Comparison of Different Energy

Consumption Scheduling Schemes

M. Asghar Khan
FA12-REE-030

8/25/2013

Performance Parameters
1. Billing/Pricing Mechanism
2. PAR (Peak-to-Average Ratio)
reduction and Total Energy Cost
minimization
3. Fairness Among Users
4. Execution Time of Algorithm
5. Waiting Time of Appliances

8/25/2013

1. Billing/Pricing Mechanism
Existing billing techniques
a.
b.
c.
d.

Inclining Block Rates (IBR)

Time Of Use Pricing (TOU)
Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)
Real Time Pricing (RTP)

8/25/2013

a. IBR Example: IESCO General

Supply Tariff- Residential

8/25/2013

b.

8/25/2013

TOU Example: IESO Ontario

(Canadian Province)

c. CPP (Critical Peak Pricing)

Very high critical peak prices are assessed for certain hours on
event days (often limited to 10-15 per year)
Prices can be 3-10 times as much during these few hours
Typically combined with a TOU rate, but not always
Typical goal of CPP is to more dramatically reduce load during the
relatively few, very expensive hours
Typically, a CPP is added to a TOU rate

8/25/2013

d. RTP (Real Time Pricing)

Real-time pricing (RTP) is generally an hourly rate
which is applied to usage on an hourly basis

8/25/2013

Q. Which one is better

among all these pricing
schemes?

Towards Fairness: The alternative hour-by-hour billing mechanism presented

in [1], is the most efficient billing mechanism, which incorporates the exact
hour-by-hour load profile of each user.
; Bn is the bill of every user n
;
;
It charges users at a higher rate if they schedule their load at peak-hours and
at a lower rate if they move their load to off-peak hours.
In other words, the hour-by-hour alternative billing mechanism takes into
account both total load and load flexibility. Therefore, we expect that it can
improve fairness.
Reference [2], also point out the truthfulness of the users
Towards PAR reduction & cost minimization: The most attractive pricing
schemes regarding these two properties are presented in [2],[3] and also the
combination of RTP with IBR [4] & [5].
; where
8/25/2013

2. PAR (Peak-to-Average Ratio)

reduction and Total Energy Cost
minimization
All the schemes presented so for mainly
focuses on reducing the peak-to-average ratio
As a consequence the total energy generation
cost reduces and so the consumers pays less to
the utility
The best results according to the simulation are
presented by [4],[6],[7] & [8].
The percentage reduction in these objectives
are given in the Table 1
8/25/2013

3. Fairness Among Users

Q: Is it beneficial for a user or a group of users to
declare false ECS information to other users?

Game-Theoretic Based ECS: The algorithm presented in

[2] , promises to enforce the users not to be untruthful
In fact, since every users individual payoff is nothing but
the total energy cost multiplied by a negative constant
Therefore, any false information leads to increasing the
energy cost of cheating user as well as all other users in the
system

8/25/2013

10

Contd

Achieving Optimality and Fairness in Autonomous Demand

Response:
In this paper alternative hour-by-hour billing mechanism is
presented in combination with RTP
Two important factors are considered while achieving fairness
1. Load Flexibility
2. Total Load
.
A fair billing mechanism is presented as
.

A fairness index is defined as

Here, the fairness index can be defined as the variational

distance between normalized billing vector for billing mechanism
B and normalized billing vector for B*
This equation shows that a lower fairness index F point outs a
fairer billing.

8/25/2013

11

4. Execution Time of Algorithm

This issue is more highlighted by [6],through
experimental results
Mainly focusing on the search space traversing
Comparison of constrained and non-constrained cases
are presented
As contrast, the constrained search works with much
smaller execution time by eliminating the unnecessary
search space traversal and so shows stable behavior
From the next slide, we can easily figure out that the
execution time greatly depends on the search space size
of the preemptive tasks and also on the constraint
processing
Tool Used: Microsoft windows GetTickcount system call
8/25/2013

12

Comparison of Experimental Results

Execution Time of 1
Preemptive task

8/25/2013

Execution Time of 2 Preemptive tasks

13

5. Waiting Time of Appliances

The only scheme that explores the idea of waiting time of

appliances regarding their actual schedule is [4].
The cost of waiting can be modeled as
; where waiting parameter

The following model can be used for waiting parameter

;;
The higher the value of A.C.P. the higher will be the cost of
waiting.
In practice, three choices of A.C.P. can be

Consequentially, we can say that the waiting time of

appliances is inversely proportional to Adjustable Control
Parameter (ACP) and to the total payments of user to the utility.

8/25/2013

14

8/25/2013

15

References
1. Zahra Baharlouei, Student Member, IEEE, Massoud Hashemi, Member, IEEE, Hamed Narimani, Student
Member, IEEE, and Hamed Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE, Achieving Optimality and Fairness in
Autonomous Demand Response: Benchmarks and Billing Mechanisms, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 968-975, June 2013.
2. Amir-Hamid Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE, Vincent W. S. Wong,Senior Member, IEEE, Juri Jatskevich,
Senior Memjber, IEEE, Robert Schober, Fellow, IEEE, and Alberto Leon-Garcia, Fellow, IEEE, Autonomous
Demand-Side Management Based on Game-Theoretic Energy Consumption Scheduling for the Future
Smart Grid, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 320-331, December 2010.
3. Mohsenian-Rad, A-H., et al. Optimal and Autonomous Incentive-Based Energy Consumption Scheduling
Algorithm for Smart Grid, Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2010, IEEE, (2010).
4. Amir-Hamid Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE,, and Alberto Leon-Garcia, Fellow, IEEE, Optimal Resedential
Load Control with Price Prediction in Real-Time Electricity Pricing Environmrnts, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 120-133, September 2010.
5. Pedram Samadi, Student Mameber, IEEE, Hamed Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE, Vincent W.S. Wong,
Senior Member, IEEE, and Robert Schober, Fellow, IEEE, Tacking the Load Uncertainty Challenges for
Energy Consumption Scheduling in Smart Grid, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1007-1016,
June 2013.
6. Junghoon Lee, Hye-Jin Kim, Gyung-Leen Park and Mikyung Kang, Energy Consumption Scheduler for
Demand Response Systems in the Smart Grid, Journal of Information Science and Engineering 28, 955969, (2012).
7. Pedram Samadi, Student Mamber, IEEE, Hamed Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE, Robert Schober, Fellow,
IEEE, Wong, Senior Member, IEEE, Advanced Demand Side Management for the Future Smart Grid Using
Mechsnism Design, , IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1170-1180, September 2012.
8. Pedram Samadi, Student Member, IEEE, Hamed Mohsenian-Rad, Member, IEEE, Vincent W.S. Wong,
Senior Member, IEEE, and Robert Schober, Fellow, IEEE, Tacking the Load Uncertainty Challenges for
Energy Consumption Scheduling in Smart Grid, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1007-1016,
June 2013.

8/25/2013

16