Proceedings of the 34th
Conference on Decision & Control
FM07 1:30
ADVANCED GENERATION CONTROL
WITH ECONOMIC DISPATCH
D. Brian Eidson Marija D. IliC
Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Abstract
A new approach for the Automatic Generation Control (AGC)
of electric power networks is introduced in this paper. This
approach also supports an Economic Dispatch feature which
operates at a slower time scale and interacts with the AGC
frequency stabilization function.
AGC is separated into two subtasks: frequency regulation
and tie-line flow control, and a hierarchy of controls are formu-
lated t o realize these two functions. The frequency regulation
level, called secondary control, is decentralized, and optimizes
with respect to both frequency offset and change in generator
governor controls. This innovation allows an administrative
area to readily choose the cost-performance mix it desires. The
tie-line flow control level, called tertiary control, is centralized,
and works on a slower time scale than secondary control. Ter-
tiary control compensates for inadvertent flows between areas
by momentarily offsetting generator frequencies. These fre-
quency offsets shift the phase angles found at tie-line terminals,
and eventually realize the desired line flows.
The role of Economic Dispatch (ED) is to reschedule the en-
tire system to minimize overall generation cost. The proposed
version of ED is centralized, and invoked at an even slower
rate than tertiary tie-line regulation. When applied, Economic
Dispatch sends signals directly to secondary controllers, and
establishes new interface flow settings for tertiary level tieline
control.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we introduce models and control tech-
niques for Automatic Generation Control (AGC) and
Economic Dispatch on electric power systems.
In what follows, we develop a discrete-time model
which tracks the succession of frequency steady-states
evolving from periodic governor set-point changes,
slow load disturbances, and slow movements in tie-
line flows. With this model, a decentralized frequency
control is proposed which allows a regional system
operator to choose a cost-performance mix most suit-
able to his needs. This frequency control function is
called secondary level control.
Next, to address the issue of inadvertent tie-line
flows between areas, an interconnected system model
relating tie-line flows to frequency set points is de-
0-7803-2685-7/95 $4.00 0 1995 IEEE
-
New Orleans, LA December 1995
veloped. Then, a slower-acting, centralized control
scheme is proposed to effect this tie-line regulation.
This control, called tertiary control, acts by sending
frequency (set-point) goals to every secondary con-
troller in the interconnected system.
In developing the control models, a recursion for
the evolution of generator power is also developed.
h e 1 cost curves are then associated with generator
power outputs, the result being an equation govern-
ing the evolution of AGC cost. Given this new cost
model, controls can be applied, and an Economic
Dispatch-type function realized.
This version of Economic Dispatch attempts to
minimize overall system fuel cost in meeting load de-
mand. Like the tie-line regulator of AGC, Economic
Dispatch is realized as a tertiary level control, which
sends governor frequency set points to all secondary
level machines participating in frequency regulation.
One difference, however, is that Economic Dispatch
is applied at a much slower rate than tie-line control,
so when invoked, it also sends a signal to the ter-
tiary level (tie-line) controller. This control updates
control flow set points used by the tie-line control op-
eration.
2 Model Development
We begin by developing a model relevant for sec-
ondary level frequency control. The model is
constructed by linking machine droop characteris-
tics (section 2.1)-which describe the steady-state
frequency-versus-power behavior of generators-with
network power flow constraints (section 2.2).
2.1 Droop Characteristic
Assume real/reactive power (frequency/voltage) de-
coupling. For Automatic Generation Control (AGC)
applications, this implies that governor actions only
induce changes in frequencylreal power; no changes
3450
in terminal voltage occur. This decoupling assump-
tion is commonly made in AGC studies 14,71.
Consider a single machine consisting of a governor,
turbine and generator. Under the decoupling assump-
tion, a simple state-space model for the linearized'
dynamics of this machine is
7
+I [: - 1
A,,,."
PG+ [i ] W a c ]
M , and D , are, respectively, the moment of inertia
of the generator and its damping coefficient. T, and
Tg are the time constants of the turbine and gover-
nor. The state variables are the generator frequency,
W G ; the turbine mechanical power, Pt,; and the gov-
ernor valve opening, a, which serves to regulate tur-
bine power. w z f [ k ] k, = 0,1, . . . is the (frequency) set
point value for the governor-a set point which can
be updated every kT, seconds. PG, the real (electri-
cal) power output of by the generator, appears here
to be an exogenous variable; however, it is is not an
independent input since it depends on constraints im-
posed by interconnections with other generators.
Assume from here forward that the machine dy-
namics of (1) are stable for the anticipated range of
PG. This is normally the case if the governor (primary
control) is designed properly, such that the system
matrix designated APT;has eigenvalues with negative
real parts.
Consider now the steady state to which the system
settles between updates for the governor set point.
Setting the derivatives in (1) to zero and solving for
WG yields
W G [ ~=
] (1 - ( ~ D ) w ; ~ [-k(]T p ~ [ k,]
where (T is the (steady-state) droop constant, which,
for the model in (1) is
To emphasize that the WG here is the steady state
response at t = kT,, note that WG in (2) is expressed
as w ~ [ k ] .
An equivalent definition for the
droop characteristic-a definition which allows facile
lNote that the linearization assumption is not restrictive.
Since the models developed within are causal, the our tech-
niques can be extended to to stepwise linearization-for the
case of 1-step finite-horizon control.
incorporation of a governor-turbine-generator model
different from the one chosen in (1)-is
(4)
For further use, stack the droop relations for a num-
ber of machines to form a vector of generator frequen-
cies:
* [ k ] = ( I - cD)g;f[k]- E&[k] , (5)
.(1)
where * [ I C ] , g z f [ k ] , and &[k] are vectors de-
scribing the frequencies, frequency set points, and
electrical power outputs of all the generators in a
subsystem; b = diag[ D' D2 D" 1, C =
diag[ o1 u2 ... ( T 1~, and I , an identity matrix of
dimension m.
These droop relations are coupled through &,
which in turn is governed by network interconnection
constraints.
2.2 Network Constraints
Consider now the connections between machines
within an area, or sub-network, of a large intercon-
nected system. Network constraints are typically
expressed using nodal equations which require the
-N
complex-valued power into the sub-network, S , to
be equal to the complex-valued power 3 = +j -
Q
injected into each node. In other words,
-N
where 5 = - PN + j Q N is the vector of net
complex power injections into all nodes, and ?ius
is the admittance matrix of the sub-network.
9 = [ Vlejsl, V2ej62, . . . ] is the vector of all nodal
-
voltage phasors, each with magnitude V , and phase
6; (collectively, with magnitude and phase 4).
(2) The real part of ( 6 ) can be further partitioned into
real power network constraints at the generator and
load terminals
(7)
where & represents injections into the network from
generator buses, EL represents power removals from
load buses, and .FGand EL represent tie-line flows of
power from adjacent systems into the network at the
generator and load buses, respectively.
Linearizing (7) under the decoupling assumption
(af"/ay = 0), one obtains
PG+& JGG JGL
345 1
where J;j = al’r fahj, i, j = G,L. Observe that, Another useful generator power model is one that
upon linearization, the variables appearing in (8) are relates generator output power to generator fre-
all incremental quantities: their values indicate off- quency. This model, derived by evaluating (12) at
sets from the nominal value at which the linearization two sample points and making the backward Euler
occurred. approximation of (14), is
J L L should be invertible under normal operating
conditions. Make the definitions
&[k + 13 = &[k] + KpT&G[k + 13
A
- + DPdPl .
-f[kI (20)
Dp = -JGLJ;i (9) This model will be manipulated to develop tertiary
A
K P = JGG+DPJLG (10) level control schemes for both tie-line flow manage-
A ment (section 4.1) and, when combined with the gen-
-
F = &+Dp& . (11) eration costing methods of section 2.5, Economic Dis-
Solving the partitioned expression (8) for & yields patch (section 6.3).

l&=Kp&+-F+DpPL . (12) 2.5 Generation (Fuel) Cost

2.3 Frequency Model AGC cost can be formulated using (19) and marginal
fuel cost. Typically, curves for the fuel cost of indi-
To derive a state-space description for frequency dy- vidual generators are available. These curves are, in
namics, the network constraints on & in (8) are first general, nonlinear, and due to the variability in the
substituted into the multi-machine droop character- price of &el, time-varying:
istic (5):
I?= h(PG,t) , (21)
@G[k] = (1- C D ) G f [ k ]-
where PG is a large signal generator power output-
( K P b [ k l - @I + DpP,[kl) 413) rather than the incremental quantity PGwith which
Then (13) is evaluated at two successive AGC sam- we have dealt previously-h(.) is a nonlinear function
+
pling instances, kTs and (k l)Ts, these results sub- which maps generation into a cost, and t is time.
In this paper we choose to model h(.) as time in-
tracted, and the approxiniation
variant, although our methods can easily be extended
WG[k + 1]Ts = &[k + 13 - &[k] (14) to account for slow temporal variability (e.g. season-
incorporated. Note the backward Euler approxima- ality) in the cost curves.
tion in (14), which is important because this leads to Typically, generator fuel cost curves are modeled
a (causal) model different from that found in [3]. as quadratic functions of P G : for a single generation
The subsystem frequency model which evolves from unit, this implies
these operations is t = a0 + alPG + a z P , , (22)
WG[k + +
11 = (1 CKPTS)-~{%[k]+ where the a0 parameter accounts for the nonzero cost
(I - ED) u [ k ]+ (f[k]- Dpdlk])} . (15) of maintaining spinning reserve.
Since the frequency control model is linearized, we
where linearize this cost curve about an operating point Pz.
The incremental model for the offset in generator cost
-u[k] &f[k+ 13 -&f[k] (16) from this operating point is
A
-f[k] = E[k + 11 - F[kl (17) C=mcPG , (23)
A
d[kI = P L [ k + 11 - P L [ k l . (18) where c is the incremental cost, and

2.4 Generator Power Models

A model which follows the evolution of generator out- is the marginal fuel cost.
put power, P G ,(in response to governor controls) can The incremental cost for all of the generators on the
be derived using a similar approach. The resulting system is found by stacking the equations governing
model is cost into vectors, c. The resulting expression is
-
P,[k + 11 = (I + KpCT,)-l{ P&]+ c=Mc& , (25)
KP (1- ED) ~ s L G f [ k 1- (@I - D,d[kI)}(lS) where M , is a diagonal matrix of marginal fuel costs.

3452
2.6 AGC non-participation the objective of the finite horizon control is to mini-
mize
Not all generators in an area need participate in fre-
quency regulation. Define a participation matrix, C J [ k ]= E { g T [ ki-
1]Qg[k + 11 + uT[k]Ru[k]}
(27)
as a matrix with dimension numpartgen x numgen
composed of Ones and zeros such that only partici- with respect to 14, subject to the model constraint
pating generators are selected. For example, the par-
ticipation matrix for a three-generator system where
the-second generator doesn't participate would be the E {.} in (27) represents the expected value operator,
2 x 3 matrix and

A f (I+CKpTs)-l (29)
Thus, the participating controls for such a model be- B e A(1-Cb) (30)
come g p = CZL;in the model of (15), 21 is replaced
with CTgP.
d,[k] 2 AX (f[4 .
- D,d[k]) (31)
Note that the frequency at non-participating gen- The weighting matrices Q and R in (27) are diago-
erator buses will still be directly regulated given this nal, with nonnegative entries. Their relative values
adjustment. If no direct stabilization is desired at trade off-for each participating generator-the im-
non-participating buses, the controlled states of (15) portance of frequency regulation versus the coupled
are reduced via appropriate multiplication by C and fuel cost and undesirability of changing a governor set
CT. point.
The optimal g [ k ] is of the form
~[
- k=] -K, (A%[k] - g g t [ K ] ) , (32)
3 Secondary Level Control:
Regulating Area Frequency where
K , = ( R +B ~ Q B ) - ' B T Q . (33)
The goal of secondary level control is to stabilize gen-
erator frequencies, %[k +
11, within a region so that 3.2 Infinite Horizon
they reach desired set values, g g t [ K ] despite
, the in-
For the infinite horizon case, 24k] is chosen so that
troduction of a slow load disturbance, &c], which is
the performance criterion
assumed to have zero mean. For this application, we
examine two types of control: finite (1-step) and infi-
nite horizon control. Finite horizon control facilitates J, = J[kI (34)
frequent parameter updating or relinearization, while k=O
infinite horizon control should offer better asymptotic is minimized. The control which minimizes J , is
performance if the model parameters are quite accu-
rate. The effects of plant uncertainty are not studied ~ [ k=] -Ks(gG[k]- &3'[K])+B-' ( I - A ) )@'[IT] ,
in this paper. (35)
In both approaches, the expected increment in tie where
line flows, f[k],is considered small, and is neglected +
K , = ( R BTSB)-lBTSA, (36)
in the computation of the controls. A decentralized and S is the solution to the familiar (see [5, 61) dis-
control which incorporates some flow dynamics is cur- crete algebraic Riccati equation
rently being developed, but will not appear here.
Non-interactive flow compensation like that found o =A As +Q - A ~ S B (+
~ S- RB T S B ) - ' B ~ S A .
in [3] cannot performed here since measurements for (37)
+ +
E[k 11 = f [ k ] E[k] are not available at the time
the control computed.
4 Tertiary Control: Regulat-
3.1 Finite Horizon ing Tie Line Flows
Given the assignment In the secondary level frequency control application,
arealsubsystem control is decentralized. As a con-
z[k
- + 11 = W G [ k + 11 - ,=t[K], (26) sequence, the dynamics of tie-line flows between the

3453
areas are not modeled. Each area uses its own sec-
ondary control to regulate frequency, and this action
changes the phase angles at its end of tielines. Since
the party at the other end of a tie-line is performing a
similar, uncoordinated action, tie-line flows can drift
from their scheduled values.
One responsibility of tertiary level control should
be to occasionally update the governor set points
grt [K] in each otherwise autonomous area such that
prescribed tie-line agreements are maintained. An-
other goal of tertiary control is to reschedule tie-
line flows in response to the expected load variations,
or new contracts between areas. At present, this
rescheduling task is not done in a systematic way; it
is, instead, carried out by agreement between several
areas at a time when needed.
Since tertiary level models are by necessity central-
ized, and thus quite large in scale, the time intervals,
Tt, between updates should be much longer than the
Tsfor secondary control. This presents no problem
however, because in practice, tie-line rescheduling is
done on a fairly slow time scale.
4.1 Centralized Model for Tertiary
Control
We now derive a model relevant for tie-line flow con-
trol. The goal is to find a relationship between gen-
erator frequency and tie-line flows for the entire in-
terconnected system.
Assume that the interconnected system consists of
R areas, enumerated 1, 2, . . . , R. Assemble a vec-
tor of the frequencies of all participating generators,
from every area, within the interconnected system;
call this vector fig'. Denote the associated vector of
generator power outputs PG.Take the new sampling
rate to be Tt, and index these longer time increments
with [K], rather than [IC].
Now treat this new global, interconnected system
as a very large subsystem, and apply (20)-which
describes the power dynamics of a subsystem. This
yields
Note that although the form of (38) may resemble
(20), some important differences do exist. Since this
is the entire interconnected system,
1. no external tie-line flows exist, so f[K]
0;
2. d[K] is a vector describing the increment in load
demand throughout the interconnected system;
3454
3. K p and Dp are interconnected system equiva-
lents of the secondary level Kp, and D p , , a =
1, 2, . .. , R (but, due to area interconnections,
neither can be be easily assembled from the Kp,
or DR).
An equivalent expression for interconnected system
dynamics can be obtained by stacking the state-space
equations for each area's secondary dynamics (15)one
atop the other:
PG[K + 11 = PG[K] + KgkTtQzt[[K 11 +
+ Dzkd[K].
-f[K] (39)
For this case, f[K]= F[K+ 11 - F[K]is a vector
concatenation of the increments in flow measurements
from all areas, and DFk and Kgk are block diagonal
matrices formed from the Db and Kj, associated with
each area.
Equating (38) and (39), and solving for F[K+ 11 =
f[K] + F[K]yields the tie-line flow model for which
tertiary level controls will be designed:
F[K+ 11 = F[K] + (Kgk - Kp) TtC?zt[K+ 11
+ (D!k - Dp) d[K] . (40)
4.2 Tertiary Level Control Design
The goal of tertiary control is to derive a frequency
set point vector OFt[K]-which is later broken up
and sent to the secondary level controllers in each
area-such that a desired (mapped)2 flow schedule,
. eventually realized, perhaps over several Tt
p e t is
sampling periods. Fset itself can be occasionally reset
to reschedule interface flow agreements between the
administrative areas, perhaps made by means of a
recent Economic Dispatch calculation.
The finite and infinite horizon proportional control
solutions for the feedback gain matrix Kt are struc-
turally identical to those found at the secondary level:
the only difference is that, for this control problem,
A ---+ I and B + (Kjtfk - Kp) Tt. Relative values
of the matrix weights, R and Q, determine the trade-
off of frequency deviation versus the rate at which
tie-line flows settle to their scheduled values.
The structure for the infinite horizon controller is
+
Ogt[K 11 = - K t (F,[K] - F s e t ) -
where E { d [ K ] }is the load deviation expected over
the tertiary sampling period. Notice the addition of
an noninteracting (anticipative) control term.
'We denote actual flows as FG and F L ; mapped flows are a
+
function of the actual flows: F = FG D r k F h .
 Another subtlety associated with tertiary control is
+
that F = FG DF'FL maps the actual tie line flows
FG and FL back to the generators. This means that
one cannot use our models to directly control FG and
FL. However, these flows can be indirectly controlled
(but not uniquely specified) via F. Most important,
though, is that the number of mapped flows to be
controlled should never exceed the total number of
tie lines. The control problem is overconstrained oth-
erwise. Therefore, multiplication by a participation
matrix C of ones and zeros must be used to reduce
the number of flow states to be controlled to the num-
ber of tie lines. The number of controls, though need
not be reduced.
5 Economic Dispatch: Mini-
mizing Cost
Denote another form of tertiary control, which again
sends frequency set point signals C4gt, down to sec-
ondary controllers, Economic Dispatch. Economic
Dispatch reschedules the generation within the en-
tire system to minimize total cost, while at the same
time attempting to minimize the frequency deviation
incurred on the system to realize this function. Con-
ventional (static) Economic Dispatch is performed at
a much slower rate than AGC, typically every 15 min-
utes in the United States.
5.1 Economic Dispatch Model
The cost model used for Economic Dispatch is simply
derived by evaluating (38) at a sampling rate of T e d ,
and multiplying both sides by the diagonal matrix
of marginal fuel costs, M,, of the generators in the
interconnected system. The derivation of M, is found
in section 2.5. The resulting model for c , the cost of
generation throughout the system, is
c [ +~11 = C[N] + M , X K ~ T , ~ C +~ 11~ ~ [ N
+M,Dpd[N] . (42)
Note that [NI is chosen as a time index. This distin-
guishes the slower rate at which Economic Dispatch
is invoked from the (relatively) faster rate associated
with the tie-line regulation function of AGC.
5.2 ED Control Design
Controls are similar to tie-line flow design, except the
cost set point is cfloor.This set point determines the
floor for the deviation in cost (from the linearization
3455
point); in essence it keeps the generation of any par-
ticipating unit from falling beyond a preset limit. For
the infinite horizon controller,
(43)
The weighting matrices Qed and Red used in calculat-
ing Ked allow a system operator to pick the speed of
cost reduction to the deviation in frequency necessary
to achieve that amount of reduction.
Since Economic Dispatch perturbs area interface
flows to minimize cost, a new tie-line set point, FE;,
must computed and sent to tertiary flow control, since
it is invoked much more often. The set point is com-
puted using (40), where one solves for FZL := F[K+
+
11 with F[K] := F;;: and C4gt[K 11 := C4Et[N 11. +
Unlike the tertiary level tie-line control, cost states
can be minimized throughout the system; none need
be ~ m i t t e d . This
~ is a desirable characteristic, be-
cause the power industry tends to dispatch all units
when attempting to minimize costs. As far as the
authors know, this formulation is the first which has
treated Economic Dispatch as a non-static optimiza-
tion process, and the first that has tied Economic
Dispatch to the frequency control function found in
power systems. Moreover, through participation ma-
trices, not all generators need participate in Economic
dispatch. This is an important feature, since not all
generator owners in a deregulated environment-for
example, Independent Power Producers-may want
to participate in a coordinated cost reduction scheme.
If the number of states to be stabilized is reduced
to less than the total number of generators, for exam-
ple, by using a state selection matrix, C, of dimension
numpartstates x numge,, then a noninteracting antic-
ipative control term may be added4 The controlled
state then becomes cp = C c p ,and the controls are
QE'[[K + 11 = -Ked ( c p [ K -
] cPfIoor)-
(CMcx:KpTed)-lMcDpf { d [ ~1 ] (44)
6 Simulation Study
The 3-generator, 5-bus system depicted in Figure 1
was used in our simulations. In this system, there
are two tie lines, one between generators #2 and #3,
and another between loads #4 and #5.
The generator parameters and initial operating
points for this system are found in Table 1. All intra-
area transmission lines had impedance 0.01 +jO.l pu;
3Performance tends to improve, however, if one of the di-
rectly regulated states is omitted.
4the interconnected system version of Kp has a rank-one
deficiency because phase angles must have a reference.
all tie lines were weaker, with impedance 0.1 jl + .-N. 4 /*
pu. Secondary control’s sampling time, T,, was 2 3
seconds; tertiary control, when invoked, acts every
20 ~ e c o n d s . ~

-.-...._...
..../._.... -
-,, 3
(1

- dash..senl,sol&gen2,dots=gen3

k!
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Tie-line flows into Area I:solid=gen lie, dots=loadlie

-
S OM
P

Figure 1: An interconnected 5-bus power system. Figure 2: Bus #4 0.2 pu step disturbance t = 30 sec:
Secondary (infinite horizon) control, Q = R = I .

Figure 3 (top) compares the frequency regulation

I Load Flow Data 1 performance at generator #2 (which is representa-
bus 1 #1 I #2 I #3 1 #4 I #5
tive) for finite and infinite horizon secondary control.
V I 1
I
I
I
1 1 1 I .9909 1 .9820
I I I
Note that infinite horizon approach offers a slightly
P I .424 I .9995 I .9992 I -1.200 I -1.199 quicker stabilization response. Figure 3 (bottom) de-
I Generator Parameters I
~

picts the case where no secondary control (only pri-

HzH
mary/mechanized control) is applied. Notice that
#1 5% a longer time scale is used to demonstrate that all
#2 5% generator frequencies approach the same equilibrium
#3 5% point, but this equilibrium is nonzero.

Table 1: Per-unit data for the 5-bus example.
6.1 Secondary (Frequency) Control
In Figure 2, we demonstrate the results of applying
secondary control (only) to a situation where a step
load increase of 0.2 pu occurs at load bus #4 (Area I)
30 seconds into the simulation. For this simulation,
Q = R = I , where I is the identity matrix. Plots of
frequency offset, generator power outputs, and devi-
ation in actual (not mapped) tie line flows into Area
I are found in this figure.
Note that at the outset of the load disturbance in
Area I, the frequency offset decreases in both areas,
but less in Area I1 due to high impedance of the tie
lines between the areas. Note that there are net flows
into Area 11, however.
51n actual practice, tertiary control would invoked on the
time scale of minutes; however, for illustrative purposes here,
we invoke it much faster.
6.2 Tertiary (Tie-Line) Control
We next demonstrate that tertiary control can be
used to drive the sum of inadvertent flows to zero.6
Figure 4 displays the result of invoking tertiary con-
trol on top of secondary control to regulate the
mapped flows for generators #2 and #3. As the top
(frequency) plot reveals, this is achieved by increas-
ing the frequencies (phase angles) in Area I, while
decreasing the frequencies (phase angles) in Area 11.
This intentional frequency offsetting is particularly
apparent in the 40-60 second interval.
6.3 Economic Dispatch
We will assume quadratic generator fuel cost curves
+ +
c = .5 PG P& for generators #1 and #2, and
+ +
c = 1 .5pG 2Pz for generator #3. These curves
6Note: for these simulations, we choose the rightmost term
of (35) to be zero although in this simulation, the set point fed
secondary control is non-zero. Including that term also drives
the sum of inadvertent flows to zero.

3456
 x lo4 Frequency offset 0 gen U2. inf and 1-step horizon 5 x 10.' Frequency deviation from 60 Hz
- 1 -

U
_J
-10; io 20 j, 40 io 60 o; eo 90 too

-8 ' -a
ec o 1 - --
26 28 30 32 34 38 38 d a h . ; ( a f l l 3 d i U = g ~ 2 W p n-~
Time (sec)
Y jn-' Frequencyoffset (all m s ) for no secondary control
B
\
-1c \ 4

i1-- 23 1

35 30 35 40
---4
(close to same)

45 50 55 60
ii -0.01 L
o io 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
BO 70 80 m
l
loo

Figure 3: Top: Frequency offset at gen #2 for infinite Figure 4: Same as Figure 1, with tertiary (Q = R =
and 1-step horizon secondary control. Bottom: Fre- I) and secondary Q = R = I . Both controls infinite
quency offsets at all generators, no secondary control horizon.
applied.

are linearized about the operating point for the sys-

tem, yielding marginal costs of 3.0, 1.8, and 4.5 $/pu
power.
We choose to directly minimize only two of the cost
states (associated with generators #2 and #3)-so
our results can be contrasted with those for tie-line
control. The cost deviation floor for all generators is
set at 0. A step disturbance at t = 30 sec is initiated
as was done in the previous sections, and like tie-
line control, Economic Dispatch is invoked every 20
seconds.
Figure 5 displays the frequency offsets, power out-
puts, and tie-line flow response resulting from an Eco-
nomic dispatch simulation. Observe that since gen-
erator #3 has the highest marginal cost, its power
output is eventually driven to its (linearization) floor
value. Also, as one would expect the net tie-line
flows into Area I do not sum to zero: since power
is (marginally) cheaper in Area I, power flows into
that area to compensate for losses.
Figure 6 compares the generation costs of using
various control strategies to respond to a load dis-
turbance. Remark that not only does use of no sec-
ondary control result in poor frequency regulation, it
also is more expensive. As one can see, combining
Economic dispatch with secondary control offers the
lowest system cost. Tertiary-level tie-line regulation
is cheaper than just secondary control only because
it minimizes tie line flows of power from the more
expensive generator in Area 11.
7 Conclusions
We have introduced models and optimal control tech-
niques for the tasks of Automatic Generation Control
(AGC) and Economic Dispatch on electric power net-
works. Unlike current implementations of AGC [l,21,
the our AGC design was composed of a hierarchy
of controls, which we called secondary and tertiary
control. Secondary control, which was decentralized,
demonstrated the capability to adjust the power gen-
erated within an administrative area so as to drive
frequency offsets to zero. Tertiary control, which was
centralized, returned the sum of interface power flows
with neighboring systems to their contract values.
Another, even slower-acting tertiary control
paradigm, called Economic Dispatch, was introduced
to reschedule generators so as to minimize overall sys-
tem fuel cost. The efficacy of this technique, along
with that of the AGC techniques, was demonstrated
via simulation.
Future work includes demonstrating the perfor-
mance advantages of this advanced generation con-
trol over conventional AGC, comparing this new, dy-
namic version of Economic Dispatch with static Eco-
nomic Dispatch approaches, and incorporating gen-
eration constraints into 1-step controls for the var i-
ous algorithms. Also, some efforts will be undertaken
to design controls more robust to errors in the plant
(system) models.

3457
 Frequency dewaton from M)Hz Sum of generation costs usmg dlfterem controls

D
U -5
p! sec only
U

20 40 60 80 100 120 ________---

05
----___
. ldevlatm
Generator real Dower outDuts . from lmearmtronf dot dash. Eco Disp
0.2, I
.-..
-n
a
L

g 0- genr;&jfi&ipa;Was=sen5........................... -
a

Tie-line flows into Area I: s o l i tie, &&=load tie

3 0.02
n
Y

%
B
n 0- .....................
B
E -0.02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 o OO 20 40 . 60 80 100 l 120

Figure 5: Economic Dispatch with (Q = R = I) and Figure 6: Total (systemwide) incremental cost asso-
secondary Q = R = I . Both controls infinite horizon. ciated with different controls.

8 Acknowledgements [5] H. Kwaakernaak and R. Sivan, Linear Optimal

Control Systems, Wiley: New York, 1972.
The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this
research from EPRI/PECO collaborative project [SI R. F. Stengel, Stochastic Optimal Control, Wiley:
RP3954-1 and DOE project grant DEF641-92ER- New York, 1986.
110447. Assef Zobian of MIT also deserves special
[7] J. Zaborszky and T. Chiang, “EconomicAreawise
thanks for supplying a load flow program and assist-
ing in its integration into our simulation software. Load F’requency Control,” Report No. SSM7402,
Parts I and 11, Dept. of Systems Science and
Mathematics, Washington University, St Louis,
References MO.

[l] J. Carpentier, “ ‘To be or not to be modern’ that

is the question for automatic generation control

(point of view of a utility engineer)”, International
Journal on Electric Power & Energy Systems, Vol.
7, No. 2, April, 1985.
[2] N. Cohn, “Research Opportunities in the Control
of Bulk Power and Energy Transfers on Intercon-
nected Systems”, EPRI EL-377-SR, Special Re-
port on Power System Planning and Operations:
Future Problems and Research Needs, February
1977.
[3] B. Eidson and M. IliL, “Advanced Generation
Control: Technical Enhancements, Costs, and
Responses to Market-driven Demand,” to be
presented at the American Power Conference,
Chicago, 11, April 1995.
[4] D. Ewart, “Automatic Generation Control: Per-
formance Under Normal Conditions”, Proc. of
the Systems Engineering for Power: Status and
Prospects, Henniker, NH, August 1975.

3458