Proceedings of the

Sustainable Research and Innovation(SRI) Conference

6 - 8 May 2015

A Review of Unit Commitment in Deregulated

Electricity Markets
Adline K. Bikeri, Christopher M. Muriithi, and Peter K. Kihato

demands. The generation costs include fuel, startup, shutdown,

Abstract— As electricity markets undergo deregulation all over and no-load costs. Constraints include capacity reserve,
the world, the approach to the unit commitment problem (UCP) minimum up/down time, maximum power flow in the
changes significantly. The independent system operator (ISO) relies transmission lines and operating limits etc. In simple terms, the
on bid prices from the various generation companies (GENCOs) to
solution of the UCP is the process of deciding when and which
make commitment decisions – a situation that is significantly different
from the traditional regulated environment. Each GENCO sets up their generating units at each power station to start-up and
own independent unit commitment strategies with the aim of shut-down.
maximizing profit based on the cost characteristics of their generators In the deregulated environment, generation units are not
and revenues from predicted prices of energy and reserve in what is owned by a single company. There are a number of GENCOs
known as the Profit Based Unit Commitment (PBUC). This paper who bid for a share of the market through an Independent
reviews the state of the art in the solution of the PBUC problem in
System Operator (ISO). The ISO relies on the bid prices to
deregulated environments. Various solution methodologies available
in literature are discussed and some of the research needs on the topic determine which units to use at what time. Individual GENCOS
are highlighted. therefore have to determine a schedule for their generators with
the main aim of maximizing their profits in the competitive
Keywords— Deregulated Electricity Markets, Independent electricity market. In this sense, the UCP has been coined
System Operator, Generation Companies, Profit Based Unit slightly differently as the Profit Based Unit Commitment
Commitment. (PBUC) problem [2]. Over the past fifteen years or so, there has
been extensive research on the topic of the PBUC problem with
I. INTRODUCTION most papers focusing on the solution methodology as this is the

O VER the last two decades or so, there have been

significant changes in the operation of electric power
systems. One of the main changes has been the restructuring or
main challenge for what can be described as a very complex
optimization problem.
This paper summarizes recent work on the profit based unit
deregulation of many power systems especially in the commitment problem with a main focus on the proposed
developed world; though aspects of deregulation are also solution methodologies for deregulated electricity markets. It
beginning to take root in developing nations. Deregulation is also highlights the main research needs in this area as the
the unbundling of vertically integrated power systems into electric energy sub-sector moves towards the promising future
generation (GENCOs), transmission (TRANSCOs) and of competition in service delivery.
distribution (DISCOs) companies [1]. The main aim of
deregulation is to create competition among GENCOs and II. BACKGROUND
hence provide different choices of generation options at lower From the GENCOs point of view, an optimal solution to the
prices to consumers [2]. With deregulation, one of the main PBUC problem is very important because of the potential
differences is the approach to what is known as the Unit economic consequences. Reducing the fuel cost by as little as
Commitment Problem (UCP). 0.5 percent can result in savings of millions of dollars per year
Traditionally, the UCP is defined as a constrained for large GENCOs which would translate to significant gains in
optimization problem in which optimal turn-on and turn-off profit [5]. However, the UCP is a mixed combinatorial and
schedules for a group of power generation units under some continuous optimization problem, which is very complex to
operational constraints are determined over a given time solve because of its enormous dimension, a non-linear
horizon [3], [4]. The objective is to minimize the power objective function, and a large number of constraints [6].
generation costs while meeting the hourly forecasted power Solution methodologies for the traditional UC problem can be
found in [3]–[10].
A. K. Bikeri, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, JKUAT In the deregulated environment, an efficient solution
(corresponding author. phone: +254 726156716; e-mail: methodology is key to the success of the operations of an
adlinebikeri@gmail.com). individual GENCO. Numerous methodologies for solving the
C. M. Muriithi, Department of Electrical and Power Engineering, TUK
(e-mail: cmainamuriithi@gmail.com). PBUC problem have been proposed in literature. These
P. K. Kihato, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, JKUAT methodologies can be classified as classical methods and
(e-mail: pkihato@ jkuat.ac.ke).

9 ISSN: 2079-6226
 Proceedings of the
Sustainable Research and Innovation(SRI) Conference
6 - 8 May 2015

non-classical methods. Classical methods include Priority 1. Power Balance Constraints: In PBUC, power generation
Listing (PL), Dynamic Programming (DP), Branch and Bound, by a single GENCO may be less than the demand and reserve at
Mixed Integer Programming (MIP), and Lagrangian a given time. This is because a number of GENCOs are
Relaxation (LR) [10]–[15]. Non-classical methods include available to serve the system load and a single generator may
Genetic Algorithm (GA), Memetic Algorithm, Ant colony not be able to meet the load anyway. This is fundamentally
optimization (ACO), Particle swarm optimization (PSO), different from the “generation equals demand” constraint of the
Artificial bee colony (ABC), Imperialistic competitive traditional UC problem. The relaxed power balance constraint
algorithm (ICA), Muller method among others [16]–[25]. allows for more flexibility in the unit commitment schedule
There have also been proposals for hybridization of some of [17].
these methods taking advantage of the strengths of two or more 2. Unit Generation Limits: Generation units usually have
methods to provide a more effective solution algorithm operational maximum and minimum power output limits within
[26]–[33]. which the unit output must be maintained.
One of the biggest needs for GENCOs in deregulated 3. Minimum Up/Down Time Constraints: A thermal unit can
markets is an effective tool for making unit commitment only undergo gradual temperature changes. Hence, there is a
decisions and developing bidding strategies [5]. Firstly, such a minimum up-time once the unit is running and; for a
tool should be able to accurately capture the dynamic de-committed unit, a minimum down time before it can be
environment that is the competitive electricity market. This recommitted.
includes the incorporation of decisions from competitors which 4. Ramp Rate Limits: The ramp rate limits confine the power
significantly affects market prices and eventually GENCO output increase or decrease between adjacent hours for certain
profits. Secondly, different countries have deregulated to units.
different levels and hence the market characteristics will not be 5. Crew Constraints: To cater for limitations in the number
similar. A proposed tool should be flexible enough to capture of operational personnel, restrictions on the number of units to
these differences. The tool should also be able to handle the be turned ON at the same time may be included.
increased complexity brought about by factors such as
uncertainties in electricity prices. Incorporation of IV. SOLUTION METHODOLOGIES
non-classical solution methodologies for better solution quality
is therefore vital. Finally, the tool should also be able to A. Classical Methods
incorporate system wide policy decisions that affect GENCO Falling under the category of classical methods for solving
operations such as emission constraints and price caps where the PBUC problem are Priority Listing (PL), Dynamic
applicable. Programming (DP), Branch and Bound (B&B), Mixed Integer
Programming (MIP), and Lagrangian Relaxation (LR). In the
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION PL method, plants are activated according to a pre-prepared list
The Profit Based Unit Commitment problem in deregulated while schedules are adapted to respect technical restrictions
power systems determines the generating unit schedules for such as minimum up and down times, and minimum and
maximizing the profit of GENCOs subject to operational maximum operating points [11]. The PL method is a simple,
constraints such as load demand, spinning reserve and ramp almost rule of thumb method but the quality of solution is rather
rate limits. Profit (PF) is defined as the difference between rough [1]. In fact using PL almost never results in an optimal
revenue (RV) obtained from sale of energy and in some cases solution. Reference [12] gives an Improved Pre-prepared
reserve; minus the total operating cost (TC) of the GENCO. Power Demand (IPPD) table for solving the PBUC problem in
The objective function of the PBUC problem is given as [13]: a deregulated environment. The method, quite similar to the
traditional PL method gives a reasonable qualitative solution
Maximize PF = RV − TC (1) with significantly less computation time.
Dynamic programming (DP) is one of the earliest
The GENCO revenue comes from selling power to the both optimization based techniques to be applied to the UC problem
the energy and reserve markets. Revenue from the energy and is still used extensively all over the world especially in
market depends on the spot power price while revenue from the regulated markets [7]. The DP technique employs a systematic
reserve market depends on the method of paying for reserve in searching algorithm that tries to achieve an optimal solution
the particular market. In literature, three strategies for reserve without having to access all possible combinations. Generating
payments have been suggested viz., payment for power units are classified into related groups from which the optimal
delivered, payment for reserve allocated and price process for path is searched with a reduced number of possible
reserve power. Generally, the reserve price will be higher than combinations as a result of the classification. The method
the spot price and could significantly affect commitment however suffers from the problem of huge computational time
decisions and overall bidding strategies. as the number of units being considered grows and hence for
The objective function given in (1) is formulated subject to large systems with hundreds of units, DP as a solution
the following constraints. algorithm for the PBUC problem becomes impractical. In [13],
a DP approach is used to obtain a near-optimal unit

10 ISSN: 2079-6226
 Proceedings of the
Sustainable Research and Innovation(SRI) Conference
6 - 8 May 2015

commitment in a competitive power market. More significantly iteratively to solve the PBUC problem. The effectiveness of the
though, the problem formulation is incorporated into a solution methodology is illustrated for a GENCO with ten units
Multi-area unit commitment with import/export and tie-line in a competitive market. The PSO technique is also used to
constraints. The method therefore illustrates the process of solve the GENCOs PBUC problem in a day ahead competitive
maximization of GENCO profit in a multi-area system. electricity market in [19]. Apart from the traditional PSO
Reference [14] uses the classical MILP to solve the PBUC technique, the authors also test three other PSO techniques:
problem. The main contribution of the paper is however not the Chaotic PSO (CPSO), New PSO (NPSO) and Dispersed PSO
solution methodology but rather a quantification of the (DPSO) and compare the results. Generation, spinning reserve,
sub-optimality of profit that can be expected in a Price Based non-spinning reserve, and system constraints are considered in
Unit Commitment (PBUC) when incorrect price forecasts are proposed formulation. To tackle the problem of long
used. The results show how crucial an accurate price computation time that is usually associated with heuristic
forecasting regime is for the realization of expected profits. In methods, [20] proposes a Parallel Particle Swarm Optimization
[15], the MIP and LR methods are compared and the authors (PPSO) solution to the PBUC problem. The method uses a
note that though the MIP method produces more optimal cluster of computers performing parallel operations in a
results, the computation time and memory requirements would distributed environment and the results show the effectiveness
be a major obstacle when applying MIP to large UC problems. of parallel computing in handling the huge dimensions of the
Lagrangian Relaxation (LR) is one of the most popular of the PBUC problem. The authors report significant reductions in
classical methods. The main advantage of the method is the algorithm computation time. The time complexity and the
speed with which the algorithm converges to a solution [15]. It solution quality with respect to the number of processors in the
has however been pointed out that the method suffers from cluster are also investigated.
often being stuck at local optima. This is because the quality of The Muller method is used for solving the PBUC problem in
the solution strongly depends on the algorithm used to update [21]. The methodology is implemented in two stages. Initially,
the Lagrangian multipliers. For this reason, a number of the the determination of units to be committed is obtained by a
more recent papers combine LR with one or more of the simple approach and then a non-linear programming sub
non-classical methods so as to improve the quality of the problem of economic dispatch is solved by the Muller method.
solution [31]–[33]. The biggest promise with this method is reduced computational
time though the initial allocation generally results in a
B. Non-classical Methods
sub-optimal solution.
Non-classical methods for solving the PBUC problem Reference [22], uses the Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm
include Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (SFLA) to solve the Profit Based Unit Commitment problem
(PSO), Muller Method, Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm under deregulated environment with emission constraints. The
(SFLA), Imperialistic Competitive Algorithm (ICA), Ant bi-objective function optimization problem is formulated as a
Colony Optimization (ACO), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), maximization of the Generation Companies profit and a
Simulated Annealing (SA), Tabu Search (TS), among others. minimization of the emission output of the thermal units.
These heuristic algorithms have the advantage that they do not A relatively newer heuristic method known as the
require derivative information to solve the optimization Imperialistic Competitive Algorithm (ICA) is used in [23] to
problem [18]. It is actually possible to encode the variables so solve the PBUC problem in a competitive environment. The
that the optimization is done with the encoded variables with algorithm is presented as a tool to be used by GENCOs in
little attention to the systematic movement towards an optimal making commitment decisions for maximum profit in the
solution. The second major advantage is that these methods are day-ahead energy market. The method is validated on a typical
better capable of searching through the entire solution space for 10 generating unit system available in the literature.
the global optimal solution. Because of these advantages, they The Nodal Ant Colony Optimization (NACO) technique is
are more capable of dealing with the complex nonlinear used in [24] while the Parallel Artificial Bee Colony (PABC)
constraints related to the PBUC problem and thus heuristic algorithm is used in [25] to solve the PBUC problem. The main
methods have received much more attention from researchers contribution of [25] is to illustrate how an effective utilization
over the last few years. of computing resources can be used to reduce the time
Reference [16] uses genetic algorithms to solve the PBUC complexity for a large scale power system. A message passing
problem. The authors show the improved solution quality of the interface based technique is used in the PABC algorithm in
GA method compared to classical methods. The algorithm is distributed and shared memory models to implement the
tested with the two interconnected regions of the National algorithm.
Electricity Market in Australia and hence illustrates the The main challenge with heuristic methods is that the
practicality on an actual power market. An earlier example of computation process is usually rather time consuming
the implementation of GA to solve the PBUC problem is given especially as the number of generating units increases.
in [17]. However, these algorithms can be easily implemented in
In [18], an improved discrete binary particle swarm high-speed parallel computing techniques with which the
optimization (PSO) and a standard value PSO are used challenge of long computational time can be overcome [20],

11 ISSN: 2079-6226
 Proceedings of the
Sustainable Research and Innovation(SRI) Conference
6 - 8 May 2015

[25]. V. RESEARCH NEEDS

C. Hybrid Methods A review of the literature on profit based unit commitment in
The classical, gradient based search algorithms tend to be deregulated environments as carried out in this paper reveals
faster in convergence but suffer from getting stuck in local that there has been a significant effort over the last 10 to 15
optima. The non-classical heuristic methods on the other hand years in trying out various solution methodologies for solving
are better at searching through the solution space but are more what is a very complex optimization problem. However, a
time consuming. Because of these characteristics a number of number of research needs still exist as outlined below:
researchers have proposed hybrid methods which combine two 1. Most research considers only energy price in the problem
or more of the above techniques for better solution quality in formulation and ignore reserve price. The profit from reserve
terms of computation time and solution quality. sales could be significant especially in systems with higher
Reference [26] was one of the first papers on hybrid methods load or generation volatility such as grids with large
for the PBUC problem. The paper presented a hybrid model penetration of wind/solar power. It is important to include
between Lagrangian relaxation (LR) and genetic algorithm payments for reserve in the problem formulation and analyze
(GA) to solve the unit commitment problem with the GA being the effects of various reserve payment regimes on Unit
used to update the Lagrangian multipliers. Better results than commitment decisions in deregulated markets.
those obtained from traditional unit commitment are reported. 2. Apart from ignoring reserve payments, most work is done
Reference [27] proposes a hybrid artificial immune system with a pre-assumed energy spot market price. The electricity
(AIS) based GA algorithm method to solve the PBUC problem. spot market usually has volatilities which should be
The authors report that the incorporation of the AIS into the GA considered in the solution of the unit commitment problem.
algorithm results in increased diversity in the initial strings to 3. An assumption of a perfect electricity market dominates the
ensure that the GA searches the entire problem space hence reviewed papers. It is known that most electricity markets are
resulting in better solutions. still dominated by one or two major generation companies
In [28] an advanced memetic algorithm based solution (usually the offshoot of the previous utility) and hence these
methodology for the PBUC problem is presented. The markets take an oligopolistic structure. Market power will
algorithm exhaustively looks onto the traditional memetic have a significant effect on decision making hence it is
algorithm solution methodology and proposes several important that the market model used captures these
alterations and adaptations on the initialization, selection, characteristics.
crossover, and mutation so as to fit the unique features of the 4. There is also usually no inclusion of other system policy
PBUC problem. Reference [29] presents a hybrid optimization decisions such as environmental considerations which could
technique based on Memetic Particle Swarm Optimization alter commitment decisions. There is need to carry out an
(MPSO) with Cauchy Mutation (CM) to solve the analysis of the effects of such policies on GENCO profits and
self-scheduling problem in a competitive electricity market. consequently recommend any changes that would be
The MPSO is basically a combination of a local search required in the adopted unit commitment regime as a result of
algorithm with the traditional PSO. CM is used to reduce the such policies.
diversity in the searching process of the PSO.
VI. CONCLUSION
A hybrid model between Lagrangian Relaxation (LR) and
Quantum inspired Particle Swarm Optimization (QPSO) is This paper gives an overview of the profit based unit
used to solve the PBUC problem in [30]. Constraints including commitment problem in deregulated electricity markets. Recent
load demand, spinning reserve, generation limits and minimum literature on the topic is reviewed which reveals significant
up and down time constraints are included and the method is efforts have been placed on finding better solution
tested on two different size systems. The authors report higher methodologies for the optimization problem. These
quality solutions compared to other methods in literature. A methodologies range from the classical gradient based methods
second example of the hybrid LR-PSO algorithm can be found to the newer heuristic type methods and also hybrids of these
in [31]. Again the authors highlight the improvement in methodologies. A number of research gaps have been
solution quality by updating the Lagrangian multipliers using identified. These mainly include need to include all aspects of
the PSO technique. the practical market place including reserve payments, spot
Reference [32] uses a hybrid Lagrange Relaxation (LR) - market price volatility, imperfect completive environment and
Evolutionary Programming (EP) model to solve the PBUC environmental considerations in the problem formulation.
problem in a deregulated electricity market. Here, significantly,
a consideration of the losses in the transmission system is REFERENCES
included resulting in higher profits for the GENCO as they [1] A.J. Wood, B.F. Wollenberg, and G.B. Sheble, Power Generation
supply not only system load but also network losses. A hybrid Operation and Control, 3rd ed., New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2013, pp 42-57.
LR-EP method is also used in [33] with an important [2] M. Shahidehpour and M. Alomoush. Restructured Electrical Power
consideration of both the power and reserve prices. Systems, Operation, Trading, and Volatility, 1st ed., New York, Marcel
Decker, 2000, pp. 1-11.

12 ISSN: 2079-6226
 Proceedings of the
Sustainable Research and Innovation(SRI) Conference
6 - 8 May 2015

[3] W.L. Snyder, H.D. Powell, and J.C. Rayburn, “Dynamic programming [25] C.C. Columbus and S.P. Simon, “Profit based unit commitment: A
approach to unit commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 2, no. 2, parallel ABC approach using a workstation cluster,” Computers &
pp. 339-348, May 1987. Electrical Engineering, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 724–745, May. 2012.
[4] V. Sudhir, E.C. Adrian, K. Imhof , and M. Shishir, “Implementation of a [26] H. Y. Yamin and S. M. Shahidehpour, “Unit commitment using a hybrid
Lagrangian based unit commitment problem,” IEEE Trans. Power model between Lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm in
Systems, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1373-1380, Nov. 1989. competitive electricity markets,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol.
[5] N.P. Padhy, “Unit commitment problem under deregulated environment – 68, no. 2, pp. 83–92, Feb. 2003.
A Review,” Power Engineering Society General Meeting, vol. 2, pp. [27] K. Lakshmi and S. Vasantharathna, “Hybrid Artificial Immune System
1088–1094, July 2003. Approach for Profit Based Unit Commitment Problem,” J. Electrical Eng.
[6] N. P. Padhy, “Unit commitment – a bibliographical survey,” IEEE Trans. Technology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 742-751, March 2013.
Power Systems, vol 19 (2), pp. 1196–1205, May 2004. [28] D.K. Dimitroulas, P.S. Georgilakis, “A new memetic algorithm approach
[7] P.G. Lowery, “Generating unit commitment by dynamic programming,” for the price based unit commitment problem,” Applied Energy, vol 88,
IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-85, no.5, no. 12, pp. 4687–4699, Dec. 2011.
pp.422–426, May 1996. [29] R.B. Muthu, S. Periasamy, “Profit Based Self Scheduling of the Genco’s
[8] C.P. Cheng, C.W. Liu, and C.C. Liu, “Unit commitment by Lagrangian by Using Particle Swarm Optimization,” UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series
relaxation and genetic algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 15, no. C: Electrical Engineering, vol. 74, no. 2, 2012.
2, pp. 707–714, May 2000. [30] K. Asokan, and R. Ashokkumar, “Emission Controlled Profit based Unit
[9] M.C. Arroyo and M. Jose, “A computationally efficient mixed-integer Commitment for GENCOs using MPPD Table with ABC Algorithm
linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,” IEEE under Competitive Environment,” WSEAS Transactions on Systems, vol.
Trans. Power System, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1371–348, May 2000. 13, pp. 523–542, 2014.
[10] I. G. Damousis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and P. S. Dokopoulos, “A solution to the [31] D.J. Nahomi and V. Yuvaraju, “A new approach for Profit-Based Unit
unit commitment problem using integer-coded genetic algorithm,” IEEE Commitment Using Lagrangian Relaxation combined with Particle
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1165–1172, May 2004. Swarm Optimization algorithm,” Inter. J. Communications and
[11] E. Delarue, D. Cattrysse, and W. D’haeseleer, “Enhanced priority list unit Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 159–166, Mar. 2012.
commitment method for power systems with a high share of renewables,” [32] S.C. Selvi, M. Moses, C. Rajan, “LR–EP Approach for solving Profit
Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 105, pp. 115–123, Dec. 2013. Based Unit Commitment Problem with Losses in Deregulated Markets,”
[12] K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam, and M. Sydulu. “Improved Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, vol. 11, pp. 210 – 213, 2013.
Pre-prepared Power Demand Table and Muller’s Method to Solve the [33] P. Attaviriyanupap, H. Kita, E. Tanaka, and J. Hasegawa, “A Hybrid
Profit Based Unit Commitment Problem,” J. of Electrical Engineering & LR-EP for Solving New Profit-Based UC Problem under Competitive
Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 159–167, June 2009. Environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 229–237,
[13] A. Rajan, C. Christober, P. Sundarajan, V. Jamuna, R. Madhusubash, and Feb. 2003.
B. Udayakumar, “Multi-Area Unit Commitment in Deregulated
Electricity Market using DP Approach,” Inter. J. Recent Trends in
Engineering & Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp 210- 213, May2010.
[14] E. Delarue, P. van Den Bosch, W. D’haeseleer, “Effect of the accuracy of
price forecasting on profit in a Price Based Unit Commitment,” Electric
Power Systems Research, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 1306–1313, Oct. 2010.
[15] T. Li and M. Shahidehpour, “Price-Based Unit Commitment: A Case of
Lagrangian Relaxation versus Mixed Integer Programming,” IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2015–2025, Nov. 2005.
[16] C.A. Baloi, J.A. Belward, and M. Bulmer, “Genetic unit commitment
model in a deregulated power energy environment,” in Proc.
International congress on modelling and simulation, Townsville,
Australia, 2003, pp. 1078–1083.
[17] C.W. Richter Jr, and G. B. Sheble, “A profit-based unit commitment GA
for the competitive environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 15,
no. 2, pp. 715–721, May 2000.
[18] Y. Xiaohui, Y. Yanbin, W. Cheng, and Z. Xiaopan, “An Improved PSO
Approach for Profit-based Unit Commitment in Electricity Market,”
presented at the Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exhibition: Asia and Pacific, Dalian, China, 2005 IEEE/PES
[19] J. Raglend , C. Raghuveer, G. R. Avinash, N.P. Padhy, and D.P. Kothari,
“Solution to profit based unit commitment problem using particle swarm
optimization,” Applied Soft Computing, vol 10, no. 4, pp. 1247–1256,
Sept. 2010.
[20] C.C. Columbus and S.P. Simon, “Profit based unit commitment for
GENCOs using parallel PSO in a distributed cluster,” ACEEE Int. J.
Electrical and Power Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, Nov. 2011.
[21] K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam, and M. Sydulu, “New approach with
Muller method for Profit Based Unit Commitment,” in Proc. Electric
Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies,
Nanjuing, China, 2008, pp. 952–957.
[22] T. Venkatesana, M.Y. Sanavullahb, “SFLA approach to solve PBUC
problem with emission limitation,” International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 46, pp. 1–9, March 2013.
[23] M.J. Ghadi, and A. Baghramian, “A New Heuristic Method for Solving
Unit Commitment Problem in Competitive Environment,” International
Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 2231–2307,
Jan. 2013
[24] C.C. Columbus, K. Chandrasekaran, and S.P. Simon, “Nodal ant colony
optimization for solving profit based unit commitment problem for
GENCOs,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 145–160, Jan.
2012.

13 ISSN: 2079-6226