IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, VOL. PAS-89, NO.

2, FEBRUARY 1970

327

Optimal Operation of Multireservoir Systems Using

a Composite Representation
NICOLAOS V. ARVANITIDIS,
MEMBER, IEEE, AND

JAKOB ROSING,

MEMBER, IEEE

algorithms that could determine the optimal operating policy for multireservoir systems within feasible computer times. There are a large number of papers and reports on the subject, but the dimensionality problem has limited these contributions to solutions of one- and two-reservoir systems. Little [1 ] considered the one-reservoir sequential decision problem with variable head and stochastic flows. He used stochastic dynamic programming with two state variables to determine the monthly optimal operation. Ahmed et al. [2], attempting to determine the optimal operation of the hydroelectric power system in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) consisting of approximately 100 dams, investigated two different methods. First decision theory was used to obtain an approximate solution, but this method did not overcome the dimensionality problem. Then the use of a composite representation of the system for determining total hydrogeneration was investigated. Because of the promising results obtained with the latter method, Rosing and Cueva Garza [3] improved the composite representation and used it to obtain an accurate optimal monthly operating policy. A detailed description of the composite model is given in a INTRODUCTION previous paper [4]; the present paper describes the optimal THE CORRECT sequence of monthly operational decisions operating policy resulting from application of the composite concerning the total hydrogeneration appears to be of model to the anticipated 1975 system in the PNW. greater economic significance than the allocation of the total The composite model, in effect, receives, stores, and releases hydrogeneration among the various hydroplants. The reason potential energy; it uses a statistical model for the inflow of for this is that the inflows are uncertain while the share of potential energy and a composite generation function which the total market to be satisfied with hydro is flexible; this latter relates the potential energy released to the actual system genis because, in addition to firm load commitments, the market eration [4]. The model has all the characteristics of a single includes other classes of energy such as displacements of thermal reservoir system, where stochastic dynamic programming is units, industrial interruptible, export and import energies, and readily applicable, and the paper presented here demonstrates peaking exchanges. As a result, substantial savings may be the usefulness of this model in determining the monthly hydroobtained by adjusting the present total hydrogeneration to the generations which maximizes the net revenue or, equivalently, expected future hydrocapability of the system. minimizes the variable cost of operation. The results show that This future capability will depend on the amount of water in the increase in annual expected net revenues resulting from using storage as well as on the expected future inflows. Thus the the optimal operating policy rather than the present rule-curve optimal operation of a multireservoir electric power system is a policy is substantial, and thus that the monthly total hydrotime-sequential decision problem with as many state variables generation is indeed an important decision variable. Moreover, as there are controllable reservoirs and indices for prediction of it is shown here that a combination of rather simple optimizathe streamflows. Past efforts have failed to devise optimization tion techniques with a sound understanding of the basic structure of the problem is sufficient for solving otherwise, nearPaper 69 TP 628-PWR, recommended and approved by the insoluble problems. Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Group A discussion of the basic theoretical principles of optimal for presentation at the IEEE Summer Power Meeting, Dallas, Tex., is first given, followed by the mathematical formulation operation June 22-27, 1969. Manuscript submitted September 16, 1968; made available for printing April 9, 1969. This research was sup- of the stochastic dynamic programming problem. This includes a ported by the Bonneville Power Administration, U. S. Department short description of the state variables used and an intuitive of Interior, under Contract 14-03-40523 and by the Department of explanation of the optimization technique. Finally, a detailed Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University. The authors were with SYSTAN, Inc., Los Altos, Calif. 94022. comparison is made between the optimal operating policy and They are now with INTASA, Palo Alto, Calif. 94306, and the Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, the rule-curve operation for the anticipated 1975 system in the PNW. Stanford, Calif.

Abstract-For a large hydroelectric power system, such as that of the Pacific Northwest, an important operational decision each month is the amount of hydrogeneration. This decision is important because the inflow of the water is uncertain while hydro, with zero marginal cost, can be used not only to satisfy firm load commitments, but also to displace other firm resources or to serve secondary loads. In such a case, the tradeoff between savings at the present and expected benefits in the future is determined mainly by the total hydrogeneration. The use of a composite representation of multireservoir hydroelectric power systems to determine the optimal monthly total hydrogeneration is described. The analytical tool employed is that of stochastic dynamic programming, and the statistical model for the streamflow prediction is based on previous flows and snowpack information. For the anticipated 1975 system in the Pacific Northwest, comparison between the optimal operation introduced here and the presently used rule-curve operation indicates that substantial savings may be obtained, mainly owing to the more uniform displacement of the high marginal cost thermal resources by hydrogeneration.

328

IEEE

TRANSACTIONS

ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, FEBRUARY 1970

OPTIMAL OPERATION

The monthly operating policy for a hydroelectric power system determines, at the beginning of each month, the desired total hydrogeneration for the region; i.e., how much of the water should be used for the generation of electric power during the month and how much should be stored for future use. The operating policy is based on two considerations: 1) the probability of firm load curtailment should satisfy a reliability standard, and 2) the excess water should be used to minimize the variable cost of operation. The problem of optimal operation can then be stated as finding the sequence of monthly decisions which minimizes the total expected cost and whose probability distribution of firm curtailment is acceptable to management. The minimization problem with the stochastic constraint on firm curtailment can be written as an unconstrained minimization problem by the addition of a penalty function to the cost of firm power. For instance, increasing the cost rate of the firm load by a constant corresponds to reducing the average firm curtailment. Similarly, increasing the cost rate of the first megawatt (MW) of firm load to be curtailed will result in a reduction of the frequency of curtailment. The security cost attached to firm load curtailment can be interpreted either as the cost of obtaining the required reliability or as the cost to the economy of the PNW for curtailing firm load. There is no straightforward method for deriving the appropriate security cost which will result in the desirable probability distribution of the firm curtailment; thus an iterative procedure must be used. Assuming a security cost, the remaining problem is concerned with finding a monthly operating rule that minimizes the mathematical expectation of the total cost. The decision on how to operate during the forthcoming month is made on the basis of the available information about the state of the system at the beginning of each month. Stochastic dynamic programming is a mathematical technique applicable to this type of sequential decision problem; many articles and books on the subject have appeared since Bellman introduced it [5]. However, several years before the term "dynamic programming" came into use, the basic ideas of this technique were discussed as part of the theory of marginal expectations by Masse [6]. Masse's interest in the subject of reserves stemmed from his work on the optimal operation of the hydroelectric system in France. The concepts he offered are most useful in obtaining a general understanding of optimal operation, of how it can be achieved, and of the consequences of its use. Basically, the optimal operational decision for a given state of the system is such that it equates the present marginal expected cost with the marginal expected cost for the future. When the constraints forbid such equality, the marginals are made as nearly equal as possible. If this were not the case, the total expected future cost could be decreased by shifting hydrogeneration during the next month to future months, or vice versa. This requirement is very similar to the one encountered in the optimal allocation of the generation over several thermal plants; this requires equality of the marginal costs at all plants, exeept that, in that case, the elements of time and uncertainty are absent. For practical applications, it is insufficient to only know the conditions under which an operating policy is optimal; a feasible computational method for determining it is necessary. Such a

method is provided by stochastic dynamic programming. Because the effect of future load growth and of system expansion on the operational decision is expected to be small, the same loads and system are assumed for future years. Thus for some months sufficiently far in the future, the expected future cost is estimated. Then starting with this month, the optimal operational decision and the expected future cost as a function of the state of the system is obtained for each preceding month until steady state is reached.
STOCHASTIc DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING FORMULATION

At the beginning of each month, the desired total hydrogeneration, that minimizes the expected cost for the system is chosen. The aim of operation during the month is to attain this hydrogeneration. However, the inflow during the month might turn out to be so small that the aim will not be achieved even if all the available water is released; the actual hydrogeneration will then be less than desired. On the other hand, the inflow might be so large that even if all available storage is used, the forced outflow will be more than enough to meet the desired hydrogeneration. The excess hydrogeneration can then be used to serve the unsatisfied part of the total market. Or finally, for large forced outflows where the hydrogeneration decreases with increasing outflow, the actual hydrogeneration can become less than desired. The choice of the desired hydrogeneration should be based on all the information available about the state of the system at the beginning of the month. However, for a practical application of stochastic dynamic programming, the number of variables describing the state of the system cannot be large since the computation time increases exponentially with the number of state variables. No serious difficulties are encountered in solving a stochastic dynamic programming problem with one or two state variables, but the computation time required for solving a problem with three or more state variables may well become prohibitive. In the simplest case, the optimal decision would be based only on the potential energy at the first of each month. This problem is computationally simple, but it excludes all information about future inflows into the system. The next is to incorporate inflow prediction for which there are two important sources of information. 1) Preceding Month's Inflow: The sequence of inflows can be approximated by a first-order Markov chain where the next month's inflow depends only on the preceding one. 2) Snowpack in the Mountains: This is equivalent to stored water, most of which will run off during late spring and summer. Ideally, a model with at least three state variables, i.e., the initial potential energy, the preceding month's inflow, and a measure of the snowpack, should be used to obtain the operating policy. However, this would most certainly result in exorbitant computation time. Therefore, two alternative formulations, each using two state variables, are considered: one where the initial potential energy and the last month's inflow are used as state variables, and the other where the last month's inflow is replaced by the snowpack index during certain months of the year. In the first formulation, the conditional probability distri-bution of next month's inflow is based on last month's inflow; then the optimal desired hydrogeneration Gi for a particular initial potential energy PEi and a last month's inflow Xi-1

ARVANITIDIS AND ROSING: OPTIMAL OPERATION OF MULTIRESERVOIR SYSTEMS

329

policy xN-2 |Optimal table, month N-1

XN,1

Total expected cost, month N-1

PE

XN-1

Total expected cost, month Nx PE

N-,1

Fig. 1. Determining optimal operating policy.

requires the solution of the functional equation

-.- HYDRO GENERATION IN

MW

Fig. 2. Example of cost structure in 1975. power than is needed for the dependable hydrogeneration. In addition, because the marginal cost of hydrogeneration is zero, the net revenue of the system can be increased by using some or all of this excess energy to displace thermal resources and firm imports and to satisfy interruptible or secondary loads. The optimal operation decides how much of the excess should be used each month. The net revenues for a given hydrogeneration can be conveniently expressed as the revenue received if the total market is served with hydro less the fixed cost and less the cost incurred if the market is not completely satisfied with hydro. This latter cost includes that of operating thermal plants, importing firm, and not serving a part of the total load. Thus for a given system and a given market, only this cost will depend on operation, and, therefore, maximizing discounted expected net revenue is equivalent to minimizing discounted expected cost. The marginal cost as a function of hydrogeneration is given in Fig. 2. For optimal operating policies, the firm resources and loads with higher marginal cost will be displaced first; hence they must be ordered on the basis of decreasing marginal cost. The cost for a particular hydrogeneration is then obtained by multiplying the demand not served with hydro by the corresponding marginals. The firm loads used in this study are those predicted by the West Group Forecast (WGF) for 1975, and the seasonal shaping of the dependable hydrogeneration was chosen such that the total firm resources have the same shaping as the WGF firm loads. For the case where firm resources balance the firm loads, Table I gives the WGF firm loads, the sum of all other firm resources, the required dependable hydrogeneration, and the total system loads. The firm resources of the system are made up of dependable hydrogeneration, Northwest (NW) steam, nuclear power (NPR), import energy, and exchange energy. These, together with secondary and interruptible loads, are shown in Fig. 2 and are tabulated in Table II. The nature of the market is heavily influenced by the intertie between California and the PNW because, with the intertie, the PNW will be able to supply peaking energy and cheap hydropower to California, while California will be able to back up the firm load commitments in the PNW. To account for the seasonal variations in the California market, three market structures are listed in Table II. An agreement between the PNW and California provides that peaking energy supplied to California will be returned during off-peak hours, and if the PNW prefers not to have this energy returned, it is sold provisionally at $2/MWh. In addition, California will return 2500 MWh/MW of annual peak demand. This is a firm

fi(PEi,Xi1)

= min
Gi

Xo

[Ci(Gi,PEi,Xi)

+ afi+m(PEi+m,Xi) ]p(XiJXi_1)dXi where fi(PEi,Xi_) is the minimum expected cost from the beginning of month i onward, Gi is the desired hydrogeneration, Ci(Gi, PEi, Xi) is the variable cost of operation during month i, a is the monthly discount factor, p(X4Xi_0) is the probability distribution of Xi conditioned upon Xi-1, and XO is the minimum inflow. Basic to the idea of stochastic dynamic programming is calculation by recurrence. Given the optimal total expected cost at the beginning of month N, the optimal desired hydrogeneration during month N - 1 is determined for any combination of the two state variables PEN-, and XN-v2. If the optimal desired hydrogeneration and the resulting optimal total expected cost at the beginning of month N - 1 are determined for a sufficient number of values of initial potential energy and last month's inflow, the process can be repeated for month N - 2 (Fig. 1). The second formulation replaces last month's inflow during certain months by a measure of the snowpack. The measure is given by the weighted sum of cumulative precipitation indices of various river basins and is called the cumulative precipitation index. Based on the correlation between this index and the total summer runoff, the decisionwas made to substitute the cumulative precipitation index during the months of January through June for the last month's inflow. The IBM 7040 computer was used to determine the optimal operating policy by solving the corresponding functional equations. The computer time required was approximately 4 minutes per optimal decision table. Using an annual discount rate of 6 percent, 3 to 4 years were sufficient for converging to a steadystate optimal operating policy.
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMAL AND RULE-CURVE OPERATION IN THE PNW will now be made between optimal and ruleComparisons curve operation for the projected 1975 system in the PNW. First, the anticipated market structure for 1975 and the two operating policies are briefly discussed; then the results of a 500year simulation of these policies are presented and compared.

Regional Market Structure The dependable hydrogeneration is defined as the largest generation, shaped to seasonal demand, that can be produced using the available storage for all historical streamflows [4].
Hence under most water conditions there will be more hydro-

330

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND 5YSTEMS, FEBRUARY

1970

TABLE I
SYSTEM LOADS (MW)
20
54607
240 1

WGF Firm Loads

July August September October November December January February March April May June
12 619 12 860 13 283 14 223 15 648 16 623 17 123 16 552 15 786 14 793 14 081 13 468

Required Other Dependable Firm Resources Generation

2720 2720 2720 2570 2420 2420 2420 2420 2420 2570 2720 2720
9 899 10 140 10 563 11 653 13 228 14 203 14 703 14 132 13 366 12 223 11 361 10 748

Total Load
16 999 17 240 17 663 18 603 20 028 21 003 21 503 20 932 20 166 19 173 18 461 17 848

T3o 13
120

360

600
-

840 1080 1320 PEj IN 1000 MWD

1560

1800 2040\ 21029

Fig. 3. Optimal policy table for September.

TABLE II MARKET STRUCTURE (MS)

FOR

1975

For the optimal operating policy, the protection of the firm load depends on the security cost attached to different levels of firm load curtailment. The security cost structures studied are listed in Table III. It is assumed that, initially, relatively high cost emergency resources are available to prevent firm load curtailment. When firm load curtailment becomes necessary, a fixed cost is associated with the first curtailed MW for both the high and medium cost case. The marginal cost of the curtailment of an additional MW increases linearly for these two cost structures. The low cost case considers fixed marginal cost only.

Market Class
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11

($/MWh)
0 0 1.85 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.5 9.0

Market Class

Size of Market Class (MW)

MS1
0 500 700 3100 900 850 300 380 70 750 50

MS2
0 500 700 2950 1050 1000 300 380 70 450 50

MS3
0 500 700 2800 1200 1150 300 380 70 150 50

MS1 May, June, July, August, September MS2 October, April MS3 November, December, January, February, March.
TABLE III SECURITY COST OF THE FIRM LoAD ($/MWH)

Market Class
Emergency resources: marginal cost
Firm load curtailment of size F: fixed cost marginal cost

High
100 20 000 100 +

Medium
25 5000 25+ 0.0125F

Low

25
0

0.25F

25

resource available to support the PNW firm load and is called exchange energy. However, if enough hydroenergy is available, the PNW may choose to leave this energy in California and collect -$3/MWh. In case still more hydropower is available this power can be sold at $2/MWh. In the present study, the

provisional aspect of these sales is neglected, and it is assumed that additional California thermal resources, given by market classes 6-7 and 9-10 in Table II, will be available to support the NW firm load commitments.

Operating Policies The optimal operating policy is given by a set of monthly optimal policy tables. An example of such a table in graph form is given by Fig. 3 for September. Both PEi and Xi-1 are measured in MWd, where 1 MWd is the potential energy accumulated during 1 day by an inflow of 1 MW. A region is associated with each pair PEi and Xi1; the number in the region indicates the optimal desired hydrogeneration in accordance with Fig. 2. Thus if the PE in storage on the first of September is 106 MWd and the inflow in August was 480 000 MWd, hydro should only be used to serve firm load and not to displace steam or serve part of the secondary market. In the optimal policy tables, only values of the desired hydrogeneration at the boundaries between market classes are considered because the optimal hydrogeneration will mostly be at or near the boundaries of changing marginal costs. The rule-curve operation is- determined by the rule-curve levels formed by the upper envelope of the critical rule curve and the energy content curve of each of the reservoirs in the system [2], [4]. The critical rule curve gives the reservoir volume levels reached when the historical streamflow sequence occurs that is just sufficient to produce the dependable hydrogeneration. The reservoir volume levels given by the energy content curve are such that the reservoir will just refill if the second worst historical streamflow sequence occurs. The rule-curve operation will never draw below rule-curve levels except to serve firm load, but if the reservoir volume levels are above those dictated by rule curve, the available water can be used. It is clear, then, that rule curve is completely independent of the market structure and concerned only with meeting firm load commitments. The rule-curve levels for the composite potential energy model are determined by the composite first-year critical rule curve and by the composite energy content curve, both listed in Table IV. The composite first-year critical rule curve is obtained as the weighted sum of the first-year critical rule curves of all reservoirs; the fixed composite energy content curve is similarly obtained as the weighted sum of the fixed energy content curves of all reservoirs. This fixed composite energy content curve may be lowered on the basis of the predicted summer runoff, which is based, in turn, on the cumulative precipitation index. The resulting variable composite energy content curve assures the

ARVANITIDIS AND ROSING: OPTIMAL OPERATION OF MULTIRESERVOIR SYSTEMS

331

TABLE IV RULE-CURVE OPERATION (MWD)

End-of-Month End-of-Month Critical Fixed Energy Upper Rule-Curve Content Curve Rule-Curve PE Levels PE Levels PE Levels

2) The revenue R is based on a charge of $3/MWh for firm, $2.5/MWh for interruptible industrial, $3/MWh for exchange energy sales, and $2/MWh for peak and export provisional sales. 3) The cash flow (CF) is the revenue minus the operating
4) The hydrogeneration (HG). 5) The firm load curtailment (FLC). Table V lists the average annual values in millions of dollars of the variables 1-3 together with their standard deviations (sd). The table also shows the annual average hydrogeneration in MW, the annual average FLC in MW, and the total number of monthly curtailments above 400 MW (NMC). For each month the duration curve of the hydrogeneration is also obtained from the output of the simulator. The duration curves for the months of October and January are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The fixed rule-curve operation is compared with X1, X2, and X3 in Fig. 4, and in Fig. 5 the effect of the cumulative precipitation index on operation is illustrated. Similarly, from the output of the simulator, we obtain the average PE in storage at the end of each month. The cases Xi, X2, and X3 are plotted in Fig. 6 for comparison with the fixed rule-curve operation and P1, P2, and it in Fig. 7 for comparison with the variable rule-curve operation. In like manner, the average monthly hydrogeneration is plotted in Figs. 8 and 9.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Case 1: XI, X2, X3, and RF The savings obtained from optimal operation are meaningful only if the protection against FLC is about the same as for rule curve. Otherwise, it is not clear whether the savings accrue from a better operation or from a lower reliability of meeting the firm load. Therefore, the fixed rule-curve operation (RF) is compared with the optimal operation using the low security cost, since the reliability of service to firm load is about the same in these two cases (see Table V). This comparison of X1 with RF is shown in TableVI, indicating an increase in cash flow of $8.8 million per year while the protection against FLC decreases slightly. The savings result from a decrease of $9.9 million in the OC and a decrease of $1.1 million in the R. The 95 percent confidence levels are also given in Table VI; the increase of the cash flow is with a probability of 0.95 larger than $8.3 million per year. It should be noted from Table V that optimal operation with high SC gives better protection against large FLC than rule curve, while optimal operation with low SC gives about the same protection as rule curve. This is shown by the number of curtailments larger than 400 MW given in the last row of Table V. The better protection for the high SC case is achieved by keeping a larger amount of PE in storage, shown by end-ofmonth storage levels in Fig. 6. To reach those higher storage levels, from September through April, the average monthly hydrogeneration is lower for the cases with higher SC (Fig. 8). This restricted use of hydro for the higher SC cases is also shown by the duration curve of the hydrogeneration for October in Fig. 4. In the case of the high SC the protection against large FLC requires frequent use of emergency resources, and, in several cases, the voluntary curtailment of firm load quite early in the draw-down season. The optimal operating policy aims at displacing a uniform amount of secondary load each month while the firm load is met in the future, but, because of the limited storage in the system, this aim cannot be achieved completely. Still, it is clear
cost.

July August September January February March April May

June

October November December

2 2 2 1 1 1 1

030 100 049 910 735 482 188 923 759 708 1 159 1 880

058 570 282 000 739 174 803 355 995 920 823 343

2 113 200

1 188 923 881 863 1 309 1 880

803 355 013 961 430 343

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

113 102 107 103 095 065 113 113 113 113 113 113

200 900 200 900 200 400 200 200 200 200 200 200

filling of all reservoirs with a confidence of about 95 percent. The constraints on the storage given by the upper rule-curve levels in Table IV result from requirements other than those of electric power or flood control. In this study, rule curve is compared with optimal operation. Since the optimal policy makes the decisions at the beginning of each month, rule curve should decide how much outflow to release at the beginning of the month. This decision is based on a forecast of next month's inflow and is such that the probability of going below the rule-curve levels is 0.05.
Simulation of Optimal and Rule-Curve Operation The optimal and rule-curve operating policies were simulated for 500 years of synthesized inflow conditions. The different cases are summarized and identified as follows. 1) Xi, i 1,2,3, results from optimal operation with initial potential energy and last month's inflow as state variables for the three security costs low, medium, and high, respectively. 2) PT, i = 1,2,3, results from optimal operation with initial potential energy, last month's inflow and cumulative precipitation index as state variables for the alternative security costs. 3) P1 results from optimal operation Pi constrained by the rule-curve levels; the reservoirs will never be drawn below rulecurve levels except to serve firm load. 4) RF, i = 1,2,3, results from rule-curve operation with fixed energy content curve for the alternative security costs. 5) RVi, i = 1,2,3, results from rule-curve operation with variable energy content curve for the alternative security costs. For each policy and each security cost considered, the simulator evaluates the annual averages of the following. 1) The total cost (TC), evaluated according to Tables II and III, is made up of operating cost, loss of revenue, and security cost. Each component is also evaluated:
=

a) the operating cost (OC) is that incurred by not displacing the steam, nuclear power, or imported energy; b) the loss of revenue (LR) is that lost when the export market in California is not served, peak and exchange energy have to be returned, and interruptible industrial or firm load has to be curtailed; c) the security cost (SC) is that incurred when interruptible industrial or firm load has to be curtailed (The SC for interruptible industrial is $1.5/MWh; for firm load the SC is given in Table III).

332

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, FEBRUARY 1970

TABLE V RESULTS FROM 500 YEARS' SIMULATION

TC sd OC SC LR R sd CF sd HG FLC NMC

X3 298.30 47.8 30.64 187.70 79.96 412.24 0.58 381.60 0.94 13 998 25 7

RF3 317.00 98.7 25.60 224.80 66.60 425.60 0.92 400.00 1.38 14 734 17 22

X2
109.50 5.51 24.15 13.09 72.26 419.94 0.77 395.80 1.16 14 461 12.5 14

RF2
25.60 15.80 66.60 425.60 0.92 400.00 1.38 14 734 17
22

X1
88.50 2.29 15.65 5.12 67.73 424.47 0.87 408.80 1.17 14 813 18 23

108.00 6.58

RF1 97.50 2.24 25.60 5.30 66.60 425.60 0.92 400.00 1.38 14 734 17
22

P2
99.80 10.60 15.04 24.86 59.90 432.30 1.20 417.2 1.60 15 232 28 30

RV2
120.5 12.2 25.73 35.3 59.49 432.71 1.20 406.9 1.77 15 148 38 47

P1 80.48 3.70 13.31 9.68 57.49 434.71 1.30 421.4 1.66 15 373 46 56

RV1 94.39 3.43 25.73 9.17 59.49 432.71 1.20 406.9 1.77 15 148 38 47

RF1 94.96 2.83 24.40 5.60 64.96 427.24 1.07 402.8 1.61 14 838 19 21

P1 85.49 3.32 20.32 7.89 57.21 434.99 1.24 414.6 1.74 15 300 34
42

I.0

.9

.8
.

.3

.2

.1
I

1000o

II WD inHnC -n - 00 O O Cy*D LaCI D

__

II
0

I-

0m

16000

18000

19200 9200

MARKET

SERVED

WITH

HYDROGENJERATION

IN

MW

Fig. 4. Duration curve of hydrogeneration for October.

>. .6

-j
IM
0

.5

0. .

14000
MARKET

00f

W'o)0

0 0

20000

CD

~~ ~~0 10
-

22000

SERVED

WITH

HYDROGENERATION

IN

MW

Fig. 5. Duration

curve

of hydrogeneration for January.

ARVANITIDIS AND ROSING: OPTIMAL OPERATION OF MULTIRESERVOIR SYSTEMS

333

2 200

22 000O

210

2, ^000

20 00

20' 000l
19 00C

1900

o7o
1600
z

i6 000

2
C)1400
13

'Z
t:>

2 000 1100

200
z
1a1

14 000
9 0

100

1X

6 000

800

70 C,

600

FULY

UG

AEP

c ncr NO

JAn mEC

FEh

Ae

AY

JUE

JULY

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

0EC

JAN8

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

Fig. 6. Average end-of-month storage,

2 200
2 100

case X.

Fig.

Average monthly hydrogeneration,

case

X.

2 000
900
19 000

20000
N'

___

~~~TOTAL~ ~~~~~~

LOAD

1Btoo o 600
0

Is

000

17 000

400

12

000

1_

_P

z
UL

00

I1000
-C
R

900

>

aeoo
700
61000FF_

600

500
400

JULY

6U0

SEPT

OCT

N00

nEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

JULY

AU6

SEPT

OCT

6ov

DEC

JA

Frg

MA6

APR

MY

JUNOE

JULY

Fig. 7. Average end-of-month storage,

case

P.

Fig. 9. Average monthly hydrogeneration,

case

P.

334

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, FEBRUARY

1970

TABLE VI COMPARISON wiTH FIXED RULE CURVE

Improvement (millions of dollars) R
-13.3

sd

X3 and RF3

TC 18.7
59.8 -1.4

CF -18.4
- 4.2

TC -80.0
- 5.0

Improvement with Probability 0.95 R

-14.0
- 6.2

CF -19.2
- 4.8

X2 and RF2 sd sd sd

0.4 - 5.7
- 1.1

0.5
0.4 8.8

Xi and RF,

2.2 9.0 0.5 0.6 1.3

0.3

8.2
- 1.5

- 1.5

8.3

RV, and RF1

0.2 5.5 0.3

0.3 4.1

0.4

5.0

3.4

TABLE VII COMPARISON WITH VARIABLE RULE CURVE

P2 and RV2 sd P1 and RV, sd P1 and RV, sd

TC 20.7
3.5 13.9
0.8 9.0 0.5

Improvement (millions of dollars) R

-0.4

CF 10.3
0.4 14.4

TC 15.0
12.4 8.3

Improvement with Probability 0.95 R -0.7

1.7
1.9

CF 9.6 13.7
7.2

0.2 2.0
0.2 2.3 0.2

0.4 7.7 0.3

from Figs. 4 and 8 that, on the average, the optimal operating month storage in Fig. 7, the average monthly hydrogeneration policy is more successful than rule curve in displacing a uniform in Fig. 9, and the average monthly FLC in Table V. In the amount of secondary load. For instance, for the month of beginning of the draw-down period, the average end-of-month October even though the two average hydrogenerations are storage is higher for RV than for P1 or P2 while at the end of the practically equal, the duration curve of the hydrogeneration in draw-down period, it is lower. Similar behavior is observed in Fig. 4 shows that optimal operation displaces imported and NW Fig. 6 for RF and Xi. The reason for this must be sought in the steam more often than rule curve, while optimal operation sells fact that optimal operation strives not only to protect against less energy to California. This will result in a lower average FLC but also against the use of expensive resources to meet the marginal cost for the optimal operating policy for the month of firm load toward the end of the draw-down period. The savings obtained by operating optimally are listed in October. The comparisons between rule-curve and optimal operation Table VII. For P1 the average increase in the cash flow is $14.4 for the medium and high SC cases are also given in Table VI. million per year, made up of a decrease of $12.4 million in the As to be expected, there is a price for improved protection OC and an increase of $2.0 million in the R. Similarly, for P2 of the firm load; e.g., in the case of high SC the cash flow shrinks the average increase in the cash flow is $10.3 million per year, by $18.4 million per year. It may appear surprising that the made up of a decrease of $10.7 million in the OC and a decrease estimated difference between the TC for optimal operation and of $0.4 million in the R. Because of the differences in protection rule-curve operation is not significant, but because of the high against, FLC, the savings accruing entirely from optimal operasecurity cost, the TC is extremely sensitive to the number of tion should be between $14.4 and $10.3 million per year and the FLC. At the same time, the number of observed FLC with the higher protection against FLC for P2 as compared with PI 500-year sample is small, owing to the high SC. For a significant can be obtained at a cost of $4.1 million per year. Using a linear interpolation based on the number of FLC larger than 400 MW, difference in the TC a larger sample of inflows should be used. a rough estimate of the saving accruing from optimal operation Case 2: PI, P2, and RV is $13.0 million per year. The protection against large FLC is lower for P1 and higher Arguments similar to those used in explaining the reason for for P2 than for rule curve with variable energy content curves the savings of X1 over RF are applicable to explain the savings (RV) as is seen by comparing the curtailments larger than 400 of P1 over RV. Fig. 9 shows that optimal operation is again more MW in Table V. Remarks similar to those made in comparing successful than rule curve in displacing a uniform amount of XI, X2, and X3 can be made here about the average end-of- secondary load.

ARVANITIDIS AND ROSING: OPTIMAL OPERATION OF MULTIRESERVOIR SYSTEMS

335

Case 3: X and P For P1 and P2 the use of the cumulative precipitation index for the prediction of inflows results in an operation differing from that of X1 and X2 mainly by allowing the reservoirs to be drafted more heavily during the draw-down period. This can be seen by comparing the end-of-month storage levels in Figs. 6 and 7. The extra amount of usable storage serves to increase the uniform amount of secondary load displaced each month, shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The optimal operation starts to use the cumulative precipitation index in January. The duration curve of the hydrogeneration in Fig. 5 shows clearly the difference between the cases P and X for this month. The influence of the SC on the curtailment of firm load is not the same for both X and P. For instance, for X1 and P1, which use the same SC, the number of FLC exceeding 400 MW is 23 and 56, respectively. Apparently, the better prediction about future inflows leads to an operating policy that allows greater risks to be taken with FLC; a higher SC would be needed for P1 to arrive at the same level of protection for the firm load as
xi.

Case 5: P1 A major problem to be encountered in the implementation of the optimal operation is the reluctance to draw the reservoirs below the rule-curve levels. It is, therefore, of interest to observe the effect of using an optimal operating policy which is constrained by the rule-curve levels. In the case of constrained optimal operation Pi, for instance, the optimal operating policy P1 will be followed, but the reservoirs will not be drawn below rule-curve levels except to serve firm load. The result of this operation is a slightly better protection against FLC than with variable rule-curve operation and an improvement in the cash flow of $7.7 million per year. These savings are made up of a decrease of $5.4 million per year in the operating cost and an increase of $2.3 million per year in the revenue.
CONCLUSION This paper has shown that the composite model can be sucessfully applied in determining the optimal sequence of total monthly hydrogenerations. It has further shown that total system hydrogeneration is a significant decision variable because substantial benefits have been obtained by concentrating on the total system hydrogeneration while suppressing the allocation of hydrogeneration among the various hydroplants. The significance of this result is that dimensionality problems in multireservoir system can be overcome by emphasizing the most important variables: total storage capability, integrated inflow characteristics, and total system hydrogeneration. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank their research advisers, Prof. W. K. Linvill and Prof. G. A. Murray, Jr.; their colleagues at Stanford University, K. M. Ahmed, E. R. Petersen, and G. Cueva Garza; and R. Hicks and M. S. Schultz of the Bonneville Power Administration.

This complicates estimation of the savings owing to use of the cumulative precipitation index in the optimal operating policy. The closest estimate of the value of using this index is obtained by comparing the cases X1 and P2: in the case P2 the cash flow is $8.4 million per year greater than in the case Xi, which will result partly from the lower protection of the firm load.
Case 4: RV with RF The difference between the two rule-curve operations, given in Table VI, indicates an increase of cash flow by $4.1 million per year, owing to the use of variable energy content curves. In the latter case, however, the protection against FLC is also lower; a similar increase in the number of curtailments for optimal operation (X1 and X2) also resulted in a saving of $4.1 million per year. It is expected, therefore, that the larger part of the savings resulting from the variable energy content curves comes from lower protection of the firm load, and that only a small part is a result of the possibly better operation. An undesirable feature of the variable rule-curve operation is the immediate use of the storage becoming available when the energy content curve is lowered for the first time in January. The rule-curve operation could be improved by spreading the use of this storage over the future months to make the size of the secondary loads displaced each month more uniform. Another feature which is undesirable for similar reasons is the emphasis on refilling the reservoirs during May rather than spreading the refill over the summer months.

REFERENCES [1] J. D. C. Little, "The use of storage water in a hydroelectric [2]

[3]
[4]

t51
[6]

system," J. Operations Res. Soc. Am., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 187197, 1955. K. M. Ahmed, E. R. Petersen, and N. V. Arvanitidis, "Optimal operation and control of multidam hydroelectric power systems: an application of decision theory," Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., IEES Rept. CCS-8, February 1966. J. Rosing and G. Cueva Garza, "Benefits obtained from optimal operation of hydroelectric power systems," Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.,. IEES Rept. CCS-9, May 1967. N. V. Arvanitidis and J. Rosing, "Composite representation of a multireservoir hydroelectric power system," this issue, pp. 319-326. R. Bellman, Dynamic Programming. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1957. P. Masse, Les Reserves et la Regulation de l'Avenir dans la Vie Economique; vol. I: Avenir Determine, vol. II: Avenir A1eatoire. Paris: Hermann, 1946.