228
Optimal Pump Scheduling for Peak Load Management
S. Ashok and R. Banerjee
Abstract- In water pumping systems, there is
often a flexibility of scheduling the pumps. The
optimal schedule minimizes the peak electricity
demand and shifts the load to off peak period
based on the electricity tariff. The customer gets
the benefit of reduction in electricity cost. Peak
saving by shifting the load to off peak with time
of use (TOU) rates is the benefit to utility. This
paper presents a methodology for determining
the optimal schedule of pumps satisfying
pumping, storage and water consumption
constraints. The formulation is applied with the
objective of minimizing the total electricity cost
under different tariff structures. A case study
conducted for a typical campus shows 27 %
reduction in peak period coincident demand with
the optimal schedule under TOU tariff. Pump
schedule with optimal storage results in 14 %
saving in the electricity cost and 48 % reduction
in peak demand under TOU tariff. The
corresponding saving in peak coincident demand
for the utility is 53 %.
Index terms- Load management, Pumping, TOU
rates
1. INTRODUCTION
Water pumping is an energy intensive service. As
water needs grow and electricity cost increases,
water service related energy use and associated costs
become more difficult to afford. On an average 70%
of typical municipal electricity bill goes to water
Ashok S. (corresponding author, e-mail:ashoks@me.iitb.ac.in)
and Rangan Banerjee, (e-mail:rangan@me.iitb.ac.in, Fax:022-
5726875) are with Energy Systems Engineering, Indian Institute
of technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India.
pumping, about 10% of the total expenditure of a
typical Indian city [1]. Presently the pumping
schedules or storage capacity are not determined by
the electricity tariff.
Many state owned electricity boards (SEBs) in India
are facing peak demand deficit and energy shortage.
Scheduling of industrial or process loads has been
identified as a tool for peak load management [2,3].
Reports on potential of TOU tariff for load
management (LM) and corresponding load response
are also found in literature [4,5]. In order to induce
consumers to reschedule their loads from peak to
off- peak periods, many SEBs are introducing TOU
tariff for large consumers instead of flat tariff. Water
pumping load is significant and affords a cost
effective option for peak load management. Pumps
can be scheduled to take advantage of the off-peak
rates, minimising the electricity cost. This also
reduces the peak coincident demand resulting in
peak saving for the utility.
In the case of pumping with storage like municipal
water pumping, pumps can be operated at its best
efficiency point, matching with system
characteristics subject to storage limits and
consumption requirement. Then the control is only
on or off the pumps at an optimal schedule to
minimize the peak demand and hence the electricity
cost, satisfying the constraints. Flexibility in
selecting the pumps as per the load and efficiency
characteristics in a multi-pumping system will also
reduce the energy consumption.
Case studies of scheduling of water, oil and milk
pumping plants are reported [6,7]. The formulations
used in these case studies are restricted to the
Energy Automation
 229

specific configurations and hence cannot
extended to general applications. A general
formulation for pump scheduling incorporating
pumps and system characteristics is useful for both
the consumer and utility. As optimal pump schedule
directly relates to storage capacity limit, the model
can provide the optimal storage capacity for a given
system considering the cost parameters. This paper
presents a formulation to determine the optimal
scheduling of pumps satisfying the constraints,
under specified tariff structure to minimise the
be (3) Decision variable -The decision variable tmi
represents the operating time (in hours) of the pump
m with in an interval i such that
tmi = 0 the pump m is off in the interval
tmi =Di the pump m is on for the entire interval
0 < tmi < Di the pump m is on for a fraction of
the interval.
(4) Storage constraint - With M pumps inflows and
O distribution out flows for the storage tank, the net
inflow, Fi to the tank for the interval i is
M O

electricity cost. It also gives the optimal storage Fi = (Q mi * t mi ) ( q oi ) (5)

m =1 o =1
capacity. The model is illustrated with a case study. Total water available in the tank at the end of ih
interval,
11. FORMULATION
i

(1) Pump power, Pp is given in terms of S i = S 0 + Fi ( k 1) ( 6)

k =1
(specific gravity), Q (discharge) and H (differential where qoi is the outflow for consumption o in the
head) at the operating point, as interval i and S0 is the initial water level in the tank

Pp = ( * Q * g * H ) (1) at the start of the planning horizon.

Maximum storage capacity (Sm) constraint is then
Corresponding motor input power, Pm
modeled as
Pm = Pp /( e p * em ) ( 2)
Si S m (7)
where ep and em are the efficiencies of pump and
If the suction is from a sump tank or sump well,
motor respectively at the operating point. When Pm
incorporating a similar constraint can provide a
is in kW, electrical demand in kVA of the pump
minimum water level for safe pumping.
with power factor of operation pfm is
(5) Consumption constraint-The required
MDm = Pm / pf m (3)
consumption for the interval i must be met.
(2) Time intervals - As pumps can be operated under M O

best efficiency point matching with the system Qmi * tmi + Si1 qoi
m =1 o =1
(8)
characteristics at all times, the on-off control
(8) Availability of machines -During the
formulation is based on discrete time representation
maintenance interval, the pump is not available for
of the entire time horizon, H of interest (e.g. one day
operation. So the total availability of pump m in the
or one month). Taking equal time duration for all the
planning horizon is
intervals, with D as the time duration (in hours) of
N
the interval i and total number of intervals N, such t
i 1
mi Tm ( 9)
that
where Tm is the total time available in the planning
N

D
i =1
i =H ( 4) horizon for the pump m.

Energy Automation
 230

(9)Objective function- The objective is the Three pumps are installed with specifications
minimization of the total electricity cost, which (collected from the manufacturers characteristics)
consists of charges for energy consumed and charges as shown in Table 1. The water tank storage capacity
for the registered maximum demand (MD). Energy is 1000 kl. The availability of pumps is maximum 18
charge is either flat or TOU while the demand hours in a day. Static capacitors are installed in the
charge is not time varying, viz., constant irrespective control panel maintaining a power factor of 0.98.
of the time when the MD is registered in a month. Load management actions considered are (1)
Extending the daily schedule to a planning horizon optimal schedule of pumps with the existing storage
of one month, we have monthly energy cost (Eg), (2) optimal storage size with schedule of operation.
N M SEBs have various tariff structures for water
E g = ( Pmi * t mi ) * Ci (10)
pumping depending on customer class. The optimal
i =1 m =1
response has been studied under the MSEB
when Ci is the cost of energy (Rs./kWh) for the
(Maharashtra SEB) HT industrial flat tariff and the
interval i . The objective function is to minimize
recently introduced TOU tariff as given in Table 2.
monthly electricity cost (Ec ),
Table 1. Rated specifications of Pumps
E c = Min.[ E g + C d * MD ] (11)
where Cd is the MD charge (Rs./kVA) and MD is the
registered maximum demand of the pumping station.
The additional cost incurred for load management
actions (like capital cost due to increasing the
storage capacity) if any, is added to the above
Table. 2. Electricity tariff rates
objective function to minimize the total operating
cost. Monthly additional cost for LM action,
N
E L = C ai * I ai * Di (12)
i =1

Where Cai -the additional cost (Rs./hour -additional

operating cost or annualized cost of investment) of
LM actions for the interval i., and Iai - the selection IV. Results
variable 1, if the LM action corresponding to Cai Optimal schedule for the existing storage- Load

is taking place or 0 otherwise. curves of optimal schedule for the existing storage

Addition of MD charge or cost of LM actions makes are shown in Fig.2 for the flat and TOU tariff rates.

the formulation non linear. It is solved by conjugate Optimal responses of both flat and TOU tariff results

gradient method. in 196 kVA peak demand. Average demand during

III. Case study the utility peak period is reduced by 21 % (from 113

To illustrate the model a case study of water kVA to 90 kVA) under flat tariff and 42 % (from

pumping for a typical institute campus is done. Daily 113 kVA to 65 kVA) under TOU tariff as compared

water consumption of the campus is estimated as to load following strategy. Daily energy

10230 kl with hourly variation shown in Fig.1. consumption gets reduced by 4.2 and 3.5 % under

Energy Automation
 231
flat and TOU tariffs respectively from 1986 kWh.
The annual electricity cost with load following
strategy is 30.9 and 32.1 lakhs with flat and TOU
tariff rates. The saving in electricity cost with the
optimal schedule is 3.4 and 4.8 % respectively with
flat and TOU tariff rates.
(2) Optimal storage size with scheduling-
Scheduling is done with the optimal storage capacity
instead of the available storage. The additional cost
of the storage capacity is annualised (with 30 %
discount rate and 20 years of life) and added to the
objective function. The cost of the construction of
the concrete storage tank is estimated with a fixed
cost of Rs. 50,000 and a variable cost proportional to
the surface area at the rate of Rs. 4000/m3 for
concrete.
Flat tariff results in the optimal storage of 1338 kl
with an investment of Rs.9.34 lakhs while TOU
tariff results in 1770 kl with an investment of Rs.
12.2 lakhs. Under flat tariff, the trade off is between
the annualised storage cost and MD charge, while
under TOU tariff, trade off is between MD charge
and differential energy rates with annualised storage
cost. MD gets reduced to 102 kVA with a peak
coincident demand of 53 kVA under TOU tariff.
Reduction in peak coincident demand is 41 % with
the TOU tariff compared with that under flat tariff.
Table 3 gives the results of optimal storage and the
corresponding load curves are shown in Fig. 3.
Table 3. Optimal response with optimal storage
V. Conclusion
An optimization model is presented to determine the
optimal schedule for water pumping system for a
specified electricity tariff. A case study shows that
the optimal strategy under flat tariff reduces
electricity bill by 3.4 % and 4.8 % as compared to
load following strategy. The average demand during
the utility peak is reduced by 42 % with TOU tariff.
The model is also used to determine the optimal
storage size. With optimal storage, operating
strategy reduces the peak demand by 48 % and the
average demand during the utility peak by 53 % with
TOU tariff. Pump scheduling provides a cost
effective tool for LM.
VI. References
1. Report on Municipal Water Efficiency Program
by The Alliance to Save Energy, NW,
Washington DC, USA, Report No. 20036,1996
(www.asc.org).
2. S.I. Gustaffson, Load Management in Municipal
Electricity Systems, Int. Journal of Energy
Research, Vol.21 (9),1997, pp 787-791.
3. Zonghui Iou ,R.Kumar, J.Sottle and J.C.Yingling,
"An MILP formulation for Load side Demand
Control", EM&PS., Vol. 26, 1998, pp 935-949.
4. J.N.Sheen, C.S. Chen, J.K. Yang, Time of Use
pricing of Load Management program in Taiwan
Power Company, IEEE Trans. on PS, Vol. 9, (1)
Feb. 1994, pp 388-396.
5. R.Banerjee, Load management in the Indian
power sector using US experience, Energy,
Volume 23, (11), Nov. 1998, pp 961-972
6. Beckwith SF, K.P.Wong, A GA approach for
electric Pump scheduling in water supply
system, IEEE Int. Conference on Evolutionary
Computing, Perth, Nov. 1995, pp 21-26.
7. C.Basnet, L.R.Foulds, A Decision Aid for milk
tanker Pump Scheduling, Research project
report series-1996-(1), Dept. of Management
Systems, University of Waikato, NZ.
Energy Automation
 232

Fig. 1 Water consumption pattern

Fig. 2 Load curves of optimal schedules with existing storage

Fig. 3 Load curves of optimal schedules with optimal storage

Energy Automation