figure 2.12 illustrates the hydro configuration for the Colombian system (80% hydro, 40 hydro
plants, with a total installed capacity ≈ 11 GW). The stochastic operation policy for 60 months
using a Dual DP scheme was calculated in approximately 4h (300 Mhz Pentium II processor).
V T
Troneras
TV
Guadalupe 3
Guadalupe 4
Miraflores
Tenche
V
V
T
Guatape
Jaguas
San Carlos
Playas
T V
Calderas
T
Insula
V T
VT
V T
Esmeralda
CampoalegreChinchina
Sanfrancisco
T
Estrella
V
T V
Prado
T
Prado 4
V
Riomayo
Betania
TV
VT
Porce 2
Niquia
T V
Latasajera
RioGrande 1
Quebradona
Laguaca
TV
Desafran
T V
Paraiso
Muna
V
Canoas
Salto
Colegio
T
Bomb-Mu
Laguneta
Chivor
Florida
Calima
Salvajina
Bajoanchicay
Altoanchicay
Urra 1
Guavio
Figure 2.12 - Colombian system configuration
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 10/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
3. Analytical Representation of Plant Outages
The hydrothermal scheduling scheme described in the previous section represents equipment
outages in a simplified way, usually as a derating of plant capacity. This simplified
representation is reasonable for hydro-dominated systems (where thermal plants are base-
loaded and hydro plants are responsible for peaking) but becomes less acceptable as thermal
participation increases, which is the current trend in most countries. Also, many countries use a
“capacity payment” as an incentive to the construction of peak generation reserve, which is based on the probabilistic evaluation of the plant’s contribution to supply reliability [13].
Therefore, it has become necessary to incorporate an analytical representation of forced
outages into the hydrothermal scheduling framework.
3.1 Probabilistic Hydrothermal Dispatch - Single Hydro Plant
We will initially analyze a system composed of J thermal plants and one hydro plant. The one-
stage dispatch (2.2)-(2.7) is rewritten as:
Min ct(ρut) + αt+1(vt+1)
subject to (3.1)
vt+1 = vt - ut - st + at (3.1a)
vt+1 ≤ v _
(3.1b)
ut ≤ u _
(3.1c)
where ct(ρut) represents the thermal operating cost as a function of the hydro generation
decision. This function is implicitly calculated as:
ct(ρut) = Min ∑ j=1
J
c( j) g t( j)
subject to (3.2)
∑ j=1
J
g t( j) = d t - ρut (3.2a)
g t ≤ g _
(3.2b)
Our objective is to transform ct(ρut) into a probabilistic production costing (PPC) model [14-
15] which calculates the expected thermal operation cost, taking into account equipment
outages and load fluctuations. The following scheme [16] is used to construct this extended
curve, based on the successive application of the convolution scheme proposed in [17]:
a) solve the PPC with the hydro plant represented as a dummy thermal plant at the last position in the loading order, that is: {T1, T2, ... , TJ, H}. Calculate the expected energy
generated by the hydro and thermal plants, and the corresponding system operation costs.
b) solve the PPC with the hydro plant at the first position in the loading order, that is: {H, T1,
T2, ... , TJ}. Calculate the expected energy generated by the hydro and thermal plants, and
the corresponding system operation costs. Figure 3.1 illustrates both calculations.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 11/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
T1
T2
T3
T4
H
H
T1
T2
T3
T4
Figure 3.1 - Initial PPC Calculation
c) calculate the expected hydro generation and system operation cost associated to each
intermediate loading point, e.g. {T1, H, T2, ... , TJ}. Note that it is not necessary to carry out
additional PPC runs. The mean generation of T1 comes from the PPC run in (a), in which the
hydro was last in the loading order. The reason is that the expected generation of a given
plant does not depend on which plants come after in the loading order. In turn, the mean
generation of each of the remaining plants i.e. {T2, ... , TJ}. comes from the PPC run in (b).
The reason is that the expected generation of a given plant does not depend on the loading
order of the previous plants. Finally, the expected hydro generation is calculated as the
difference between the expected demand and the expected thermal generations. The
procedure is shown in Figure 3.2.
T1
T1T2
T2T3
T3T4
T4H
H
T1
T2
T3
T4
H
Figure 3.2 - Intermediate Points in the Cost Curve
d) Plot the expected hydro generation values obtained in (a) and (b) and the intermediate
values calculated in step (c) as the breakpoints of a piecewise linear cost × hydro energy
curve, illustrated in Figure 3.3.
HydroGeneration
C1
C2
C3
C4
C0
E(operation cost)
H0 H1 H2 H3 H4
Figure 3.3 - Cost ×× Hydro Generation Curve
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 12/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
The curve in Figure 3.3 corresponds to the desired probabilistic version of ct(ρut), and can be
used to solve the one-stage hydrothermal dispatch taking into account equipment outages and
load variation.
3.2 Multiple Hydro Limited Plants
A similar procedure could in principle be applied to construct a multi-dimensional cost × hydro
energy curve for a system with I hydro plants (all at the bottom, one at the top, the remainder at the bottom etc.). Note, however, that we would need to carry out PPC runs for all 2I
combinations of hydro plants at the top and bottom of the loading order, which becomescomputationally infeasible if the number of reservoirs is large (e.g. the Brazilian system hasmore than 60 plants).
This problem can be solved by generating only the part of the curve corresponding to theoptimal hydro generation targets [18, 19]. From LP theory, we know that c(ρut) is a piecewiselinear function of the I-dimensional turbined outflow vector ut,. Therefore, it can be representedas a convex combination of its breakpoints. The probabilistic scheduling problem (3.1) isrewritten as2:
Min ∑k =1
K
λk [ct(ρut)]k + αt+1(vt+1)
subject to (3.3)
vt+1 = vt - ∑k =1
K
λk [ut]k - st + at (3.3a)
vt+1 ≤ v _
(3.3b)
∑k =1
K
λk [ut]k ≤ u
_ (3.3c)
∑k =1
K
λk = 1 (3.3d)
1 ≥ λk ≥ 0 (3.3e)
where:
K number of breakpoints in the piecewise cost × hydro energy curve[ct(ρut)]
k expected thermal operating cost at the k -th breakpoint[ut]
k turbined outflow vector (k-th breakpoint)λk decision variable that represents the convex combination of breakpoints
Note that the decision variables in problem (3.3) are vt+1, st and the convex combination factors{λk }. The turbined outflows are obtained implicitly from the convex combination of breakpoints.
Problem (3.3) is solved by Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition [20] which iteratively generates the"relevant" columns for the LP problem, called Dantzig-Wolfe master problem. Figure 3.4illustrates the DW scheme [18].
2 For notational simplicity, the same symbols vt, ut, st etc. used in the one-reservoir example (3.1) now
represent I-dimensional vectors of storage, outflow, inflow etc. in problem (3.3). Also for simplicity, we did not
represent the water balance constraints for the more general case of reservoirs in cascade.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 13/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
MASTER PROBLEM
Min E(Operating Cost) + Future cost
• water balance equations(relate turbining and storage)
• hydroelectric energy equations(relate turbining and hydroelectric production )
PROBABILISTIC DISPATCH
Hydrogeneration
implicit costs
(loading order)
Cost
Hydro generation
E(Operating Cost)function of the hydro
generation
cost
Storage
Future Cost as
a functionof the storage
Figure 3.4 - Integrated Hydro Scheduling - PPC Scheme
At the first iteration, a relaxed version of problem (3.3), with just one breakpoint (K =1) andone variable λk is solved. A shadow cost for energy production in each hydro plant is obtainedfrom the simplex multiplier associated to the water balance constraint (3.3a). This cost is thenused to determine the loading order of that plant in the PPC scheme. Next, the PPC problem issolved, and a new breakpoint is generated. This point is added to the master problem, and the process is restarted. This decomposition scheme allows efficient solution algorithms - PPC andstochastic DP - to be jointly used without substantial modifications in the original codes.
3.3 Case Study
The decomposition scheme was applied to a configuration of the Colombian generation system,
composed of 29 hydro and 50 thermal plants. Each hydro plant got a monthly energy target,
produced by the hydrothermal scheduling model. The load duration curve was represented by
six load levels, as shown in Figure 3.5 below.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 hours
MW
Figure 3.5 Load Duration Curve - Colombian system
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 14/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
The multi-dimensional cost × hydro generation curve of a system composed of J thermal and I
hydro plants can have up to (J+2)I breakpoints. For the Colombian system, this corresponds to5229 ≈ 1050, which obviously prevents the use of the explicit enumeration scheme presented inSection 3.1. The decomposition procedure described in Section 3.2 obtained the optimalsolution in 114 iterations, that is, only 114 breakpoints were generated. Figure 3.6 shows theevolution of expected operation cost (plus penalties for hydro target violations) along theiterations.
0
100
200
300
400
500
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111
iter
M$
c.pen.
e[c.oper]
Figure 3.6 - Expected operation cost ×× iteration
The total CPU time was 14.10 seconds (Pentium 166 MHz, 32 Mbytes). The mean solution
time of each master problem was 0.10s; each PPC subproblem solution took 0.02 s.
4. Economic Signals for Hydro Plants in Cascade
4.1 Distortions in Spot Signals
As discussed in the Introduction, one of the attractive features of the spot pricing scheme is to
provide efficient economic signals. In particular, if the system is optimally dimensioned, thespot-based remuneration should match investment costs plus operating expenses. This pricing
efficiency is easily demonstrated for thermal systems and, by analogy, would also seem to apply
to hydro plants. However, as illustrated next, the situation becomes more complex when there
are hydro plants in cascade. Figure 4.1 shows a system composed of a “pure” reservoir, that is,
with no associated generation, upstream of a run-of-the-river plant.
downstream
regulation1
energy
sale
2
Figure 4.1 - Hydro Plants in Cascade
This reservoir brings an obvious benefit to the system, by regulating the inflow to the
downstream plant, and thus increasing its energy production capability. However, under the
spot pricing scheme, which remunerates only the energy generated, the upstream reservoir
would receive no compensation, and the downstream plant would retain all benefits. In other
words, there is a clear distortion in the allocation of economic benefits.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 15/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
4.2 Water and Energy Markets
The reasons for this pricing distortion is that two commodities are being traded in a
hydrothermal system:
• water - commercialized by system reservoirs;
• electric energy - commercialized by thermal plants and turbine/generator sets.
In other words, the reservoir is an economic agent that “purchases” water in the wet periods -
when it is cheap - and stores it until the dry periods - when it has a high opportunity cost. In
turn, the turbine/generator set purchases this water from the reservoir and transforms it in
energy for sale to the WEM. Because the compensations associated to water transactions are
ignored, downstream plants capture the rent that should have been allocated to upstream
reservoirs 3. An extension of the spot market to take into account both aspects is presented
next.
4.3 Representation of Upstream Economic Agents
Let the hydrothermal dispatch for the two-hydro plant system of Figure 4.1 be represented
below:
Min ∑ j=1
J
c( j) g t( j) + αt+1(vt+1)
subject to (4.1)
vt+1(1) = vt(1) - st(1) + at(1) (4.1a)
ut(2) = at(2) + st(1) (4.1b)
∑
j=1
J
g t( j) + ρ ut(2) = d t (4.1c)
vt+1 ≤ v _
(4.1d)
where decision variables (generation, turbined volume, spillage etc.) are as defined previously.
Eqs. (4.1a) and (4.1b) represent the water balance for both the reservoir and run of the river
plant. For notational simplicity, we assume that the upstream reservoir has no turbining
capacity - i.e. it only spills - whereas the downstream plant has no capacity limit, i.e. it
generates as much as required. (these assumptions will be relaxed later). Rewriting (4.1a) in
terms of its outflow, we have:
3
This distortion is not relevant if all hydro plants in a cascade belong to the same agent, as the totalremuneration will be correct. However, there are many countries where this is not the case, such as Colombia,
Chile, Spain and Brazil. In the Brazilian system, for example, there are as many as six utilities sharing plants
along the same river. In both Chile and Colombia, which use a spot pricing scheme, utilities owning plants in
the same cascade are now in court, claiming recognition of upstream benefits. In Argentina, the issue was
sidestepped because the hydro plants were sold in auctions to private agents. As buyers took into account the
future plant revenues under the spot pricing scheme, upstream plants got price offers which were smaller than
their actual construction cost. In turn, the sale price of downstream plants exceeded their cost. The total revenue
from the sales was therefore correct, and the future revenue for the new owners became compatible with their
remuneration requirements. Of course, this “market solution” can only be applied to existing plants belonging
to a sole owner (the government, in this case). Also, the problem of signaling the construction of new hydro
plants still persists.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 16/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
st(1) = at(1) + ∆vt (4.2)
where ∆vt = vt(1) - vt+1(1) represents the reservoir storage variation in stage t . Under a spot
pricing scheme, we know that hydro remuneration would be πd×ρut(2), where πdt is the spot
price for stage t (simplex multiplier associated to the load supply equation (4.1c)). Replacing
(4.2) into (4.1b), and multiplying both sides by πd×ρ, we obtain:
πd×ρ ut(2) = πd×ρ[at(2) + at(1)] + πd×ρ∆vt (4.3)
Equation (4.3) shows that the plant remuneration can be divided into a component that
corresponds to the total natural outflow arriving at the plant (i.e. the outflow that would have
arrived without upstream regulation) plus a term that represents the effect of upstream
regulation. This suggests that the second term should be credited to the upstream reservoir 4. In
other words, the reservoir can be seen as an economic agent that purchases water in wet
periods - when it is cheap - and stores it in order to sell it in dry periods - when it is expensive.
It is also intuitive that the clearing price for purchase and sale of water should be the water
value, i.e. the shadow price associated to the water balance constraints. In fact, the general
expression for hydro remuneration in each stage is [21]:
a) reservoirs collect from the system (or pay to the system) an amount πh×∆vt, where πh is
the water value at the reservoir site.
b) hydro plants pay to the system (or collect from the system) an amount ∆πh×(ut + st - qt)
where ∆πh is the difference between water values at the plant site and immediately
downstream, whereas qt represents the total natural inflow at the plant.
Expressions (a)-(b) apply in the general case, e.g. if turbines at their limits or reservoirs arespilling.
4.4 Case Study
The extended spot concept was used in Colombia to calculate the compensation thatdownstream plants in Figure 4.2 should pay to upstream reservoirs for their regulation [21].
RioGuatape
RioNegro
Rio SanCarlos
Guatape
~
Calderas
RioCalderas
Jaguas
~
Playas
~
~
S.Carlos
~
T,V
T
V
TV
V T
T,V
Figure 4.2 - Reservoir Compensation Example
4 Note that ∆vt can be either positive (depletion) or negative (fill-up). If it is depleting, this means that the
reservoir is selling its stored water to the system, and should thus be remunerated. If it is filling up, this means
it is purchasing water from the system, and should therefore pay for it.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 17/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
5. Competitive Bidding in Hydrothermal Systems
As mentioned in the Introduction, many systems have implemented a decentralized dispatch
based on generator price bids. In this section, we initially formulate the bid-based dispatch for
thermal systems and then extend it to hydro systems.
5.1 Bidding Schemes - Thermal Systems
5.1.1 Bid-Based Dispatch
Every day, generators provide a set of hourly generation prices and available capacities. Based
on this data and on an hourly load forecast, the following economic dispatch is carried out:
z = Min ∑h=1
H
∑ j=1
J
λhj× g hj Multiplier
subject to (5.1)
∑
j=1
J
g hj = d h πdh (5.1a)
g hj ≤ g _
hj (5.1b)
for h = 1, ..., H; for j = 1, ..., J
where:
h indexes load blocks - typically hours (H is the number of blocks)
z total system operating cost
λhj operating price of generator j in load block h ($/MWh); note that the hourly price of
a generator may be different from its “true” unit operating cost , represented as c j.
g hj energy production of generator j during load block h (MWh) g _
hj maximum generation of j in load block h (MWh)
5.1.2 Net Spot Revenues
As discussed previously, each plant receives a gross revenue given by the product of system
spot price and its energy production. The net revenue of each plant, represented by R j,
corresponds to the difference between its spot revenue and its “true” operating cost c j:
R j = ∑h=1
H
(πdh – c j)× g hj for j = 1, ..., J (5.2)
The net revenue of a generation enterprise, which may be a utility or an independent power
producer (IPP), is given by the sum of revenues from plants under its control:
R k = ∑ j∈Ek
R j for k = 1, ..., K (5.3)
where:
k indexes the enterprises; K number of enterprises
R k net revenue of enterprise k
j∈Ek set of plants in enterprise k
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 18/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
5.1.3 Bidding Strategies
The objective of each enterprise k is to determine a set of hourly price vectors λhk = {λhj, j∈Ek }
that maximize its net revenue:
R k (λk ) = Max ∑h=1
H
∑ j∈Ek
[πdh(λhk ) - c j]× g hj(λhk ) (5.4)
where πdh(λhk ) and g hj(λhk ) represent the system spot price and plant generation resulting from
system dispatch (5.1) in hour h when the price vector is λhk .
5.1.4 Bidding under Uncertainty5
The bidding problem complexity is compounded by the fact that the calculation of πdh(λhk ) and
ghj(λhk ) in (5.4) depends on the knowledge of price vectors for all enterprises, as well as their
generation availability and system load values. However, this information is not available to any
single enterprise at the time of its bid. Therefore, the bidding strategy has to take into account
the uncertainty around these values. One approach to solve this problem is to define a set of
scenarios for the unknown values, and maximize the expected net revenue over all scenarios:
ER hk (λhk ) = Max ∑ s=1
S
psR s
hk (λhk ) (5.5)
where:
ER hk (λhk ) expected net revenue of enterprise k in hour h s indexes the scenarios (S number of scenarios) ps probability of scenario s
R s
hk (λhk ) revenue of enterprise k in scenario s, hour h
5.1.5 Solution Approaches
Problem (5.5) has to be solved as a global optimization scheme where, for each trial value of
{λk }, we calculate the expected net revenue over all scenarios, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.
price offer
system dispatchscenario # 1
system dispatchscenario # 2
system dispatchscenario # S
λk
+expected revenue
R 1
k (λk )
R S
k (λk )
R 2
k (λk )
Figure 5.1 - Bidding Strategy under Uncertainty
5 because each hour in (5.4) can be optimized separately, the discussions that follow refer to a given hour h.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 19/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
As illustrated in Figure 5.2, the enterprise tries to balance the benefit of increasing revenues (by
increasing bid prices) and the risk of not being dispatched [23]. This problem is difficult to
solve analytically because it is non-convex and it is not possible to obtain gradient information.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120
Energy price offer ($/MWh)
Probability
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
Proffit ($)
Dispatch probability Net revenue
Figure 5.2 - Tradeoff between price, revenue and dispatch frequency
5.1.6 Nash-Cournot Equilibrium
Generation availability and system load scenarios can be generated based on outage statistics
for each plant type and on load forecasting models. However, the creation of price offer
scenarios for the remaining enterprises has to take into account that those enterprises are active
agents, i.e they also wish to maximize their own net revenues and, therefore, are trying to
anticipate the other enterprises’ price strategies. This problem can be handled through an
iterative process, where each agent optimizes in turn its bidding strategy given the (hidden)
strategies of the remaining enterprises. The resulting set of prices corresponds to a Nash-
Cournot equilibrium [22].
5.2 Bidding Schemes - Hydrothermal Systems [23]
5.2.1 Hourly Bids in a Hydrothermal System
The optimal bid for enterprise k in stage t is given by the solution of the following problem:
R tk = Max ∑h=1
H
[ ∑ j∈Ek
(πdh(λhk )-c j)× g hj(λhk )+ ∑i∈Ek
(πdh(λhk )× g hi(λhk ))] + R t+1,k (vt+1) (5.6)
where:R tk immediate net revenue of enterprise k in stage t
πdh system spot price in hour h (depends on price bid vector λhk )
g hj generation of thermal plant j in hour h (depends on price bid vector λhk )
g hi generation of hydro plant i in hour h (depends on price bid vector λhk )
R t+1,k future net revenue of enterprise k (depends on final storage vector vt+1)
Note that the calculation of hourly bids for day t is based on the tradeoff between immediate
revenues for hydro plants and their future revenues, given by function R t+1,k . This is similar to
the tradeoff between immediate and future costs in centralized dispatch.
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 20/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
5.2.2 Immediate Revenue Calculation
Given a set of hourly prices {λhk }, the immediate revenue calculation is identical to the purely
thermal case, where hourly spot prices {πdh} and plant generation { g h} are obtained from the
economic dispatch solution.
5.2.3 Future Revenue Calculation
Given the hourly generation of hydro plants { g hi}, the future revenue R t+1,k (vt+1) is evaluated
through the following procedure:
• initialize v0 = vt (reservoir storage vector at the beginning of stage t )
• repeat for each hour h = 1, ..., H
• repeat for each hydro plant i = 1, ..., I (from upstream to downstream)
• update storage level:
vh+1(i) = vh(i) - g hi/ρi + ah(i) + ∑m∈U(i)
(uh(m) + sh(m))
where: g hi/ρi turbined outflow volume of plant i in hour h
ah(i) lateral inflow volume to plant i in hour h
U(i) set of plants immediately upstream of plant i
• spilled outflow: sh(i) = Min{0, vh+1(i) - v _
(i)}
• storage limits: vh+1(i) = Min{v _
(i), vh+1(i)}
• set vt+1 = vH+1 and calculate future revenue FR t,k = R t+1,k (vt+1)
5.2.4 Calculation of Expected Future Revenue Function for each Stage
In the previous derivations, we assumed that the expected future revenue function for stage t ,R tk (vt), was known. This function is calculated through a stochastic dynamic programming
recursion, similar to the one used for the centralized hydrothermal dispatch.
• repeat for t = T, T-1, ..., 1
• repeat for each storage vector vt = v1
t, v2
t, ..., vM
t
• initialize future revenue function R tk (vt) ← ∝
• repeat for each trial bid vector λk = λ1
k , ..., λL
k
• calculate the expected total revenue ETR tk for initial storage vector vt and trial
bid vector λk using the procedure of sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4
• update the optimal solution value R tk (vt) ← Max{R tk (vt), ETR tk }
5.2.5 Nash-Cournot Equilibrium
As in the purely thermal case, this is achieved by introducing an additional loop in the
stochastic DP recursion, where the agents iteratively adjust their price strategies. This
equilibrium calculation is carried out for each storage vector and for each stage. The result is a
set of future revenue functions {R tk (vt)} for k = 1, ..., K . A DP-based solution approach with
one hydro plant is described in [24]; a simplified solution scheme with multiple plants, but only
one stage, is described in [25].
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 21/22
EPSOM’98, Zurich, September 23-25, 1998
5.3 Efficiency of Bidding Scheme
One important question is whether the hydrothermal bidding scheme described in the previous
sections is efficient, i.e. whether it is possible to achieve the same operating efficiency as an
ideal centralized dispatch. In contrast with thermal systems, where this efficiency can be
achieved if generators bid their true operating costs, a hydrothermal bidding system is
inherently inefficient, for the following reasons:
• the optimal hydro plant bid from the point of view of global system optimization is the
plant’s opportunity cost; however, the accurate calculation of this cost depends on the
knowledge of which thermal plants are available and of their operating costs; this
information is not available at bidding time (note that this information is available in the
case of a centralized dispatch)
• as discussed previously, the FCF calculation requires the knowledge of all reservoir states
and operating decisions; this information is not available in a bidding scheme
It is important to emphasize that these limitations do not imply that the bid-based system
dispatch will be necessarily inefficient, the point being made is that the results will be system-
dependent.
6. Conclusions
• the calculation of operating policy and spot prices in a hydrothermal system is a complex
computational procedure; a class of solution algorithms based on Dual dynamic
programming has been successfully applied to large-scale systems in several countries
• decomposition schemes can be used to integrate probabilistic production costing models
traditionally used in thermal system analysis into a hydrothermal scheduling framework
• the economic signals resulting from WEM spot prices are incorrect when applied to hydro
plants in cascade; it is necessary to extend the spot market concept to trade both energyand water
• a hydrothermal bidding system is inherently inefficient compared with a centralized dispatch
7 References
1. F.C.Schweppe, M.C.Caramanis, R.D.Tabors, R.E.Bohn, Spot pricing of electricity,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1988
2. L.A.Terry, M.V.F.Pereira, T.A.Araripe Neto, L.F.Amaro da Silva, P.R.Sales,
Coordinating the energy generation of brazilian national hydrothermal electrical
generation system, Interfaces, jan/fev 1986
3. R.E.Davis, Stochastic dynamic programming for multi-reservoir hydro-optimization,Technical report 15, Syst.Contr., Palo Alto, Calif., 1972
4. N.V.Arvanitidis, J.Rosing, Composite representation of a multireservoir hydroelectric
power system, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1970
5. M.A.Hanscom, L.Lafond, L.Lasdon, G.Pronovost, Modelling and resolution of the
medium term energy generation planning problem for a large hydro-electric system,
Management Science, 1980
6. O.Egeland, J.Hegge, E.Kylling, J.Nes, The extended power pool model - Operation
planning of a multi-river and multi-reservoir hydro-dominated power production system -
A hierarchical approach, 1982 CIGRE Meeting, Paris, 1982
7/27/2019 1998 Long-Term Hydro Scheduling Based on Stochastic Models
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1998-long-term-hydro-scheduling-based-on-stochastic-models 22/22
7. V.R.Sherkat, R.Campo, K.Moslehi, E.O.Lo, Stochastic long-term hydrothermal
optimization for a multi-reservoir system, IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, 1985
8. M.V.F.Pereira, L.M.V.G.Pinto, Multi-stage stochastic optimization applied to energy
planning, Mathematical Programming, 1991
9. B.G.Gorenstin, N.M.Campodónico, J.P.Costa, M.V.F.Pereira, Stochastic optimization of a
hydrothermal system including network constraints, IEEE Trans.on PAS, Vol.7, No.2,
May 1992
10. E.G.Read and J.A.George, Dual Dynamic Programming for Linear Production/InventorySystems, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 19(11), pp.29-42, 1990
11. D.Travers and R.J.Kaye, Constructive Dynamic Programming , Report 97-07, University
of New South Wales, School of Electrical Engineering, June 1997
12. L.F.Escudero, J.F.de la Fuente, C.Garcia, F.J.Prieto, Hydropower generation management
under uncertainties via scenario analysis and parallel computation, Power Industry
Computer Applications PICA’95 Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1995
13. L.J.Pérez-Arriaga and C.Meseguer, Wholesale Marginal Prices in Competitive Generation
Markets, paper 96 SM 484-6, published in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
14. J.P.Stremel, A historical perspective on production costing models, EPRI Monographs on
Simulation of Electrical Power Production, 1991
15. J.P. Stremel, R.T.Jenkins, R.A.Babb, W.D.Bayless, Production costing using the cumulant method of representing the equivalent load curve, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 5 Sept/Oct 1980
16. P.Nordlund, D.Sjelvgren, M.V.F.Pereira, J.Bubenko, Generation expansion in systems
with a high share of hydro power , IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. PWRS-2,
No.1, 1987
17. H.Baleriaux, E.Jamoulle, F.Guertechin, Simulation de l'explotation d'un parc de machines
thermiques de production d'électricité couplé à des stations de pompage, Revue E, Vol. 5,
No. 7, pp. 225-245, 1967
18. N.Campodónico, Representação analítica de falhas dos equipamentos e variação da
demanda no despacho hidrotérmico multi-estágio, COPPE/UFRJ, DSc., Engenharia de
Sistemas e Computação, 1997 (in Portuguese)
19. M.Pereira and N.Campodónico, Stochastic Hydrothermal Scheduling in a Competitive
Environment , invited paper, Hydropower’97 Proceedings, pp 301-308, Trondheim,
Norway, July 1997
20. G.B.Dantzig, P.Wolfe, The decomposition algorithms for linear programming ,
Econometrica, 9, no. 4, 1961
21. M.Pereira, N.Campodónico, R.Kelman, Valoración Económica de Sistemas
Hidroeléctricos en Cascada, PSRI Technical Report, December 1997 (in Spanish)
22. R.Green and D.Newberry, Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market , Journal of
Industrial Economics, XLIV (2):205-216, 1992
23. R.Kelman and M.Pereira, Strategic Pricing In Hydrothermal Systems, Course I,Application of Economic Theory in Power System Analysis, VI Symposium of Specialists
in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning, Salvador, Brazil, May 1998
24. T.J.Scott and E.G.Read, Modelling Hydro Reservoir Operation in a Deregulated
Electricity Market , International Transactions in Operational Research 3(3-4):243-253,
1996
25. J.Bushnell, Water and Power: Hydroelectric Resources in the Era of Competition in the
Western US , UCEL Report TR-59, March 9, 1998