Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System: A Literature Review

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Vol. 8, No. 3, June 2018, pp. 1357~1372
ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v8i3.pp1357-1372  1357
Journal homepage: http://iaescore.com/journals/index.php/IJECE
Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System:
A Literature Review
IdrissAbdou, Mohamed Tkiouat
Laboratory of Study and Research in Applied Mathematics (LERMA), Engineers’ Mohammadia School, EMI,
UMV Rabat, Morocco
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Jan 11, 2018
Revised Mar 13, 2018
Accepted Mar 27, 2018
Unit commitment (UC) is a popular problem in electric power system that
aims at minimizing the total cost of power generation in a specific period, by
defining an adequate scheduling of the generating units. The UC solution
must respect many operational constraints. In the past half century, there was
several researches treated the UC problem. Many works have proposed new
formulations to the UC problem, others have offered several methodologies
and techniques to solve the problem. This paper gives a literature review of
UC problem, its mathematical formulation, methods for solving it and
Different approaches developed for addressing renewable energy effects and
uncertainties.
Keyword:
Generation scheduling
Mixed integer linear
programming
Optimization methods
Stochastic programming
Uncertainty
Unit commitment
Copyright © 2018 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science.
All rights reserved.
Corresponding Author:
Idriss Abdou,
Laboratory of Study and Research in Applied Mathematics (LERMA),
Engineers Mohammadia School, EMI, UMV Rabat, Morocco.
Email: idriss.abdou92@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Unit commitment (UC) is among the most important and critical problems in the electrical power
industry. UC refers to the task of finding an optimal schedule and a production level for power system’s each
generating unit over a given time period, subject to a given load forecast and spinning reserve constraints [1],
[2]. The goal behind UC problem is to balance demand with production while optimizing resources and costs
[3]. In fact, the electricity markets are facing several challenges in different stages: generation, transmission
and distribution. The main problems in electrical power systems are UC, variation of consumer demand in
electricity, environment problems related to use of fossil fuels, intermittence of renewable sources and failure
of system components. In this paper, we focus on representing a literature review of UC problem.
The classifications of UC problem are different. With respect to security, UC is divided into three
categories: traditional UC, security-constrained UC (SCUC) and price-based unit commitment (PBUC) [4].
From the market operation’s perspective, UC can be classified by either scheduling in a vertically integrated
environment or in a deregulated environment. Compared to the treatment of future events, UC is separated
into deterministic and stochastic UC [5].
Recently, higher generation from renewable energy sources (RES) and more price responsive
demand participation have made the UC problem a hard challenge, mainly due to the unpredictability and the
high variability of RES. It became necessary to have an effective methodology that produces robust UC
decisions and secures the system reliability face of the increasing real-time uncertainty [6]. Otherwise, the
progress in renewable energy technology has been extraordinary in recent years. Various computer models
have been developed to facilitate the implementation of renewable power projects especially for the choice
and design of renewable energy sources. Among them, HOMER, RETScreen, and DER-CAM. For example,
HOMER (Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources) is a software of simulation and optimization

 ISSN: 2088-8708
Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 8, No. 3, June 2018 : 1357 – 1372
1358
intended for the study of multi-sources power generation facilities such as PV, wind energy, network, and
storage. It is mainly utilized for the simulation of connected or non-connected off grids [7]. Following the
described research trend, this paper aims to revisit UC problem formulations (deterministic and stochastic)
and to provide a global review of the researches and studies treating UC problem included the latest models
of UC proposed in the context of high penetration of renewable energy. Several methods and techniques to
get an optimal generation scheduling in both regulated and deregulated power markets have been proposed.
Within this framework, we provide a survey of optimization techniques used to solve the UC problem.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the evolution of UC problem over the past
years. Section 3 provides the classic mixed integer linear formulation of UC problem. In Section 4 we will
focus on the stochastic programming’s application in UC problem to deal with uncertainty in power system.
Section 5 provides a review of methods that have been proposed in the past few decades for UC problem
optimization. We end the paper with some concluding remarks in Section 6.
2. OVERVIEW OF THE UC PROBLEM
Unit commitment (UC) is a problem widely treated by the researchers since 1940s [8]. Given the
enormous volume of papers in this field, several review articles have been presented. Divers optimization
methods for solving UC problem are outlined. It also points out UC’s different considerations in both
regulated and deregulated environments. Lately, with an increased incorporation of RES and the
implementation of energy storage devices, power systems’ operation strategies have known significant
modifications [5]. Some articles such as [3] have given a review of recent approaches to UC problem in the
presence of intermittent RES. Figure 1 gives an overview of the evolution of the problem since its appearance
until now. In the same context, Table 1 (appendix) provides a detailed review of the history of UC problem
through time by representing the remarkable publications.
Figure 1. Summary of UC problem’s evolution through time
In general, UC is NP-hard optimization problem [9], where the System operator (SO) aims at
minimizing the total production cost over the scheduling horizon. In general, the total production cost
comprises fuel costs, which are related to operation of thermal units, start-up costs, and shutdown costs. As a
result, the UC problem has been traditionally solved in power systems to determine the best possible
commitment status, the start-up/shutdown sequences, and the power outputs for all available units, subject to
various constraints [10]. Usually, there are three types of generating units in electrical power systems:
thermal units (include nuclear units), hydro units, and RES units.
In this sense, the UC optimization problem has the following form [6]:
Total production costs = Fuel cost + Start-up cost + Shutdown cost+ Maintenance cost
To be minimized.
Other costs such as no-load served cost and investment cost can be adding to UC problem
formulation. This minimization depends on many constraints related to operation of generating units and
system power equilibrium (presented inSection 3)

Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708 
Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System: A Literature Review (IdrissAbdou)
1359
Table 1. UC Problem Development, from 1940 to 2017
Year Type of problem General idea References
1940s Formulation of UC
problem
Appearance of UC problem in electrical energy systems. [8]
1959 Solution to UC
problem
An algorithm called PL (priority list) scheme was proposed, in which generating units
status were decided according to their average production costs.
[11]
1962 Formulation of UC
problem
The first MIP formulation for UC problem was proposed by the authors, in which
three binary variables are used to represent the unit statuses (ON/OFF, start-up and
shutdown). The model is known as the 3-bin formulation.
[12]
1966 Solution to UC
problem
The UC problem has been solved by enumerating all possible combinations of the
generating units and then the combinations that produce the minimized cost are
chosen as the optimal solution.
[13]
1975 Solution to UC
problem
The authors utilized Priority listing method to handle UC problem. [14]
1977 Solution to UC
problem
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
Formulation of UC
problem
An application of Lagrangian relaxation to scheduling in power systems.
The first essay of applying Stochastic programming to solve UC problem with
uncertainties.
The production (fuel) cost in the objective function was modeled by a set of piecewise
blocks instead of quadratic representation.
[15]
[16]
[17]
1978
1980s
1982-
1983
1984
1985
Solution to UC
problem
Environment of UC
SCUC problem
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Mixed Integer Linear programming (MILP) was applied to formulate and solve the
UC problem for the first time.
The electrical energy systems around the world has known important transformations
in different scales, from generation of electricity until consuming it by customer.
SCUC formulations including additional constraints like emission, fuel, and
transmission Constraints have been developed.
Branch-and-Bound method is used for solving UC problem.
A new approach to scheduling of generation using Dynamic and Linear programming.
The Lambda iteration method and the gradient method are popularly used for
implementing the dispatch for systems comprising thermal units.
A hybrid method comprises Decomposition and Dynamic programming was proposed
for UC problem solution.
[18]
[19]
[5]
[20], [21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
1987
1988
1990s
1990
1991-
1992
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Environment of UC
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Dynamic programming was among the first optimization methods the solve UC
problem and has been used extensively ever since.
An Expert system-based consultant to assist the power system operators in the
planning of the operation of generating units has been proposed.
The electricity business is rapidly becoming market-driven. It has moved from a
vertically integrated environment to one that has been horizontally integrated into
which the generation, transmission, and distribution are separated.
Many works have chosen Lagrangian relaxation approach for solving UC problem.
Fuzzy system method is used to solve UC problem.
Expert system-based approach to short-term UC problem, which is destined to deal
with large generation schedules in real time.
New fuzzy dynamic method was presented for UC problem solution.
A solution of UC problem by Artificial neural networks is given.
A rigorous formulation was proposed to manage the ramp rate limits in UC problem.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[19]
[28]
[19]
[29]
[30]

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1360
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000s
2000
Formulation of UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
SCUC problem
Solution to UC
problem
Formulation of UC
problem
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
SCUC problem
Solution to UC
problem
SCUC with
uncertainties
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Formulation of UC
problem
A hydrothermal scheduling algorithm was proposed to deal with UC problem in short
horizon.
Proposition of rigorous method to deal with security constraints in UC problem. The
results show that this method provides better and faster solutions than if security
constraints are considered retroactively.
First UC solutions using Tabu search and Genetic algorithms.
Evolutionary programming approach to solve the UC problem.
The production cost is modeled as a piecewise-linear function to facilitate the
calculation of global operating cost.
A stochastic approach for UC problem that develops a model and a solution technique
for the problem of generating electric power when demands are not certain.
Application of the Particle swarm algorithm using binary variables is proposed to
solve UC problem.
An efficient algorithm based on Benders decomposition technique has been presented
to address transmission-constrained UC problem.
A Simulated annealing algorithm for UC problem was presented. New rules for
randomly generating feasible solutions are also proposed.
The authors presented SCUC program that optimizes the programmed generation and
price-sensitive load while satisfying generation, reserve requirements, transmission
constraints, and generator operating constraints.
Transmission security and voltage constraints are incorporated in UC problem
formulation for an optimal power flow. The problem is solved by applying Benders
decomposition technique.
The Interior point method was proposed to solve scheduling problems in power
system.
SCUC with uncertainties is widely being a subject of research by the authors.
The barriers to RES penetration in power system was discussed. Several works treat
the Integration of renewable energy in the power system and its impact.
The authors proposed an extension of The MILP formulation to model the self-
scheduling problem faced by a single generating unit in an electricity market.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[5]
[44]
[45]
2001-
2002
2003
2004
2005
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
Formulation of UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
SCUC problem
Formulation of UC
problem
A MILP formulation for the stair wise start-up cost was proposed.
Solving UC problem using Ant colony search algorithm.
A solution of UC problem is given by multi-agent modeling.
Hybrid particle swarm method was proposed to deal with UC problem.
Proposition of a detailed procedure to formulate the UC problem in MILP manners.
The results founded show that the proposed approach can generate a near optimal
solution of the UC problem.
A solution to PBUC problem is given by using multi-agent modeling.
Proposition of an efficient SCUC approach with alternative current constraints that
obtains the minimum operating cost while maintaining the security of power systems.
Formulation of the PBUC problem based on MIP method. The PBUC MIP solution
was compared with that of Lagrangian relaxation method.
The first 1-bin UC formulation was presented. The new formulation eliminates two
[46]
[47], [48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]

1361
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Formulation of UC
problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Solution to UC
problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
Solution to UC
problem
Formulation of UC
problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Uncertainty UC
Uncertainty UC
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Uncertainty UC
Formulation of UC
problem
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
Formulation of UC
problem
Stochastic
programming to
sets of binary variables from the 3-bin model.
Many works have studied the RES impact on future power system.
The authors compared an Advanced Priority Listing method with a MILP approach
for solving the UC problem.
New formulation of short-term electricity market compensation with stochastic
security, taking into account the undistributed and variable sources of wind
generation.
Application of stochastic methods in electricity markets to ensure reliable power
system operations.
A new hybrid meta-heuristic method has been proposed to deal with UC problem,
including Tabu search and Evolutionary particle swarm optimization.
A proposal for a new way to construct approximate MILP formulations for the
hydrothermal UC problem.
Two UC methods have been proposed to address the variability and irregularity of
wind energy. Many scenarios in the UC stochastic approach capture the uncertainty of
wind energy, while a predictive value of wind energy production was used in the
deterministic case.
The authors proposed a methodology for determining the required level of spinning
and non-spinning reserves in an electrical system with a strong penetration of wind
energy.
The comparison between stochastic and reserve methods was proposed and then, the
authors evaluated the advantages of a combined approach to the effective management
of disturbances in the UC problem.
Numerous stochastic programming models for optimal decision making under
uncertainty in power systems have been proposed.
The authors examined two modeling approaches for reducing the computational cost
of stochastic UC: relaxation of the integrity constraint of fast start-units and modeling
of generation failures as load increments.
Incorporation of PV and wind units in power systems has been studied and a risk-
constrained solution to this problem was given.
The hardness of wind power forecasting (WPF) in UC problem was discussed. In
deterministic approaches, a forecast value of wind generation is indicated. In contrary,
a number of scenarios captures WPF uncertainty in the stochastic UC.
Tight MILP formulation for the UC problem using 3 binary variables was proposed.
Representation of UC problem with uncertain generation from wind units is given.
The problem has been formulated as a chance-constrained two-stage stochastic
program.
Start-up and shutdown power trajectories of thermal generators was formulated using
MILP.
A tight and compact MILP formulation of deterministic UC problem was proposed.
The authors presented a complete quadratic programming formulation of the thermal
UC problem as well as a new iterative optimization algorithm for its solution.
A study of stochastic UC problem with uncertain demand response to increase the
reliability of UC process for ISOs.
Multi-agent modeling is used for simulating and solving profit based UC problem.
The authors provided a UC-based market clearing formulation, clearly distinguishing
between power and energy. The model was formulated as MIP problem.
The impacts of intermittent RES on the large-scale power system was quantified.
Moreover, a discussion on how to model RES effects on a low-carbon power system
was presented.
The researchers provided various methodologies and software tools developed for
optimal short-term scheduling considering the stochastic nature of the various system
[10]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1362
2014
2015-
2016
solve UC problem
Solution to UC
problem
Formulation of UC
problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Uncertainty UC
Stochastic
programming to
solve UC problem
SCUC with
uncertainties
and unit parameters, such as the system load, RES production, and unit availability.
The researchers addressed the problem of decision making in operation power systems
with a significant penetration of wind power.
Transmission-constrained UC formulation that ameliorates the performance of the
interval UC was proposed.
In the context of day-ahead and intra-day UC under wind uncertainty, a comparison
between two-stage and multi-stage stochastic models was suggested.
Many works review the state-of-the-art of solution methodologies for a deterministic
SCUC and extend the results to the solution of stochastic SCUC for effectively
managing uncertainties and enhancing the reliability of power system operations.
[75]
[76]
[6]
[2]
[77]
[78]
[27]
2017 Formulation of UC
problem
Integration of RES
in the power
system
Solution to UC
problem
Solution to UC
problem
A novel two-binary-variable (2bin) MIP formulation for the UC problem is proposed.
The energy-water nexus literature has shown that the electricity & water infrastructure
that allows the production, distribution, and consumption of these two valuable
products is complicated. The proposed paper builds upon this foundation with the
development of the corresponding UC problem.
The authors proposed a solution of UC problem based on Ant lion optimizer in the
cases of conventional UC and smart grid.
Grey wolf optimization algorithm is used to solve the wind generator integrated UC
problem.
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
3. UC PROBLEM FORMULATION
Mathematically, UC problem has been formulated as a non-convex, large-scale, non-linear, and MIP
combinatorial optimization problem with constraints [10], [51], [66]. The non-convexity is caused by the
binary nature of UC decision (ON/OFF). Non-linearity happens due to non-linear generation cost curves and
non-linear transmission constraints. The existence of a combination of the binary and non-linear variables
requires the problem to be formulated as a MIP problem [72]. The mathematical formulation for the problem
is analytically described in the following paragraphs.
3.1. Deterministic formulation of unit commitment problem
The deterministic formulation of the UC problems can be considered as a special case of the
respective stochastic formulation, where only a single scenario comprising the forecast values of the random
unit and system parameters is considered [6]. The MILP approach has been proposed since the 1970s as a
practicable and efficient alternative methodology for solving various optimization problems related to short-
term operation of electrical systems, in particular UC problem [8]. In fact, most researches in this field have
recognized that critical decisions associated with the operation of the power system can be effectively
represented by integer (binary in general) variables and, therefore, classical linear programming approaches
are not able to clearly model and solve such complicated problems. In MILP formulations, the commitment

1363
decisions indicating the ON/OFF status of the generating units in various operating phases (offline, start-up,
dispatch, and shutdown) are modeled using binary variables, while the power output, reserve contribution,
and flow decisions are represented using continuous variables [8].
3.1.1. Mixed integer linear programming formulation
The MILP formulation revisited in this paper is based on a single binary variable to describe the UC
status and the corresponding hourly transition of generating units. Alternatively, a three-binary-variable
formulation, considering UC status and start-up/shutdown indicators has been proposed in several works
[68], [71].
The MILP deterministic UC problem can be formulated as [19], [27]:
Minimize operational cost (OC)
OC = ∑ ∑ ( )
Where OC is the operating cost, N is the number of generating units, T is the time horizon, which is
24 h, and is a binary variable modeling UC decision of unit i at hour t.
( ) is the fuel cost, is the no-load cost of unit i, and are respectively the start-up and
shutdown costs of unit i at hour t.
( ) is the input/output curve that is modeled with a quadratic function of the power output [36], [71]:
( ) =
, and are the cost coefficients.
Practically this cost is modeled as a piecewise-linear function [36], [71]. A tight formulation for this
piecewise-linear approximation is given in [60].
is the cost for restarting a de-committed thermal unit, which is depended to the temperature of the boiler.
The number of the start-up and shutdown and their type (hot or cold) changes in function of the ON/OFF
status of the units [3]. It is expressed as follows [66], [83]:
Where and are respectively the hot and cold start-up cost of unit i. is the
minimum downtime of unit i. is the continuous offline period of unit i at hour t. is the cold start
hour of unit i.
The shutdown costs are usually neglected and have been taken to be equal to zero for all units [3], [72].
3.1.2. Unit commitment constraints
In minimizing OC, the UC problem solution must respect both generator physical constraints and
system operational constraints [27], [66]. These constraints can be one or more of the following types:
a. Generating limits constraints
Each generating unit has minimum and maximum limits. The power output cannot exceed these
limits [19], [51], [72]:
( ) ( )
Where ( ) and ( )are respectively the minimum and maximum real power output of unit i at
hour t.
b. Power balance constraint
The equilibrium between load demand and power output in each hour is given by [3], [66], [72]:
∑ ( )( ). ( )
Where is the total demand at hour t.
c. Minimum up /down time constraints
Minimum up-time is the minimum number of hours of operation at or above the minimum
generation capacity. It is expressed as follows [3], [66]:
𝐻𝑆𝑁𝑖 𝑖𝑓 𝑀𝐷𝑇𝑖 ≤ 𝑇𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑖(𝑡) ≤ 𝑀𝐷𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖
𝐶𝑆𝑁𝑖 𝑖𝑓 𝑇𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑖(𝑡) 𝑀𝐷𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1364
Where and are the total up-time and the minimum up-time of unit i.
Minimum downtime is the minimum number of hours once the generator is shutdown before it can
be brought online again to generate power [3], [66]:
Where and are the total downtime and the minimum downtime of unit i.
d. Ramp rate up/down constraints
The generator power output is not changing instantaneously. Its variation depends on ramp rate
limits. These constraints are formulated based as on the following conditions [3], [51], [72]:
≤
≤
Where and are the ramping up and ramping down of unit i.
e. Spinning reserves constraint
Spinning reserve is an indicator of the amount of power that is required to fulfill percentage of
forecasted peak demand or capable of making up the loss of the most important loaded unit in each time. The
formulation for spinning reserve can be expressed as [3], [51], [66]:
∑ ( ) ( ) , ≤ ≤
Where is the spinning reserve at hour t.
f. Must run and must out units
The must run units are a prescheduled unit which must be online, due to operating reliability or
economic purposes. The RES units are necessary run units for better economic system operation. Must out
units are the units unavailable for commitment because of forced outages or maintenance interventions [19].
g. Transmission constraints
Transmission constraints are to satisfy customer load demands and maintain transmission flows and
bus voltages within admissible limits [84]. Generally, linear DC (direct current) transmission constraints are
integrated in UC problem formulation for system security considerations [4].
h. Crew constraints
In a plant with many units, there may not be enough personnel to attend both the units if both are
starting up and/or shutting down simultaneously. Such constraints would be set by the times required to start-
up and to shutdown the unit [19].
3.2. Unit commitment in deregulated environment
Since 1980s, Power systems have moved from a vertically integrated structure to a deregulated one.
In an integrated environment, customers of generation companies (GENCOs) are already set and defined [5].
In the case of deregulated markets, components of electricity market such as generation companies
(GENCOs), transmission companies (TRANSCOs), and distribution companies (DISCOs), construct their
generation offers based on available signals, and consequently getting UC solution. Each offer consists of a
cost function and a set of parameters that define the operative constraints of generating units, which enables
to determine the system marginal cost for each period [84]. In deregulated environment, the objective
changes from cost minimization to profit maximization [19]. The studies in [85], [86] presented a new
formulation of the UC problem in a deregulated market.
3.3. Price-based unit commitment
In PBUC, satisfying hourly load is no longer a restriction and the objective is to maximize the profit
while security is now unrestrained from energy and considered as ancillary service. Thus, in the PBUC
approach, the signal that would determine a unit’s commitment status is the price of different services and
materials in electrical operations such as fuel purchase price, energy sale price, and ancillary service sale
price [54], [84]. The energy suppliers are responsible for the way they sell energy in order to supply load and
reserve markets [4]. The most distinct characteristic of PBUC is that all market information are expressed in
market price. PBUC problem formulations are given in [4], [54].

1365
4. STOCHASTIC PROGRAMMING’S APPLICATION IN UNIT COMMITMENT
Nowadays, the growing capacity for renewable generation such wind and solar units has strongly
augmented the levels of variability and uncertainty in the system, making the ideal UC model a large-scale,
non-convex, uncertain program [87]. The integration of RES into the power system despite its intermittent
nature is mainly justified by its economic and environmental benefits for the system. Sources of uncertainty
present in real operational environments are [87]: load demand, renewable generation, unit availability,
inflows for the hydro reservoirs, and energy prices. Generally, forecast errors mainly result from load
variations. However, the increased penetration of RES lead to supplemental generation forecast errors due to
its intermittence [5]. Stochastic programming offers modeling and solution techniques for such optimization
problems under uncertainty [46]. Actually, to achieve minimum OC subject to power balance constraints,
SOs first determine generating units ON/OFF statuses and production capacities based on forecast values and
technical constraints of each unit. Afterwards, a re-dispatch is carried out in real-time to adjust the difference
between the real demand and expected output. Therefore, UC is a multi-stage decision process like stochastic
programming (SP)’s solving procedure, which justifies the implementation of SP for solving UC problem
with uncertainties [5].
4.1. Two-stage stochastic programming formulation for unit commitment
The basic UC formulation (without considering security constraints) serves as the support for SP’s
implementation in UC problem. Two-stage SP is a commonly used approach to capturing uncertainty, and it
has the following form [5]:
Min + E [ ( )], s.t. Ax = b, x ≥ 0
Where
( ) = min {q y ( ), W y ( ) = h –T x , y( ) ≥ 0}
Here, x and y( ) denote the first-stage and second-stage decision variables respectively. Mainly,
variables x represent the decisions that must be taken before the uncertainty is solved, and the function
( )represent the decisions that can be taken after the uncertainty is solved. The in the second-stage is a
random vector and E [ ( )] is used to return the cost related to this random vector’s consequences to the
objective function.
4.2. Security constrained unit commitment
The fundamental concept in the reliable and economic operation of electric power systems is SCUC.
SCUC refers to the economic scheduling of generating units to meet the hourly load demand while satisfying
temporal and operational limits of generation and transmission equipment in contingency power systems [27].
In a vertically integrated environment, SOs apply SCUC for minimizing the OC while meeting the system
load by starting up/shutting down generating units. In restructured power markets, SCUC is utilized by ISOs
to lighten real time and day-ahead markets, with the objective of maximizing the social welfare based on
offers and bids submitted by market participants. The SCUC models and solution methodologies is an
important key decision-making component in power system operations, particularly for large systems.
Mathematically, the SCUC problem is a large-scale MIP problem with many binary, continuous and discrete
control variables, and a series of constraints [4]. SCUC approach with AC constraints is proposed in [53]. In
[45], a SCUC model for open market, which optimizes the operation scheduling and price-sensitive load is
presented. The proposed model satisfy generation, reserve requirements, transmission and operating
constraints. Detailed formulation of deterministic SCUC problem is proposed in [27].
4.3. Security constrained unit commitment with uncertainties
There are at least three solution techniques that have been proposed for managing uncertainties in
SCUC, including stochastic programming (SP), robust optimization (RO), and chance-constrained
optimization (CCO). Each technique has different practical and computational requirements for representing
and limiting the uncertainties in power system [87]. SCUC problem with uncertainties is a large-scale, non-
convex, NP-hard problem with difficult solution [27]. Therefore, in the three models, the original large-scale
MIP problem is usually decomposed to a master problem and many subproblems by Benders decomposition
technique [61]. The next paragraphs briefly discuss the three methodologies proposed in literature.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1366
4.3.1. Stochastic programming
SP is a renowned optimization technique to solve SCUC problem with uncertainties. In the SP
approach, power system uncertainties are represented by a set of scenarios for the possible realization of
different uncertainties [6].SP technique is based on scenario tree in which uncertainty is supposed to be
known in its each node since furthermore uncertainty is now discretized on the tree, essentially the quantity
for solving a deterministic large-scale UC problem [87].Usually, the scenario-based approach generates
scenarios via assumed probability distribution functions for simulating uncertainties and each scenario is
attributed a certain probability for its realization. In SP, many scenarios are needed for reaching an acceptable
solution, which rises the size of the model, extends the computation burden, and limits the application to
large size power systems. Thus, the scenario reduction techniques are usually adopted to reduce the scale of
the stochastic model and the required computation effort, which enables to keep close scenarios by measuring
the probabilistic distance between scenarios and eliminates scenarios with very low probabilities [27].
4.3.2. Robust optimization
RO is an alternative technique for dealing with uncertainties in the SCUC problem. RO uses the
notion of uncertainty set be less demanding on the representation of uncertainty, which assembles the adverse
events against which we wish to protect ourselves. This uncertainty set considers a limited level of
information on uncertain quantities, namely the mean value and some estimate of the variance or a range of
possible variations around the mean [27].Consequently, the RO model seeks an optimal commitment and
dispatch solution of the generating units for preventing the solution against the worst economic condition (the
highest minimum dispatch cost), which would protect the power system against each event in the specified
uncertainty set regardless of its probability [87].
4.3.3. Chance-constrained optimization
CCO is another applicable approach for handling uncertainties in the hourly SCUC problem, in
which temporal constraints can be violated with a predefined level of probability. CCO appears as a good
alternative to select the tradeoff between cost and robustness based on the probability that the selected
solution is the feasible one which is easy for SO to understand and manage [87]. CCO matches the nature of
the SCUC operation that one may not actually be able to guarantee that transmission security constraints
(such as system load balance or transmission capacity) will never be violated. Rather, one should provide
SCUC solutions that are reasonably feasible by offering limited load shedding, under all except the most
unlikely scenarios [27].
4.3.4. Comparison of solution approaches
The three SCUC formulations with uncertainties may represent different performances, including
solution robustness in the face of uncertainties, the cost of generation schedules, and the computational cost.
The proposed techniques may be effectively combined for enhancing the quality of the SCUC solution and
augmenting the computational performance of the proposed heuristics [27]. In this context, work in [69]
presented UC problem with uncertain wind generation. The proposed model includes both the two-stage
stochastic program and the chance-constrained stochastic program techniques, which has allowed getting a
good quality solution. Table 2 provides a comparison between the three solution techniques presented in this
section.
Table 2. Comparison between SolutionAapproaches for dealing with Uncertainties Inspired from [27]
Solution
technique
Uncertainty representation Features Limits
SP Set of scenarios for the possible
realization of various
uncertainties.
1. Uncertainty is supposed to be known in
each node of the tree.
2. It could consider the anticipated
reactions of SO in real time through the
second-stage scenario-dependent
formulation.
1. The quality of solutions could
critically depend on the choice of the
scenario set.
2. Achieving an accurate probability
distribution can be complicated.
3. The solutions offer only probabilistic
guarantees.
RO Relegation of explicit knowledge
on probability distributions and
scenario samplings by using a
deterministic uncertainty set.
1. It does not require an explicit
knowledge of probability distributions.
2. The approach would protect the system
against every possible realization of
uncertainties contained in the chosen set.
1. Uncertainty intervals should be
carefully selected and the budget level
would need to be neatly tuned.

1367
Solution
technique
Uncertainty representation Features Limits
CCO Sampling scenarios to approach
the real distribution of random
variables or converting to a
sequence of deterministic
equivalents.
1. The solution is independent of the
choice of scenarios.
2. More robust solutions than those of the
SP-based SCUC.
1. It requires an explicit knowledge of
the probability distribution of
uncertainties.
2. CCO-based SCUC models are usually
more difficult to solve than the SP-based
SCUC models.
5. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FROM CLASSICAL TO HYBRID METAHEURISTIC
Various approaches for solving UC problem have been proposed, where they extended from simple
to hybrid metaheuristic methods [72]. The UC problem is among the tough problems in electricity market [2].
Several mathematical techniques have been proposed for solving this time-dependent problem. A popular
method for UC problem solution in the past has been Lagrangian relaxation [54], [68]. In [87], the UC
methodologies have been classified in four categories: dynamic programming, MILP approaches,
decomposition approaches and metaheuristics approaches. The study in [4] differenced the optimization
techniques in deterministic techniques and metaheuristics techniques. In recent years, meta-heuristics
approaches have been widely used for UC problem solution because of their capability to handle large-scale
problems. Generally, the hybrid methods such as Memetic algorithms and Hybrid ant colony optimization
have better quality solutions. It has been mentioned that the combined use of the Lagrangian relaxation and
Memetic algorithms provides the best result for the UC problem [4]. The choice of convenable method
depends on the types of units present in power plant and their technical constraints. A comprehensive review
of different methods used in the UC problem-solving technique is presented in Table 3. Otherwise, recently
multi-agent systems (MAS) are presented as a powerful tool to simulate and solve different problems in
electrical energy systems such as UC problem. MAS are a grouping of entities (or agents) that interact with
each other to get a collective goal. MAS give a simple and real representation of complex problems by
representing components of the system and their interactions on physical and software agents. In this context,
works in [49], [52], [74] presented applications of MAS to solve UC problem.
Table 3. Comparison of Optimization Techniques for Solving UC Problem
Method Advantages Weakness References
Priority
List
Simplest and fastest method to solve UC problem. The solution is far from the optimal.
Weak final solution.
[88]
Dynamic
Programmi
ng
Ability to manage sub-problems in decomposition
programs and maintain the solution feasibility.
It requires limiting the commitments considered
at any time.
It suffers from imprecation of dimensionality.
[89]
Lagrangian
Relaxation
It is able to process with ramp rate, fuel and emission
constraints only by relaxing them.
It can be employed to further decompose
subproblems.
It suffers from existence of duality gap.
It finds a problem to solve the original problem
of non-convex programs.
[90]
Benders
Decomposit
ion
It allows separating the problem into independent
easy ones.
It decomposes the global problem into a master
problem and many subproblems.
Low speed of convergence. [39]
Interior
Point
Optimizatio
n
It converges rapidly towards the optimal solution.
It deals nicely with parameter setting.
Slow speed while searching the optimal solution. [43]
Stochastic
Programmi
ng
The optimal decision secures the minimum OC in a
predicted value.
The computational costs increase significantly
with respect to a deterministic formulation.
[91]
Quadratic
Programmi
ng
It solves UC problem and economic load dispatch
together.
It requires a long time to find the solution.
It finds difficulties to solve large-scale system.
[92]

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1368
Mixed
Integer
Linear
Programmi
ng
Powerful modeling tool.
Ability to reach a globally optimal solution.
It takes a long time compared to fast methods
like heuristics.
Poor efficiency in treating large-scale problems.
[93]
branch-and-
bound
It finds an optimal solution if the problem is of
limited size.
The execution time grows exponentially for
large systems.
[94]
Non-linear
Programmi
ng
Accurate modelization of power generation
characteristics.
It enhances the problem dimension and
complexity.
[95]
Artificial
Neural
Network
Capable of dealing with the stochastic variation of the
scheduled operation point with increasing data.
Flexibility with noisy data.
The computation time augments exponentially
with large size problems.
[96]
Simulated
Annealing
It can be readily coded, even for NP-hard problems
such as UC.
Starting with any initial solution, the algorithm will
attempt to get an improved solution.
Its takes long time to find a near optimal
solution.
The method cannot tell that an optimal solution
is found.
[97]
Genetic
Algorithm
It solves the problem with multiple solutions.
The structural genetic algorithm has the ability to
solve the solution structure and solution parameter
problems simultaneously.
No guarantee that a genetic algorithm will find a
global optimal solution.
High execution time.
[98]
Evolutionar
y
Programmi
ng
They are robust with respect to noise evaluation
functions.
It can handle higher dimensional problems.
Generally, it does not give the global extremum. [99]
Tabu
Search
It is one of general optimization methods, the cost
function has no limitations.
Its adaptive memory allows creating a more flexible
search behavior.
It can be blocked in a local optimum, without a
possibility of exploring other regions of the
solution space.
[100]
Ant Colony Rapid discovery towards good solutions.
Capable of handling large-scale problems like UC
problem.
Theoretical analysis is difficult.
Probability distribution changes by iteration.
[101]
Particle
Swarm
Optimizatio
n
Robust to solve problems featuring non-linearity and
non-differentiability.
Fast convergence speed.
It does not need a lot of parameter to tune.
An easy search in complex problems with large set of
variables.
Slow convergence in local search. [102]
Fire Fly Easy to understand and code.
It is a suitable method for environmental and
economic dispatch problem.
Slow convergence speed. [103]
Fuzzy
Logic
It gives a qualitative description of the behavior of a
system, and its characteristics.
Capability to handle any type of unit characteristics
data.
It cannot handle large-scale system.
It suffers from complexity.
[104]
Expert
Systems
The knowledge base can be updated and extended.
They can contain a large amount of information.
They reduce the time taken to solve the problem.
It finds a problem if the new generating schedule
is different from the system schedules.
They cannot creatively come with new solutions
for the issues.
[105]
Hybrid
Meta-
Heuristic
It is capable to escaping from a local solution.
Capable of handling indifferentiable cost functions
and constraints.
Its main negative point is fine-tuning. [106]

1369
High speed and accurate solution.
Ameliorating the computational efficiency and
accuracy of the model.
6. CONCLUSION
This paper provides a comprehensive review of UC problem, based on articles and works published
since 1959until now. The historical events, UC problem formulations, and techniques for solving it are all
reviewed. Many review articles have been presented in the previous years, most of them have given a review
of optimization techniques for solving UC problem but no paper has provided a global stat of the art of the
problem with its different aspects. To this end, Table 1 provides the remarkable researches and studies in the
field of UC problem through the years. In addition, Table 3 summarizes the optimization techniques for
solving the problem in the deterministic case and under uncertainty. The researchers are always interested in
working in this field, particularly with the massive incorporation of renewable energy into the power system.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Bhardwaj, et al., ―Unit commitment in electrical power system-a literature review,‖ Power Engineering and
Optimization Conference (PEDCO) Melaka, Malaysia, 2012 Ieee International, pp. 275-280, 2012.
[2] M. S. Pinto, et al., ―Risk and unit commitment decisions in scenarios of wind power uncertainty,‖ Renewable
Energy, vol. 97, pp. 550-558.
[3] S. Y. Abujarad, et al., ―Recent approaches of unit commitment in the presence of intermittent renewable energy
resources: A review,‖ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 70, pp. 215-223, 2017.
[4] H. Y. Yamin, ―Review on methods of generation scheduling in electric power systems,‖ Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 227-248, 2004.
[5] H. Dai, et al., ―A literature review of stochastic programming and unit commitment,‖ Journal of Power and Energy
Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 206, 2015.
[6] J. P. Catalão, ―Smart and sustainable power systems: operations, planning, and economics of insular electricity
grids,‖ CRC Press, 2015.
[7] P. S. Georgilakis, ―Technical challenges associated with the integration of wind power into power systems,‖
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol/issue: 12(3), pp. 852-863, 2008.
[8] C. A. Li, et al., ―A new unit commitment method,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 113-119, 1997.
[9] C. L. Tseng, ―On power system generation unit commitment problems,‖ University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
[10] M. Carrión and J. M. Arroyo, ―A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit
commitment problem,‖ IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1371-1378, 2006.
[11] C. J. Baldwin, et al., ―A study of the economic shutdown of generating units in daily dispatch,‖ Transactions of the
American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part III: Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 1272-1282,
1959.
[12] L. L. Garver, ―Power generation scheduling by integer programming-development of theory,‖ Transactions of the
American Institute of Electrical Engineers. Part III: Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 730-734,
1962.
[13] K. Hara, et al., ―A method for planning economic unit commitment and maintenance of thermal power systems,‖
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 5, pp. 427-436, 1966.
[14] R. M. Burns and C. A. Gibson, ―Optimization of priority lists for a unit commitment program,‖ in IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 345 E 47th St, New York, Ny 10017-2394: IEEE-Inst Electrical
Electronics Engineers Inc., vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1917- 1917, 1975.
[15] J. A. Muckstadt and S. A. Koenig, ―An application of Lagrangian relaxation to scheduling in power-generation
systems,‖ Operations research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 387-403, 1977.
[16] R. Wiebking, ―Stochastische Modelle zur optimalen Lastverteilung in einem Kraftwerksverbund,‖ Mathematical
Methods of Operations Research, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. B197-B217, 1977.
[17] S. Bradley, et al., ―Applied mathematical programming,‖ 1977.
[18] T. S. Dillon, et al., ―Integer programming approach to the problem of optimal unit commitment with probabilistic
reserve determination,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 6, pp. 2154-2166, 1978.
[19] N. P. Padhy, ―Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey,‖ IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 19, no. 2,
pp. 1196-1205, 2004.
[20] G. S. Lauer, et al., ―Solution of large-scale optimal unit commitment problems,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. 1, pp. 79-86, 1982.
[21] A. I. Cohen and M. Yoshimura, ―A branch-and-bound algorithm for unit commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 2, pp. 444-451, 1983.
[22] H. P. V. Meeteren, ―Scheduling of generation and allocation of fuel, using dynamic and linear programming,‖ IEEE
transactions on power apparatus and systems, vol. 7, pp. 1562-1568, 1984.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1370
[23] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, ―Power generation, control, and operation,‖ 1984.
[24] P. P. J. V. den Bosch and G. Honderd, ―A solution of the unit commitment problem via decomposition and
dynamic programming,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 7, pp. 1684-1690, 1985.
[25] W. L. Snyder, et al., ―Dynamic programming approach to unit commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 339-348, 1987.
[26] S. Mokhtari, et al., ―A unit commitment expert system (power system control),‖ IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 272-277, 1988.
[27] L. Wu and M. Shahidehpour, ―Security‐Constrained Unit Commitment with Uncertainties,‖ Power Grid Operation
in a Market Environment: Economic Efficiency and Risk Mitigation, pp. 115-168, 2016.
[28] S. K. Tong and S. M. Shahidehpour, ―Hydrothermal unit commitment with probabilistic constraints using
segmentation method,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 276-282, 1990.
[29] C. C. Su and Y. Y. Hsu, ―Fuzzy dynamic programming: an application to unit commitment,‖ IEEE transactions on
power systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1231-1237, 1991.
[30] H. Sasaki, et al., ―A solution method of unit commitment by artificial neural networks,‖ IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 974-981, 1992.
[31] C. Wang and S. M. Shahidehpour, ―Ramp-rate limits in unit commitment and economic dispatch incorporating
rotor fatigue effect,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1539-1545, 1994.
[32] K. P. Wong and Y. W. Wong, ―Short-term hydrothermal scheduling part. I. Simulated annealing approach,‖ IEE
Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 497-501, 1994.
[33] J. J. Shaw, ―A direct method for security-constrained unit commitment,‖ IEEE transactions on power systems,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1329-1342, 1995.
[34] H. Mori and T. Usami, ―Unit commitment using tabu search with restricted neighborhood,‖ in Intelligent Systems
Applications to Power Systems, 1996, Proceedings, ISAP'96, International Conference on, pp. 422-427, 1996.
[35] S. A. Kazarlis, et al., ―A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem,‖ IEEE transactions on power
systems, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 1996.
[36] A. J. Wood and B. Wollenberg, ―Power generation operation and control—2nd edition,‖ in Fuel and Energy
Abstracts, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 195, 1996.
[37] S. Takriti, et al., ―A stochastic model for the unit commitment problem,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1497-1508, 1996.
[38] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, “A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm,” in Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 1997. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, 1997 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 5,
pp. 4104-4108, 1997.
[39] H. Ma and S. M. Shahidehpour, ―Transmission-constrained unit commitment based on Benders decomposition,‖
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 287-294, 1998.
[40] A. H. Mantawy, et al., ―A simulated annealing algorithm for unit commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 197-204, 1998.
[41] A. I. Cohen, et al., ―Security constrained unit commitment for open markets,‖ in Power Industry Computer
Applications, 1999, PICA'99, Proceedings of the 21st 1999 IEEE International Conference, pp. 39-44, 1999.
[42] H. Ma and S. M. Shahidehpour, ―Unit commitment with transmission security and voltage constraints,‖ IEEE
transactions on power systems, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 757-764, 1999.
[43] M. Madrigal and V. H. Quintana, ―An interior-point/cutting-plane method to solve unit commitment problems,‖ in
Power Industry Computer Applications, 1999, PICA'99, Proceedings of the 21st 1999 IEEE International
Conference, pp. 203-209, 1999.
[44] J. P. Painuly, ―Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis,‖ Renewable energy, vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 73-89, 2001.
[45] J. M. Arroyo and A. J. Conejo, ―Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market,‖ IEEE
Transactions on power systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1098-1104, 2000.
[46] M. P. Nowak and W. Römisch, ―Stochastic Lagrangian relaxation applied to power scheduling in a hydro-thermal
system under uncertainty,‖ Annals of Operations Research, vol. 100, no. 1-4, pp. 251-272, 2000.
[47] S. J. Huang, ―Enhancement of hydroelectric generation scheduling using ant colony system based optimization
approaches,‖ IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 296-301, 2001.
[48] N. S. Sisworahardjo and A. A. El-Keib, ―Unit commitment using the ant colony search algorithm,‖ in Power
Engineering 2002 Large Engineering Systems Conference on, LESCOPE 02, pp. 2-6, 2002.
[49] T. Nagata, et al., ―A multi-agent approach to unit commitment problems,‖ in Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 64-69, 2002.
[50] T. O. Ting, et al., ―Solving unit commitment problem using hybrid particle swarm optimization,‖ Journal of
heuristics, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 507-520, 2003.
[51] G. W. Chang, et al., ―A practical mixed integer linear programming based approach for unit commitment,‖ in
Power Engineering Society General Meeting, IEEE, pp. 221-225, 2004.
[52] J. Yu, et al., “Solution of the profit-based unit commitment problem by using multi-agent system,” in Intelligent
Control and Automation, WCICA 2004. Fifth World Congress on, vol. 6, pp. 5079-5083, 2004.
[53] Y. Fu, et al., ―Security-constrained unit commitment with AC constraints,‖ IEEE transactions on power systems,
vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1538-1550, 2005.
[54] T. Li and M. Shahidehpour, ―Price-based unit commitment: A case of Lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer
programming,‖ IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2015-2025, 2005.

1371
[55] J. C. Smith, et al., ―Utility wind integration and operating impact state of the art,‖ IEEE transactions on power
systems, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 900-908, 2007.
[56] E. Delarue and W. D'haeseleer, ―Advanced priority listing versus mixed integer programming in solving the unit
commitment problem,‖ 2007.
[57] F. Bouffard and F. D. Galiana, ―Stochastic security for operations planning with significant wind power
generation,‖ in Power and Energy Society General Meeting-Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the
21st Century, pp. 1-11, 2008.
[58] P. A. Ruiz, et al., ―Applying stochastic programming to the unit commitment problem,‖ in Probabilistic Methods
Applied to Power Systems, 2008. PMAPS'08. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on, pp. 1-6, 2008.
[59] H. Mori and K. Ohkawa, ―Application of hybrid meta-heuristic method to unit commitment in power systems,‖ in
Electric Power Conference, 2008, EPEC 2008, IEEE Canada, pp. 1-5, 2008.
[60] A. Frangioni, et al., ―Tighter approximated MILP formulations for unit commitment problems,‖ IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 105-113, 2009.
[61] J. Wang, et al., ―Impact of wind power forecasting on unit commitment and dispatch,‖ in Proc. 8th Int. Workshop
Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems, pp. 1-8, 2009.
[62] J. M. Morales, et al., ―Economic valuation of reserves in power systems with high penetration of wind power,‖
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 900-910, 2009.
[63] P. A. Ruiz, et al., ―Uncertainty management in the unit commitment problem,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 642-651, 2009.
[64] Antonio J., ―Conejo Miguel Carrión Decision Making Under Uncertainty in Electricity Markets International Series
in Operations Research & Management Science,‖ 2010.
[65] P. A. Ruiz, et al., ―Modeling approaches for computational cost reduction in stochastic unit commitment
formulations,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 588-589, 2010.
[66] S. Abedi, et al., ―Risk-constrained unit commitment of power system incorporating PV and wind farms,‖ ISRN
Renewable Energy, 2011.
[67] J. Wang, et al., ―Wind power forecasting uncertainty and unit commitment,‖ Applied Energy, vol. 88, no. 11,
pp. 4014-4023, 2011.
[68] J. Ostrowski, et al., ―Tight mixed integer linear programming formulations for the unit commitment problem,‖
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39-46, 2012.
[69] Q. Wang, et al., ―A chance-constrained two-stage stochastic program for unit commitment with uncertain wind
power output,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 206-215, 2012.
[70] G. M. España, et al., ―Tight and compact MILP formulation of start-up and shut-down ramping in unit
commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1288-1296, 2013.
[71] G. M. España, et al., ―Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,‖ IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4897-4908, 2013.
[72] A. Viana and J. P. Pedroso, ―A new MILP-based approach for unit commitment in power production planning,‖
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 997-1005, 2013.
[73] Q. Wang, et al., ―Stochastic unit commitment with uncertain demand response,‖ IEEE Transactions on power
systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 562-563, 2013.
[74] D. Sharma, et al., ―Multi-agent modeling for solving profit based unit commitment problem,‖ Applied Soft
Computing, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 3751-3761, 2013.
[75] G. M. España, et al., ―An MIP formulation for joint market-clearing of energy and reserves based on ramp
scheduling,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 476-488, 2014.
[76] A. S. Brouwer, et al., ―Impacts of large-scale Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources on electricity systems, and
how these can be modeled,‖ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 443-466, 2014.
[77] H. Pandžić, et al., ―Toward cost-efficient and reliable unit commitment under uncertainty,‖ IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 970-982, 2016.
[78] T. Schulze and K. McKinnon, ―The value of stochastic programming in day-ahead and intra-day generation unit
commitment,‖ Energy, vol. 101, pp. 592-605, 2016.
[79] L. Yang, et al., ―A novel projected two-binary-variable formulation for unit commitment in power systems,‖
Applied Energy, vol. 187, pp. 732-745, 2017.
[80] W. Hickman, et al., ―The synergistic role of renewable energy integration into the unit commitment of the energy
water nexus,‖ Renewable Energy, vol. 108, pp. 220-229, 2017.
[81] I. N. Sam’on, et al., ―Ant Lion Optimizer for Solving Unit Commitment Problem in Smart Grid System,‖
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 8, no. 1, 2017.
[82] S. S. Sakthi, et al., ―Wind Integrated Thermal Unit Commitment Solution Using Grey Wolf Optimizer,‖
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2309, 2017.
[83] S. H. Hosseini, et al., ―A novel straightforward unit commitment method for large-scale power systems,‖ IEEE
transactions on power systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2134-2143, 2007.
[84] B. Saravanan, et al., ―A solution to the unit commitment problem--a review,‖ Frontiers in Energy, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 223, 2013.
[85] J. Valenzuela and M. Mazumdar, ―Making unit commitment decisions when electricity is traded at spot market
prices,‖ in Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, 2001. IEEE, vol. 3, pp. 1509-1512, 2001.
[86] T. J. Larsen, et al., ―Sequential timestep unit commitment,‖ in Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 3,
pp. 1524-1529, 2001.
[87] M. Tahanan, et al., ―Large-scale unit commitment under uncertainty: a literature survey,‖ 2014.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
1372
[88] T. Senjyu, et al., ―Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment problem by stochastic priority list,‖ Electric
Power Systems Research, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 283-292, 2006.
[89] I. A. Farhat and M. E. El-Hawary, ―Optimization methods applied for solving the short-term hydrothermal
coordination problem,‖ Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 1308-1320, 2009.
[90] X. Guan, et al., ―Optimization based methods for unit commitment: Lagrangian relaxation versus general mixed
integer programming,‖ in Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2003, IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 1095-1100, 2003.
[91] P. A. Ruiz, et al., ―Applying stochastic programming to the unit commitment problem,‖ in Probabilistic Methods
Applied to Power Systems, 2008. PMAPS'08. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on, pp. 1-6, 2008.
[92] T. Sawa, et al., ―Security constrained integrated unit commitment using quadratic programming,‖ in Power Tech,
2007 IEEE Lausanne, pp. 1858-1863, 2007.
[93] B. F. Hobbs, et al., ―The next generation of electric power unit commitment models,‖ Springer Science & Business
Media, vol. 36, 2006.
[94] C. L. Chen and S. C. Wang, ―Branch-and-bound scheduling for thermal generating units,‖ IEEE transactions on
energy conversion, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 184-189, 1993.
[95] J. P. D. S. Catalão, et al., ―Mixed-integer nonlinear approach for the optimal scheduling of a head-dependent hydro
chain,‖ Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 935-942, 2010.
[96] N. M. Shadaksharappa, ―Optimum generation scheduling for thermal power plants using artificial neural network,‖
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 134, 2011.
[97] G. Dudek, ―Adaptive simulated annealing schedule to the unit commitment problem,‖ Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 465-472, 2010.
[98] A. H. Mantawy, et al., ―Integrating genetic algorithms, tabu search, and simulated annealing for the unit
commitment problem,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 829-836, 1999.
[99] C. A. Rajan, “An evolutionary programming based tabu search method for unit commitment problem with cooling-
banking constraints,” in Power India Conference, 2006 IEEE, pp. 8, 2006.
[100] H. Mori and T. Usami, ―Unit commitment using tabu search with restricted neighborhood,‖ in Intelligent Systems
Applications to Power Systems, 1996. Proceedings, ISAP'96, International Conference on, pp. 422-427, 1996.
[101] V. Selvi and D. R. Umarani, ―Comparative analysis of ant colony and particle swarm optimization techniques,‖
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 5, no. 4, 2010.
[102] M. Clerc and J. Kennedy, ―The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional
complex space,‖ IEEE transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 58-73, 2002.
[103] O. Abedinia, et al., ―Multi-objective environmental/economic dispatch using firefly technique,‖ in Environment
and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), 2012 11th International Conference on, pp. 461-466, 2012.
[104] S. Saneifard, et al., ―A fuzzy logic approach to unit commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 988-995, 1997.
[105] S. H. Li, et al., ―Promoting the application of expert systems in short-term unit commitment,‖ IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 286-292, 1993.
[106] W. Chang and X. Luo, ―A solution to the unit commitment using hybrid genetic algorithm,‖ in TENCON 2008-
2008 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1-6, 2008.

Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System: A Literature Review

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System: A Literature Review (20)

More from IJECEIAES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit Commitment Problem in Electrical Power System: A Literature Review