energies

Review
A Review on the Unit Commitment Problem: Approaches,
Techniques, and Resolution Methods
Luis Montero * , Antonio Bello and Javier Reneses
Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI School of Engineering, Comillas Pontifical University,
28015 Madrid, Spain; antonio.bello@iit.comillas.edu (A.B.); javier.reneses@iit.comillas.edu (J.R.)
* Correspondence: luis.montero@iit.comillas.edu

Abstract: Optimizing the schedule of thermal generators is probably the most important task when
the operation of power systems is managed. This issue is known as the unit commitment problem
in operational research. It has been profoundly studied in the literature, where several techniques
have been proposed to address a computationally tractable solution. In turn, the ongoing changes of
paradigms in energy markets focus the attention on the unit commitment problem as a powerful tool
to handle new trends, such as the high renewable energy sources penetration or widespread use of
non-conventional energy-storage technologies. A review on the unit commitment problem is propo-
sed in this paper. The easy understanding of the diverse techniques applied in the literature for new
researchers is the main goal of this state-of-art as well as identifying the research gaps that could be
susceptible to further developments. Moreover, an overview of the evolution of the Mixed Integer
Linear Programming formulation regarding the improvements of commercial solvers is presented,
according to its prevailing hegemony when the unit commitment problem is addressed. Finally, an
accurate analysis of modeling detail, power system representation, and computational performance
of the case studies is presented. This characterization entails a significant development against the




conventional reviews, which only offer a broad vision of the modeling scope of their citations at most.


Citation: Montero, L.; Bello, A.;
Reneses, J. A Review on the Unit Keywords: unit commitment; optimal thermal generation; numerical optimization; evolutionary
Commitment Problem: Approaches, optimization; optimization techniques; decomposition techniques; uncertainty management
Techniques, and Resolution Methods.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15041296

Academic Editor: Dimitrios 1. Introduction

Katsaprakakis The unit commitment problem (UC) is a traditional optimization problem where the
best schedule for a group of thermal units is obtained. Optimizing the electrical generation
Received: 18 December 2021
Accepted: 5 February 2022
entails many advantages for market players and final customers. However, that is not an
Published: 10 February 2022
easy task according to the big size of the problem and the computational limitations.
For that reason, there are many works in the literature where different approaches are
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral proposed to find an optimal solution to this problem, constituting an essential target for
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
the advances in operational research. This paper presents a new review of the state-of-art
published maps and institutional affil-
of the unit commitment problem, where the distinctions between optimization techniques,
iations.
problem formulations, and resolution algorithms are exposed in order to facilitate their
understanding.
This section provides a brief description of the main issues that are frequently con-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
sidered in the unit commitment problem. Several mathematical approaches have been
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. proposed over the years. The principal modeling ideas are gathered in this paper and
This article is an open access article referenced for more detailed explanations. There are multiple techniques that have been
distributed under the terms and applied to solve the unit commitment problem, being the most popular its presentation as
conditions of the Creative Commons a conventional optimization problem:
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ min( Production cost + SU cost + SD cost + Emission cost + Maintenance cost) (1)
4.0/).

Energies 2022, 15, 1296. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041296 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 1296 2 of 40

subject to:

Technical and economical constraints. (2)

The different terms of the objective function (OF) are described below:
• Production cost: This cost is related to the fuel consumption of the thermal units when
electricity is generated. Its behavior is usually described through a linear or quadratic
function, where there are a fixed term, a linear term concerning the power production,
and a quadratic term that multiplies the squared power generation of the unit. The last
term can be omitted to work with linear objective functions. Moreover, a piecewise
approximation can also be used to linearize the quadratic function. The utilization of
integer variables is mandatory for correctly modeling this cost.
• Start-up (SU) cost: This cost is related to the fuel consumption of the starting-up
process before a thermal unit is totally committed. It has an exponential behavior
according to the number of hours that the unit had been offline. Nevertheless, it is
commonly linearized through a stairwise function. Integer variables are also employed
for achieving an accurate representation.
• Shut-down (SD) cost: This cost is applied when a thermal unit is shut-down. It is
usually modeled as a fixed cost where integer variables are used to define its treatment.
Sometimes, this cost is not considered.
• Emission cost: This cost is related to the polluting compounds or the greenhouse
gases generated as a consequence of electricity production. It is not linked to the
fuel prices, such as those mentioned above, but it is related to fuel consumption and
technological efficiency. Its value depends on the local regulation and the emission
allowance trading market scheme if it exists. Within the European Union, it relies on
CO2 prices.
• Maintenance cost: This cost represents the increase of the maintenance operations
when the thermal unit is running for a longer time. It is modeled as a linear function
with respect to power generation, and it is often internalized in the production cost
for the sake of simplicity. Integer variables are also associated with this cost.
Fuel consumption is the main cost of the unit commitment problem. The importance
of a proper representation of these costs is pointed out in [1], where it is mentioned that
saving 0.5% of fuel in electricity generation represents a yearly benefit of millions of
euros for a utility. Accordingly, research is focused on improving the modeling detail
to increase profitability. In past decades, coal plants were generally the thermal basis of
power systems. Meanwhile, combined cycles gas turbines were relegated for high-demand
periods, and fast-ramping gas turbines were used to cover demand peaks. This operation
was steady over time and did not demand great modeling developments to achieve an
efficient asset management.
Nowadays, the trend is changing. The dismantling process of coal plants accounted
by many power systems according to greenhouse policies and the loss of their competi-
tiveness due to the implementation of emission-allowance trading markets has brought a
paradigm shift. Moreover, the higher renewable-energy source penetration has increased
the frequency of the start-up and shut-down processes of the thermal units. Hence, the
proper representation of the fuel consumption during these operations is gaining force in
current formulations. With regard to the technical constraints used in the unit commitment
problem, the following considerations are often assumed:
• Demand constraint: This is a balance equation to assure that the electricity generation
meets the load demand for every represented time period. An energy storage term
can be added if more accurate management is desired. In turn, it is also possible
to introduce a spillage term in the equation to represent situations of production
surpluses. It is a linear equation with continuous variables.
• Reserve constraint: This inequality guarantees a technical necessity of power systems,
which is the availability of an extra generation capacity reserved for compromising
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 3 of 40

situations, such as a failure in a committed thermal unit, to keep the security of supply.
It is a linear inequality that also employs continuous variables.
• Capacity limits: This inequality is used to assure that the electricity generation of each
thermal unit respects the minimum and maximum power output according to their
technical limits. This inequality is linear and uses integer variables.
• Ramping limits: This inequality assures that the difference between the power genera-
tion of a thermal unit during the previous and the current time step does not exceed
the ramping rates. It is a linear inequality that uses continuous variables.
• Logic constraint: It establishes logic in the commitment decisions at every time step,
indicating the relationships between start-ups, shut-downs, and commitment status
along the whole time span. This equation is linear and utilizes integer variables.
• Minimum time up (TU) and time down (TD): This inequality is used to guarantee
that the unit is online for a minimum period of time since it is started-up or that it is
offline for a minimum time since it is shut-down, in order to accomplish with technical
limitations that reduce the risk of failure. It is linear and employs integer variables.
• Operating constraints: This group gathers the constraints that are utilized for a more
accurate representation of the operation of the thermal units from a technical point of
view. Some examples are situations where some units must run or have a fixed power
output, an outage of a unit due to maintenance tasks, or unforeseen problems, etc.
• Emission constraints: They are imposed to bound specific emissions along a time span.
• Network constraints: These constraints are implemented with the aim of representing
technical limitations regarding the consideration of the power grid. They increase the
accuracy of the unit commitment problem but also the complexity of its resolution.
For that reason, the network is frequently disregarded unless a more secure generation
schedule is desired. In that case, the capacity of the optimal schedule to overcome
an unexpected failure safely is sought. It is known as the Security Constrained Unit
Commitment problem (SCUC).
The unit commitment problem is frequently addressed as a minimization problem,
where the sum of the total costs constitutes the objective function, and the demand con-
straint is an equation where the generation meets the power consumption. Sometimes, a
non-served energy term is added to the balance equation. If the associated cost is high, there
will only be non-served energy situations if the demand exceeds the generation limit. On
the contrary, if it is not high enough, there could appear situations in which the electricity
production is not profitable.
This representation was suitable before the liberalization of energy markets accom-
plished in many power systems. Nowadays, the objective function of the unit commitment
problem is also represented through the difference between benefits and costs of producing
electricity, which is sought to be maximized. In turn, price forecasts are implemented
to evaluate profitability, and the demand constraint is transformed into an inequality or
omitted. The production of a market player will be based on profitability, which is known
as the Price-Based Unit Commitment problem (PBUC). The representation of the competi-
tiveness behavior of market players has also been studied in this problem. Nevertheless,
this research topic is out of the scope of this survey.
The following section describes the techniques that can be applied to solve the unit
commitment problem further than the optimization problem presentation. However,
according to its importance, this methodology is predominantly studied in this paper. The
programming options with relation to the formulation are exposed in Section 3.1. In turn,
the consideration of uncertainty is addressed in Section 3.2. The decomposition techniques
that can be applied to facilitate its resolution are mentioned in Section 3.3. On the other hand,
the resolution algorithms that can be applied to find the optimal solution to the optimization
problem are exposed in Section 3.4. Section 4.1 describes the modeling trends when the unit
commitment problem is formulated as a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP), which
is currently the most widespread approach. Meanwhile, Section 4.2 presents an accurate
analysis of modeling detail, power system representation, and computational performance
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 4 of 40

of the case studies described in all the references. Finally, Section 5 concludes the article
with a brief contribution summary, identifying research gaps for further developments.

2. Optimization Techniques and Unit Commitment

In order to achieve an optimal solution to the unit commitment problem, several
optimization techniques have been applied in the literature. These methodologies require
a set of input data and return the best thermal schedule obtained after their applications.
Figure 1 presents an illustrative diagram where these optimization techniques are classified.
In contrast with many other arrangements made in the literature, this layout can help to
clarify the differences between optimization techniques, problem formulations, decom-
position techniques, and resolution methods, as well as different options of uncertainty
management inside the proposed scheme.
Popular optimization methods are described in this section. They constitute different
approaches to face the unit commitment problem, whose complexity has often evolved
together with the advances in computation. Furthermore, it is also possible to combine
them in hybrid methodologies to exploit some of their advantages at once. Regarding the
literature, the following classification is made:
• Exhaustive Enumeration (EE): It consists of the evaluation of all the feasible solutions
in order to identify the best value as the optimal solution. Exhaustive enumeration is a
brute force method that is not computationally affordable. Its scope is very limited [2].
• Expert System (ES): The underlying idea of this method resides in the creation of
an algorithm where the good practices and knowledge of proceedings in the reso-
lution of the unit commitment problem are computed. It was employed to save in
computational costs [3], but it fell into disuse because of its sub-optimal solutions.
• Priority List (PL): This technique is based on ordering elements of target sets according
to their contribution to the objective function. The decisions taken on these target
elements during the resolution process will conclude in a better or worse approach
to the optimal solution. For that reason, it usually has a mathematical background
behind it. Despite returning a sub-optimal solution, it is an attractive optimization
technique from a computational perspective due to the obtaining of near-optimal
solutions in reasonable run times [4–7].
• Fuzzy Logic (FL): This method allows the application of abstract reasoning into the
computational logic to solve a mathematical problem. It utilizes if–then rules in order to
generalize some input data. This information is treated according to a background (if
conditions) and output data are obtained consequently (then reactions). The utilization
of fuzzy logic techniques helps accelerate the resolution of the unit commitment
problems but returns a less accurate solution. They are usually applied at a beginning
step and combined with other optimization techniques in hybrid proceedings [8–10].
• Neural Networks (NN): This artificial intelligence technique is based on establishing
patterns that transform some input data into a near-optimal solution. Its structure
consists of a group of interconnected nodes where some mathematical functions are
applied to process the information. In order to achieve good results, these processes are
trained with a benchmark database. However, it provides sub-optimal solutions, and
its implementation and adjustment are quite difficult [11,12]. This machine-learning
approach is still being used to solve the unit commitment problem nowadays. For
further information about the application of machine learning techniques in the unit
commitment, the reader is referred to [13].
• Optimization Problem (OP): The unit commitment problem is frequently addressed as
a classical optimization problem, where an objective function is proposed, subject to a
set of constraints. This methodology entails the most widespread approach used to
solve the unit commitment problem, and it is described in depth in Section 3.
• Hybrid Methodologies (HM): These optimization techniques are sometimes combined
in hybrid methodologies in order to improve their performance. Some approaches
made in the literature of the unit commitment problem are [14–21].
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 5 of 40

A comparison of these optimization techniques is presented in Table 1. References are

focused on the thermal UC. For representations where the optimization of power systems
adds hydro valleys or energy storage facilities, the reader is referred to [22,23], respectively.

Figure 1. Optimization methodologies applied to the unit commitment problem. At the first level, the
optimization techniques are exposed. Later, the most widely used is visually described, underlying
the two choices of addressing the optimization problem and its stages. The formulating option and
the resolution algorithm that are needed to solve the problem are presented. In turn, the uncertainty
representation and the utilization of decomposition techniques are introduced as possible alternatives
to enhance the accuracy of the representation of the problem and the performance of its resolution.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 6 of 40

Table 1. Comparison of optimization techniques to solve the unit commitment problem.

Technique Advantages Disadvantages

EE Optimal solution Computationally intractable
Fast resolution Non-optimal solution
ES Handles a lot of information Difficult implementation
Combines theoretical–practical knowledge Problems if schedules are unexpected in database
Fast resolution Non-optimal solution
PL Mathematical background Difficult identification of new cost-saving trends
Generally easy to implement Solution can be very far from the optimum value
Qualitative interpretation Non-optimal solution
FL Effective solution to complex problems Fuzzy rules are difficult to implement
Handles any type of unit characteristic data Results are difficult to analyze in-depth
Handles complex systems efficiently Non-optimal solution
Hidden relationships can be identified Intricate network structure
NN
Flexible utilization of non linear functions New additions require a retraining
Flexible treatment of noisy data Exponential computation-time/problem-size rate
Optimal solution Exponential computation-time/problem-size rate
Generally easy to implement Modeling simplifications are sometimes needed
OP
Advances in commercial solvers Function linearizations are sometimes needed
Much information in the literature Unable to work with noisy data

3. Unit Commitment as an Optimization Problem

As mentioned, the resolution of the unit commitment problem is frequently addressed
as an optimization problem. Two approaches can be differentiated within this technique.
Conventional optimization (CO) exposes the objective function and its constraints as
is. On the other hand, dynamic programming (DP) utilizes the principle of optimal-
ity proposed by Bellman [24], dividing the problem into overlapping subproblems and
optimal substructures [25–27]. However, the curse of dimensionality forces the imple-
mentation of heuristic rules to deal with real-size problems, providing near-optimal solu-
tions. Although nowadays, DP is not as relevant as it was before, it is sometimes used to
manage uncertainty [28–30]. Furthermore, other distinctions in OP can be made according
to their formulation, uncertainty consideration, utilization of decomposition techniques, or
the optimization algorithm that is employed to determine an optimal solution.

3.1. Formulating Options

There are different classifications depending on how an OP can be formulated. Ac-
cording to the variables, a distinction can be made between discrete or continuous vari-
ables, as well as the utilization of a mix of them. In contrast, the nature of the objective
function and constraints can be discriminated into linear, quadratic, or non-linear func-
tions. Combinations of these programming techniques lead to the classification made
in Appendix A. In the unit commitment problem, the most popular formulating option
is Mixed Integer Linear Programming. In turn, it can also be faced by Mixed Integer
Quadratic Programming (MIQP), Mixed Integer Quadratically Constrained Prog. (MIQCP),
Mixed Integer Second-Order Cone Programming (MISOCP), and Mixed Integer Non-Linear
Programming (MINLP).

3.2. Uncertainty Representation

The operation of real power systems is implicitly subject to uncertainty. The demand
forecasts are exposed to inaccuracy or sudden changes according to unexpected situations.
Furthermore, the penetration of renewable energy sources in current power markets in-
creases the uncertainty. Wind and solar generation entail the risk of altering the thermal
demand at any time. For those reasons, the consideration of uncertainty in the unit com-
mitment problem enhances the reliability of the optimal schedule that is obtained. If the
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 7 of 40

election of representing uncertainty is made, there are several alternatives to transform a

deterministic problem into a probabilistic one. The most popular techniques applied to the
unit commitment problem are briefly described below and compared in Table 2.
• Stochastic Optimization (SO): This methodology manages the representation of un-
certainty through the utilization of probability distributions that are connected to
risk variables. These distributions can be directly included in constraints that require
some statistical parameters. Nonetheless, the most common practice is to consider
different scenarios. These scenarios are obtained through probability-distribution
discretizations. Each scenario has an associated weight according to its frequency of
occurrence.
– Two-Stage (TS) Stochastic Programming: This technique is based on dividing the
problem into two steps, distributing decision variables and constraints in these
stages. When the first step is accomplished, the first-stage choices are made. Later,
these decisions are considered fixed, and the second stage is solved. The two-
stage stochastic programming utilizes scenarios to consider uncertainty. When all
the scenarios are solved, a solution to the problem is calculated according to the
weight of each scenario. It has been widely applied in the UC literature [31–39].
It is widespread to decide which thermal units will be online along the time span
in the first stage. Thereafter, the optimal schedule is set in the second stage. Each
dispatch obtained in this stage corresponds to a scenario.
– Multi-Stage (MS) Stochastic Programming: This technique uses a combinatorial
tree where every combination of scenarios is represented. The tree is divided
into successive nodes that are linked. A branch represents the path between the
initial node and a final solution. The weights of scenarios are set in the linking
connection between nodes. Thus, it is easy to determine the probability of each
solution obtained when each branch is solved, which corresponds to a scenario.
Some of its applications to the unit commitment problem are [40–42]. Robust
solutions are provided, since decisions are taken dynamically. However, the
associated computational burden requires an excellent scenario sampling and
reduction to reach acceptable run times.
– Risk Consideration (RC) Stochastic Programming: This method is based on the ad-
dition of some constraints in order to respect the risk exposure of some decisions
when the problem is solved. These equations require statistical information of
the probability distributions as input and the significant value desired to respect.
Thus, a solution is obtained according to the confidence interval that is introduced
in the problem. This technique has been applied to the unit commitment problem
in order to represent situations such as the expected non served load, loss of load
probability, or the variance of the total profit [43–45].
– Chance Constrained (CCO) Stochastic Programming: It is considered a particular-
ization of two-stage stochastic programming. This technique allows the solution
to violate a set of constraints according to a predefined confidence level. As with
the risk consideration stochastic programming, it works with probability distribu-
tions instead of scenarios. However, the solution has a probabilistic touch. It will
be the optimal solution with a confidence interval, not according to a confidence
interval associated with risk variables [46–48].
• Robust Optimization (RO): The underlying idea of this methodology is to reach an
optimal solution avoiding the worst possible combination of circumstances that can
happen according to the uncertainty associated with the presence of risk variables.
Robust optimization does not work with probability distributions. It employs a
bounded range from which a risk variable can take its value. The bounds imposed on
the risk variables are applied in two ways. They are directly used as upper and lower
bounds in an inequality that is defined for each dimension in which the variables
are formulated and indirectly through the establishment of an uncertainty set. This
uncertainty budget is linked to the deviation of the forecasted value associated with
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 8 of 40

each risk variable from their bounds along the evaluated horizon. It can not exceed
a predefined value. The more restrictive the uncertainty set is, the more robust the
obtained solution. The load demand is used as the target of RO in the unit commitment
problem [49–51].
• Interval Optimization (IO): This technique handles the uncertainty representation
through the creation of bounds according to a predefined confidence interval. Firstly,
a forecasted value is provided for each considered risk variable. Later, the confidence
interval is used to generate an envelope around the expected value. The higher
the value of the confidence interval, the tighter the bounding to the risk variable.
Afterwards, the problem is optimized at the expected central value of the interval,
being also capable of providing a feasible solution for those deviations from the
forecast that are contained inside the interval [52–54].
• Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS): The Monte Carlo methodology is frequently employed
to achieve an accurate sampling from a set of probabilistic distributions. However, it
can be extended to manage a complete uncertainty representation. In that case, the
obtained scenarios are optimized as deterministic problems. Later, the output data are
processed, and a probabilistic distribution is associated with each result [55–57].
• Hybrid Uncertainty Implementation (HUI): These techniques can be combined to
improve their performances. Some examples in the unit commitment literature
are [58–60].

Table 2. Comparison of uncertainty representation techniques used in the unit commitment problem.

Technique Advantages Disadvantages

Less conservative solution Static assumption of uncertainty
Generally easy to implement Necessity of scenario-generation techniques
SO-TS
Working with discretized scenarios Necessity of scenario-reduction techniques
Easy weight-assignment to each solution Information of probability distributions
Dynamic assumption of uncertainty Curse of dimmensionality
Accurate decision-making modeling Necessity of scenario-generation techniques
SO-MS Working with discretized scenarios Necessity of scenario-reduction techniques
Easy-traceable paths in the scenario tree Information of probability distributions
Easy weight-assignment to each solution Difficult construction of scenario trees
Flexible interval confidence for input data Necessity of statistical information
SO-RC Risk variables define robustness Working with probabilistic distributions
Generally easy to implement Solution according to a interval confidence
Less conservative solution Solution is not valid in some situations
SO-CCO Solution with a probabilistic touch Working with probabilistic distributions
Flexible setting of violable constraints Modeling demands extra binary variables
Optimization over the whole horizon Over-conservative solutions
Do not need probabilistic distributions Tight optimality/uncertainty set relation
RO
Flexible protection from adverse situations Expertise to construct the uncertainty set
Useful if forecasting deviations are bounded Difficult to incorporate uncertainty dynamics
Easier to incorporate uncertainty dynamics Over-conservative solutions
Do not need probabilistic distributions Tight optimality/forecasting bounds relation
IO
Flexible protection from adverse situations Expertise to establish forecasting deviations
Useful if forecasting deviations are bounded Optimization over particular central values
Computational efficiency Implementation can be difficult
High-efficient sampling process Necessity of scenario-generation techniques
MCS Working with discretized scenarios Necessity of scenario-reduction techniques
Resolution process can be parallelized Information of probability distributions
Results have a probabilistic distribution Solutions are not valid in some situations
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 9 of 40

3.3. Decomposition Techniques

Once the formulation of the unit commitment problem is chosen and the decision
of considering uncertainty or not is taken, it is time to evaluate if the application of
decomposition techniques to the problem is desirable. These techniques can be a powerful
tool to solve the unit commitment problem with reasonable run times. Although they
were frequently employed when the performance of numerical optimization solvers was
computationally limited, particularly the Lagrangian Relaxation, their use has drastically
decreased currently because of the advances in commercial solvers and disadvantages such
as its difficult implementation and convergence toward an optimal solution. However, the
application of decomposition techniques in the unit commitment problem is sometimes
addressed nowadays:
• Dantzig-Wolfe Decomposition (DWD): [33,40,61].
• Benders Decomposition (BD): [35,39,48].
• Lagrangian Relaxation (LR): [31,37,62].

3.4. Optimization Algorithms

Finally, when an optimization problem is completely defined, optimization algorithms
are applied to find an optimal or near-optimal solution to the problem. The resolution
techniques can be classified into numerical methods or meta-heuristic methods.
Numerical optimization (NO) is preferably used to solve the unit commitment problem.
In a first step, the improvements in these iterative algorithms were implemented directly by
researchers looking to enhance the resolution processes. Currently, commercial solvers have
advanced notoriously, and the research is focused on exploiting their properties as best as
possible. In order to solve MILP, MIQP, and MIQCP problems, two of the most renowned
commercial solvers are Gurobi [63] and CPLEX [64]. In addition, for MISOCP or MINLP
problems, MOSEK [65] and BARON [66] respectively offer one of the best performances.
For further information about NO, the reader is referred to [67].
On the other hand, evolutionary optimization (EO) is also applied to solve the unit
commitment problem. Although these methodologies can not guarantee finding an optimal
solution, they can handle more complex formulations without the necessity of utilizing too
many simplifications. These meta-heuristic algorithms are based on simulating behaviors
that are observed in nature to map the feasible region of an optimization problem looking
for the optimal solution. Many of these approaches have been employed to solve the unit
commitment problem:
• Genetic Algorithm (GA): [68].
• Simulated Annealing (SA): [69].
• Tabu Search Algorithm (TSA): [70].
• Evolutionary Programming (EP): [71].
• Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO): [72].
• Ant Colony Optimization (ACO): [73].
• Ant Lion Optimizer (ALO): [74].
• Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm (ABCA): [75].
• Artificial Fish Swarm Algorithm (AFSA): [76].
• Artificial Immune System Algorithm (AISA): [77].
• Artificial Sheep Algorithm (ASA): [78].
• Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA): [79].
• Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA): [80].
• Differential Evolution Algorithm (DEA): [81].
• Exchange Market Algorithm (EMA): [82].
• Firefly Algorithm (FFA): [83].
• Fireworks Algorithm (FWA): [84].
• Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA): [85].
• Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO): [86].
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 10 of 40

• Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA): [87].

• Intensify Harris Hawks Optimizer (IHHO): [88].
• Memory Management Algorithm (MMA): [89].
• Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm (QIEA): [90].
• Quasi-Oppositional Teaching Learning Based Algorithm (QOTLBA): [91].
• Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA): [92].
• Sine–Cosine Algorithm (SCA): [93].
• Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA): [94].
In turn, these algorithms can be combined with each other to achieve a better perfor-
mance, or even with commercial solvers if the problem is divided into multiple resolution
stages. Some examples in the unit commitment literature are in [95–99]. Furthermore, an
excellent state-of-art on EO is presented in [100].

4. Trends in Computational Efficiency to Solve the Unit Commitment Problem

4.1. Evolution of Unit Commitment Modeling Trends and Current Situation
In spite of the application of advanced evolutionary algorithms to the resolution of the
unit commitment problem, the mainstream research trend is the utilization of numerical
optimization algorithms to find the global optimum. As it was mentioned in Section 3, the
implicit computational burden of this problem limited the scope of numerical optimization.
In the beginning, research was mainly focused on improving optimization algorithms.
In turn, decomposition techniques were also deeply studied in order to accelerate the reso-
lution processes. Despite their computational advantages, the utilization of decomposition
techniques introduces complexity in the problem, such as difficulties in the implementation
or the oscillations in the iterative convergence to the optimal solution.
For that reason, when commercial solvers gained competitiveness, the research in the
UC problem started to change its direction. The advances in computation and the huge
developments in numerical optimization promoted an exponential enhancement of MIP
solvers [101]. Commercial solvers were able to address the unit commitment problem
in reasonable run times even if decomposition techniques were not utilized. Then, the
research began to focus on the formulation, instead of the decomposition, in order to exploit
the properties of the solvers efficiently.
Suddenly, it was possible to think about improving the detail representation in the
unit commitment problem. In turn, these advances needed to be in accordance with the
solver trends. The performance of MILPs was more developed than MIQPs or MIQCPs
and much more than MINLPs. For that reason, even quadratic formulations that were able
to be solved as is were linearized in order to achieve a faster resolution.
The foundations of the UC modeling were laid. The detailed representation of the
quadratic production costs was assumed through a piecewise linearization. Moreover, the
dependence between start-up costs and the offline time steps accounted by the thermal units
was modeled by a stairwise function [102]. The importance of convexity was manifested,
both for thermal units and hydro generators [103]. Regarding the reserves [104] and
power trajectories, efficient formulations were proposed to deal with them [105]. In these
formulations, it was usual to employ three binary variables for each thermal unit and time
step: one to define the commitment status and the others to represent a start-up or shut-
down process. Despite that, binary variables were also utilized for piecewise linearizations,
whose performance has been studied as well [106], and for stairwise representations [107].
Nevertheless, despite the improvements accomplished by the commercial solvers, the
UC remains a strongly NP-hard problem [108]. For that reason, if greater horizons, thermal
portfolios, or technical representations are desired, a trade-off between the modeling detail
and the size of the corresponding problem must be chosen.
Modeling simplifications are mandatory when bidding processes are included in the
representation [109], even more, if congestion in transmission lines is also desired to be
included [110]. In turn, disaggregation methods are studied as an alternative for extending
the scope of the representation. Ref. [111] breaks the horizons and solves shorter time
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 11 of 40

spans sequentially. Ref. [112] decomposes the problem according to power market stages to
increase the detail and links them heuristically later. Ref. [113] links longer-term with day-
ahead decisions. Ref. [114] also uses multiple stages to simulate the competitive behavior
of the market players, and in [115], a sequential resolution is proposed, too.
Additionally, the efficiency of the formulations is continuously studied. The opti-
mization of the number of constraints and variables, especially binary variables, to model
the same operation is addressed in depth in order to gain accuracy without a high com-
putational cost. Ref. [116] points out the importance of reducing the number of binary
variables that are employed per thermal unit and time step. Meanwhile, ref. [117] analyzes
the response of the same thermal portfolio when the optimization is addressed as a cost
minimization problem and as a PBUC. On the other hand, ref. [118] studies how to increase
the flexibility in the operation efficiently, especially regarding fuel consumption.
According to the apparent complications introduced by binary variables, ref. [119]
proposed to work with them as relaxed variables and penalize the non-integrality in the OF.
On the other hand, ref. [120] uses a formulation with only one bin and imposes constraints
to achieve their integrality behavior after a more efficient resolution. This approach reduces
the number of branches that are created by the resolution algorithm because of the lower
binary variables defined. This philosophy is also adopted in [121], where bidding processes
are considered. Despite the defense of their utilization, the results of [121] show that the
conventional three-bin formulations achieve practically the same performances.
This issue was further studied in [122,123] where the tightness of a UC formulation
was defined as the proximity of the relaxed solution and the integer solution. These
solutions are desired to be close in order to enhance the performance of the solver. For that
reason, some additional constraints are proposed to tighten the feasible region when the
problem is relaxed in the iterations of the Branch & Cut. Moreover, ref. [123] concludes that
the advances in commercial solvers cause the obsolescence of the formulation proposed
in [120], since the solver can manage the branch creation properly and utilizes integer
variables to generate cuts as well. If the integrability is not defined, the cuts will ignore
these continuous variables that should be integer ones, hindering the performance of the
solver. The Tight formulation proposed in [123] is quite renowned in the literature.
Tight formulations improve the performance of the solver by approximating the gap
in the resolution process. However, it is also important for the tightened relaxed problem
to be easy to solve. In that way, if many constraints are added, the computational cost of
this step will be notably increased. Ref. [124] defines the concept of compactness according
to the necessity of the lower number of variables, constraints, and non-zero elements in the
problem matrix. For that reason, it is mandatory to evaluate a trade-off between Tightness
and Compactness. Ref. [124] proposes a Tight and Compact (T&C) formulation where the
importance of power trajectories is exposed, as it is reiterated later in [125]. In [126], the
T&C formulation is extended to a thermal portfolio and, in [127], it is analyzed in depth and
improved. The T&C formulation with power trajectories is exploited to achieve a proper
evaluation of the reserve management in real operations of real power systems, Ref. [128]
and their properties are deeply studied in [129]. T&C remains a powerful and renowned
formulation nowadays.
Since that moment, UC formulations have tried to be as tight and compact as possible.
For this reason, the proposition made in [130] to apply perspective functions in the UC
problem was retaken. Perspective reformulations can be utilized to replace quadratic
constraints by linear or second-order cone programming [131], enhancing the resolution
process. The computational advances of [131] are exploited in [132] to develop an efficient
tight formulation. Moreover, this technique is evolved in [133–135] towards the proposition
of a two-bin formulation. Ref. [135] is a renowned formulation that projects the thermal
production in continuous variables that are bounded in [0, 1], and it does not need the
utilization of the shut-down binary variables.
On the other hand, the detail representation takes advantage of the computationally
advanced formulations, choosing their equations as efficient ways to model technical
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 12 of 40

operations. In turn, they are complemented with aspects that are desired to be submitted
to study. That is the case of emission targets. The inclusion of emission targets in the
UC problem supposes its transformation to a multi-objective problem, which has to be
solved through heuristics [136–138]. However, it can be addressed as an MIP problem
by giving a penalty to the emissions in the OF, such as [139]. Moreover, non-convex
functions that represent emissions targets can be linearized, and the problem can rely
on some emission parameters that are introduced as input data [140]. In turn, modeling
transmission constraints is also gaining importance in detailed models [141,142] , as well as
considering non-conventional energy-storage options [143].
Meanwhile, important issues for solving the UC problem are also studied, such as
the presence of symmetry [144]. This phenomenon occurs when there are several identical
generation units. In that case, the resolution process is slower because the solver does
not cut branches that offer the same solution with a different combination of scheduled
units. Symmetric-breaking constraints are added to avoid these situations [145], and their
performances are compared against the developments in commercial solvers to handle with
symmetry [146]. There is not a clear consensus. Apparently, current solvers can deal with
symmetry properly, although the constraints seem to be useful in small size problems [147].
Furthermore, this symmetry can be exploited; Ref. [148] solves aggregated units and later
decomposes the results after the optimization.
In turn, the current trends of renewable-energy-sources penetration in modern power
systems point out an increment in the amount of start-up and shut-down processes ac-
counted by thermal generators [149]. These ongoing changes highlight the necessity of
extending the horizon of the UC problem [150] for considering medium-term technical
constraints, such as maintenance schedule [151]. This could be achieved through clustering
techniques such as [152]. The reduction of variables due to the aggregation of identical
generators can be harmonized with an extension of the time span, keeping the run times
assumed before the clustering. According to the research gap for enhancing the start-up
costs [153], a more accurate stairwise function representation is presented in [154], and
a new efficient formulation is proposed in [155]. Furthermore, more detailed generation
schedules can be obtained by considering the possible turbine configurations of a power
plant. With this purpose, a tight and compact formulation to represent this accurate
operation is presented in [156].
The more efficient modeling techniques are translated into more accurate models
with a higher scope. Ref. [157] is focused on a more detailed representation of thermal
units, hydro generators, and pumped storage with a clear differentiation between turbine-
production and pumping processes, as well as upper and lower reservoirs with their
respective inflows. Ref. [158] models these issues and a simplified transmission network,
too. The transmission representation was enhanced in [159] and later complemented with a
simplified natural gas network in [160], where fluctuating natural gas flows in the pipelines
toward the thermal unit that consume this fuel are considered.
Finally, it is important to highlight that new efficient formulations have been proposed
during the last years. Ref. [161] is specially designed for fast-ramping thermal units.
In [162], the commitment status binary variables are replaced by transition state variables,
achieving great computational results. These renowned formulations [126,135,162] are
compared in [163], manifesting the good performance of [126] despite being proposed a
few years earlier than the others. Another comparison and new formulations are exposed
in [164], pointing out the importance of this research field nowadays. Additionally, a
standardized method to test formulations is employed, and an excellent explanation of the
unit commitment evolution since a formulating point of view is described.

4.2. Precise Description of the Modeling Detail Adopted in the Literature

As it was manifested in [164], it is essential to establish a standardized benchmark to
compare the efficiency of the unit commitment formulations. Despite traditional thermal
portfolios [165] and power systems such as the IEEE 118-bus [166,167], or the IEEE RTS-
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 13 of 40

96 [168] are frequently employed in the literature, it is also desirable to set other relevant
issues. These concerns are different modeling details, algorithm performances, solver
options, and computational resources to handle the optimization process.
The unit commitment is a widely studied optimization problem, and, as a consequence,
there are several good reviews on this topic. Recent publications are [100,169–175]. There,
comparisons about optimization techniques [169,170], uncertainty representation [171,172],
and resolution techniques [100,173,174] are presented. However, advantages and disadvan-
tages are usually exposed from a general perspective, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The literature reviews proposed in [100,173,174] gathered hardware specifications
(if given), case study systems, run times, and a general explanation about the UC constraints
that were employed in their references. Nevertheless, a more exhaustive analysis on
modeling detail is necessary if a clear vision of the scope of the citations is required. On
the other hand, an intensive description of UC modeling is made in [175], but a literature
benchmark with the modeling properties of a set of different case studies and methodologies
is not presented.
For that reason, bringing out a structured presentation of the modeling detail achieved
through the different techniques referenced in this paper satisfies one of the most urgent
requirements of the literature reviews. A general description of the technical and economic
aspects represented in the unit commitment problem is made in Section 1. Although the
theoretical scope of the representation is practically unlimited, reality demands a tight trade-
off between modeling detail, system size, and computational resources to find an optimal
or near-optimal solution. Considering that, Table 3 exposes a meticulous characterization
of these features.
This summary provides the reader with a precise vision of the trade-off decisions
assumed by the different authors when presenting their methodologies. An exact idea
about the accuracy of the represented power system (detail, size, and horizon) and the
corresponding computational tractability (run time and optimality of the solution) is given.
In this way, the reader can discern between the scopes of the optimization proceedings pre-
sented in this paper, keeping in mind that it is a small collection of the most representative
techniques applied to solve the unit commitment problem.
According to the information gathered in Table 3, the following clarifications are done:
• The number of segments in piecewise linearizations is specified when they are re-
ported. If they are not given in the table, it means that quadratic coefficients were
presented in the paper, and the author just said that the function was linearized.
• Hourly granularity is considered unless another specification is shown in the time
span column. Additionally, time period chronology is also supposed to be respected
except if a disaggregation technique is mentioned in that column.
• The symbol (r) means replication. It is shown when the number of units that compose
a generation portfolio is repeated to deal with bigger systems in the case study or
when the data presented for a shorter time span (typically a day) are imitated to
make it longer. It entails computational conditions such as symmetry or identifiable
patterns.
• The information presented in the demand constraint column denotes the elements
that participate in the balance equation. If it is described as equal or greater, the unit
commitment problem is addressed as a cost minimization problem where the load
demand has to be matched or exceeded, respectively. In the case of PBUC, it is assumed
that the maximization has no generation limits unless a (lower) term is added to show
that total generation must not exceed the load demand.
• The information presented in the reserve constraints column is not always consistent.
Some systems include spinning reserve in primary, secondary, or tertiary reserves.
However, other systems establish different distinctions. The reserve dependence on
the regulatory framework is out of the scope of this review. For that reason, reserves
are shown as they are specified in each paper.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 14 of 40

• The operative constraints column is sometimes used to show miscellaneous informa-

tion, such as hydro representation, market specifications, etc., for the sake of clarity.
Thus, the whole case study information is presented in the same row and table, despite
space limitations.
• The optimal column determines the capability of the proposed methodology to assure
finding the global optimum. In turn, when the paper reports the value of the relative
optimality criterion, which is imposed on MIP solvers, it is also exposed in this column.
This optimality gap is the quotient of the difference between primal and dual bound,
in absolute value, and the maximum of both. This feature can be specified before
solving an MIP problem. It should not be confused with the dual gap (defined when
decomposition techniques are applied) or the integrality gap (calculated when the
optimization ends). It clarifies the scope of the methodologies, providing a significant
idea about their efficiency and the trade-off between modeling detail, run time, and
computational performance.
• Executions are made in regular computing machines up to the date of the publications
to whom any researcher could have access. If they are run in high efficient clusters,
whose affordability is limited to generation companies or universities, it will be
specified in the run time column.
• The data used in each case study are supposed to be given or properly cited. If
some technical or economic aspect is modeled, but any input data are provided, it is
specified with a (*). Moreover, if these data are apparently given, but the link is offline
by the date that this review is sent to the publisher or the referenced article does not
provide the information, it is specified with a (**).
• The generation limits of the thermal units are always considered to be given, except if
the rest of the information is also missing.
• If there is at least one start-up cost represented in the methodology, the logic constraint
that establishes commitments, start-ups, and shut-downs is formulated.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 15 of 40

Table 3. Technical and economic modeling detail accomplished in the literature to represent power systems and computational performance of the methodologies.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
equal 1 year
[2] EE quadratic 1 SU - - yes NSE - - - - - - near-opt. 10 units through 6 -
OE time steps
base level
[3] ES linear 1 SU - - - mid. level - - - - - - near-opt. 26 units 24 h ∼20 min
peak level
10 units 24 h 0.01 s
[4] PL quadratic 2 SU - - - equal primary - yes - - - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 0.06 s
100 units (r) 120 h <1 s
10 units 2s
[5] PL quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
100 units (r) 174 s
10 units 0.154 s
[6] PL quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
100 units (r) 0.275 s
10 units
equal battery capacity limits
1 wind gen.
[7] PL quadratic 2 SU - - - ND-RES spinning - yes - charge/discharge limits - near-opt. 24 h -
1 solar gen.
EVs charge/discharge efficiency
50000 PEVs
FL 10 units 18.34 s
[8] OP(CO) quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
PSO 100 units (r) 1734.67 s

FL 5 units
[9] OP(CO) quadratic 1 SU - - - PBUC - yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h -
heur. alg. 36 units

demand response—curtailment
equal
demand response—shifting
FL dem. response calculated 10 units
battery capacity limits
[10] OP(CO) quadratic 2 SU - - - ND-RES spinning - yes after - near-opt. 1 wind gen. 24 h -
charge/discharge limits
PSO ND-RES-C resolution EVs
quadratic charging cost
EVs
quadratic discharging cost
26 units 24 h
[11] NN quadratic * - - - - equal - - - - - - near-opt. -
11 units 168 h
[12] NN quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning * yes * yes - prohibited operating zones - near-opt. 10 units 24 h <0.02 s
HM
PBUC
[14] ES & quadratic exponential - - - - - yes - - - near-opt. 110 units 24 h 15 min
lower
OP(DP)
HM must run units
[15] NN & quadratic exponential - - - equal spinning - yes - prohibited operating zones - near-opt. 7 units 24 h 4.5 s
OP(DP) quadratic generation losses
HM
NN & exponential 26 units 2.17 s
[16] quadratic - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
PL & 1 SU 45 units 1.84 s
OP(CO)
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 16 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
HM 10 units 10 s
[17] PL & quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
OP(CO) 100 units (r) 73 s

HM
PL & 10 units
[18] FL & quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h -
OP(DP) 100 units (r)
SA
HM
PL & 10 units 252 s
[19] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
OP(CO) 40 units (r) 2578 s
ACO
HM 10 units 24 h 3s
ES &
[20] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - must run units* - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 143 s
OP(CO)
PSO 40 units 168 h 1661 s
HM 2 SU - 10 units 20 s
PL &
[21] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 1700 s
OP(CO)
PSO - yes 26 units 906 s
24 h
OP(DP)
[25] heuristics quadratic 1 SU - - - equal - yes * yes - - - near-opt. 1 unit 96 h <1 s
heur. alg.
168 h
OP(DP)
[26] heuristics quadratic ** 1 SU ** - - - equal ** - yes ** yes ** - - - near-opt. 200 unit (r) 24 h 134 s
heur. alg.
OP(DP)
yes 458 s
OP(DP)
[27] heuristics quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning * - yes - - - near-opt. 10 unit 24 h 12 s
OP(DP) near-opt. 63 s
heuristics
OP(DP)
24 buses
heuristics -
[28] linear 1 SU 1 SD - - equal - yes yes - - flow limits near-opt. 38 lines 24 h
SO-MS 225 scen.
33 units
MILP solver
OP(DP) equal
118 buses ∼1.25 h
heuristics non specified NSE flow limits
[29] 1 SU 1 SD - - spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits near-opt. 181 lines 24 h 50 scen.
SO-MS function OE shift factor
54 units 16 cores
MIP solver TL
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 17 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
SU/SD capacity limits **
CCGT configuration modes
capacity limits per mode
ramp rates per mode
24 buses
OP(DP) equal ** ramp rates per edge
38 lines 24 h
heuristics ND-RES ** spinning ** TU/TD per mode flow limits ** ∼28.3 min
[30] quadratic ** 1 SU ** 1 SD ** - - yes ** yes ** - near-opt. 33 units by 30 min
SO-MS ND-RES-C ** operative ** SU/SD cost per mode shift factor ** 200 scen.
6 CCGTs time steps
MIP solver TL ** mode transition costs
2 wind gen.
gas fuel rates for gens.
pipelines—cap. limits
gas sources—cap. limits
compressors—comp. ratios
∼5.7 h
225 buses 10 scen.
OP(CO) equal flow limits ** 10 cores
375 lines
[31] SO-TS linear ** 1 SU ** - - - ND-RES - - yes ** - - reactances ** yes 24 h
130 units ∼7.4 h
MILP solver TL phase angles **
wind gen. 50 scen.
50 cores
1 year
equal by 15 min
OP(CO) stepwise interval ramp capabilities * 29 thermal
NSE yes time steps 177 h
[32] SO-TS marginal cost 1 SU - - - non-spinning yes * yes * - SU/SD durations * - 17 hydro
ND-RES 0.1% gap and 36 h 9 scen.
MILP solver function SU/SD power outputs * 1 wind gen.
ND-RES-C look ahead
horizons
OP(CO) equal reservoir energy limits ** 27 lines
yes ∼375 min
[33] SO-TS linear ** 1 SU ** - - - ND-RES spinning ** yes ** yes ** - turb. and pump. limits ** flow limits ** 130 units 24 h
0.1% gap 50 scen.
MILP solver ESS pumping efficiency ** 16 PSUs
hourly max. flow limits
OP(CO) equal yes 118 bus
gen-emiss. voltage limits 1.7 h
[34] SO-TS marginal cost 1 SU - - - NSE reserve yes - max. reserve per unit 0.0001% 186 lines 24 h
(2-block reactances 30 scen.
MILP solver TL gap 25 coal plants
piecewise) phase angles
9 bus
spinning 1&2 r. cost 9 lines
equal 3 thermal
tertiary spin. r. cost 10 min
NSE 1 hydro
OP(CO) spinning 1&2 non-spinning r. cost 5 scen.
HS flow limits 2 wind gen.
[35] SO-TS linear 1 SU 1 SD - - tertiary spin. yes yes - reservoir inflows yes 168 h
ND-RES shift factor 1 h 55 min
MILP solver non-spinning reservoir spillage 118 bus
ND-RES-C 1 scen.
reservoir volume limits 179 lines
TL
reservoir discharge limits 54 thermal
8 hydro
240 bus ∼200 s
OP(CO) equal 50 scen.
448 lines
[36] SO-TS piecewise ** stairwise ** - - - ND-RES spinning ** yes ** yes ** - - - near-opt. 24 h
85 thermal ∼800 s
heur. alg. ND-RES-C
wind gen. 100 scen.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 18 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
15 min
4 scen.
reservoir inflows 69 min
83 bus
OP(CO) equal reservoir spillage 9 scen.
flow limits 143 lines
[37] SO-TS linear 1 SU - - - HS spinning yes yes - reservoir final volume yes 24 h
shift factor 15 thermal 149 min
MILP solver TL reservoir volume limits
28 hydro 15 scen.
reservoir discharge limits
326 min
25 scen.
flexible line rating recourse 364 bus
OP(CO) flow limits **
equal (off, normal, high) 594 lines 18 h
[38] SO-TS linear ** 1 SU ** - - - reserve ** yes ** yes ** - reactances ** yes 24 h
NSE line min. hours normal ** 113 slow units 10 scen.
MILP solver phase angles **
line max. hours high ** 26 fast units
equal
39 bus
NSE
OP(CO) expected unserved energy 46 lines
ND-RES flow limits ** 551 s
[39] SO-TS piecewise ** 1 SU ** - - - - yes ** yes ** - ESS charge ramp rates yes 10 units 24 h
ND-RES-C shift factor ** 4 scen.
MIP solver ESS discharge ramp rates 1 wind gen.
ESS
1 ESS
TL
79 s
2 scen.
10 units 24 h
379 s
OP(DP) 20 units (r) 24 h 2 scen.
[40] SO-MS quadratic 1 SU - - - greater - - yes - - - yes
MIP solver 10 units 48 h (r) 7117 s
4 scen.
20 units (r) 48 h (r)
8962 s
4 scen.
generation company offers
piecewise self-consumption in units
168 h
OP(DP) residual reservoir energy inflows Spanish market
with 24 h ∼1500 s
[41] SO-MS linear ** - - - yes ** demand and - yes ** yes ** - reservoir energy limits - yes company with
look ahead 8 scen.
MILP solver revenue curves reservoir energy splits 20 units
capacity
10-20 blocks ** turb. and pump. limits
pumping efficiency
24 h
spinning reserve costs (discrete) 40 min
OP(DP) 24 scen.
payments for possible yes 24 h
[42] SO-MS linear 1 SU - - - equal - yes yes - - 32 units
being committed for a 5% gap 5 min data 67 h
MILP solver
particular hour continuous 24 scen.
cubic spline
OP(CO) equal expected energy not served flow limits 73 bus
piecewise
[43] SO-RC 1 SU - - - NSE spinning yes yes - loss of load probability reactances yes 147 lines 24 <1 h
(3 blocks)
MILP solver TL unit outage probability phase angles 96 units (r)
OP(CO) expected energy not served
piecewise equal yes
[44] SO-RC 1 SU - - - spinning yes yes - loss of load probability - 96 units (r) 24 <1200 s
(3 blocks) NSE 0.5% gap
MILP solver unit outage scenarios
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 19 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
equal expected energy not served
OP(CO) NSE loss of load probability 71 slow units 24 h
yes 5.5 h to
[45] SO-RC linear 1 SU - linear - ND-RES spinning yes yes - reservoir energy limits - 35 fast units by 15 min
0.5% gap 6.9 h
MILP solver ND-RES-C turb. and pump. limits 1 PSU time steps
ESS pumping efficiency
reserve ramp limits 30 bus
OP(CO) equal
spinning spinning reserve costs flow limits 41 lines tens of
[46] SO-CCO quadratic 1 SU - - - ND-RES yes yes - yes 24 h
non-spinning non-spin. reserve costs shift factor 6 units minutes
MIP solver TL
wind farm outages 2 wind gen.
equal reserve costs
OP(CO) 118 bus
NSE loss of wind probability
heuristics flow limits 186 lines
[47] linear 1 SU - - - ND-RES spinning yes yes - loss of load probability near-opt. 24 h 432.6 s
SO-CCO shift factor 15 fast units
ND-RES-C trans. line overloading
MILP solver 3 wind gen.
TL trans. line overload. prob.
equal
118 bus
OP(CO) NSE
spinning reserve costs flow limits yes 186 lines 1092 s
[48] SO-CCO linear 2 SU 1 SD - - ND-RES spinning yes yes - 24 h
SU/SD capacity limits shift factor 0.5% gap 54 units 500 scen.
MILP solver ND-RES-C
10 wind gen.
TL
24 bus
40 lines
equal 1 EIE is composed by 32 units (r)
OP(CO)
piecewise ND-RES · Electricity generators flow limits 1 wind gen.
[49] RO 2 SU - - - reserve yes yes - yes 24 h 175.74 s
(3 blocks) ND-RES-C · EFs (batch operation) shift factor 1 EIE =
MILP solver
TL · EAs (always on) 4 gen. units
12 EFs
1 EA
equal power trajectories
118 bus
OP(CO) NSE SU/SD durations
flow limits 186 lines
[50] RO linear 2 SU 1 SD - - ND-RES spinning yes yes - SU/SD power trajectories yes 24 h 13.8 s
shift factor 54 units
MILP solver ND-RES-C wind generation bids
3 wind gen.
TL flow-limit violation penalties
prohibited operating zones
SU/SD capacity limits
dynamic ramp rates
OP(CO)
reservoir inflows 54 thermal
[51] RO piecewise 1 SU - - - greater - yes yes - - yes 24 h -
reservoir spillage 8 hydro
MILP solver
cascade reservoirs
reservoir volume limits
reservoir discharge limits
equal horizon max. 118 bus
OP(CO)
ND-RES spinning gen-emiss. ** flow limits 186 lines
[52] IO piecewise 2 SU - - - yes yes - yes 24 h 73 s
ND-RES-C operative SU emiss. ** shift factor 54 units
MILP solver
TL SD emiss. ** 3 wind gen.
equal 118 bus
OP(CO)
ND-RES flow limits 186 lines
[53] IO piecewise 1 SU - - - spinning yes yes - max. spin. reserve per unit yes 24 h 246.39 s
ND-RES-C shift factor 54 units
MILP solver
TL 4 wind gen.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 20 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
equal 73 bus
OP(CO) flow limits
ND-RES yes 147 lines
[54] IO piecewise 1 SU - - - - yes yes - - reactances 24 h <2500 s
ND-RES-C 1% gap 96 units (r)
MILP solver phase angles
TL 4 wind gen.
118 bus
OP(CO) equal flow limits
non specified spinning 186 lines <30 min
[55] MCS 1 SU - - - ND-RES yes yes - - reactances yes 24 h
function operative 76 units 10 scen.
MIP solver TL phase angles
1 wind gen.
competitive gen. companies *
unplanned unavailabilities *
equal * programmed mainten. *
NSE * hydro condition profiles *
OE * reservoir energy inflows *
flow limits Spanish system 1–2 month
OP(CO) HS * reservoir energy limits * <2 min
at system 800,000 variables through
[56] MCS linear * 1 SU * 1 SD * linear * yes * ND-RES * spinning * yes * yes * - turb. and pump. limits * yes (relaxed)
interconn. 350,000 const. ≤40 time
rMIP solver ND-RES-C * pumping efficiency * per scen.
facilities * after presolve? steps
ESS * cascade reservoirs *
imports run-of-river generation *
exports wind generation profiles *
solar generation profiles *
regulatory framework *
competitive gen. companies *
unplanned unavailabilities *
programmed mainten. *
equal *
hydro condition profiles *
NSE *
reservoir energy inflows * Spanish system
OE *
reservoir energy limits * flow limits French system 3 year
OP(CO) HS * ∼2000 s
turb. and pump. limits * at system Portuguese system through
[57] MCS linear * 1 SU * 1 SD * linear * yes * ND-RES * spinning * yes * yes * - yes (relaxed)
pumping efficiency * interconn. 1120000 variables 940 time
rMIP solver ND-RES-C * per scen.
cascade reservoirs * facilities * 720000 const. steps
ESS *
run-of-river generation * after presolve
imports
wind generation profiles *
exports
solar generation profiles *
grid-stability commitments *
regulatory framework *
OP(CO) equal electricity price elasticity 118 bus
HUI NSE max. spin. reserve per unit flow limits 186 lines
∼60 min
[58] SO-TS & piecewise 1 SU - - - ND-RES spinning * yes yes - ESS generation capacities reactances yes 54 units 24 h
100 scen.
SO-RC ESS ESS storage capacities phase angles 1 wind gen.
MILP solver TL loss of load probability 4 ESSs
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 21 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
∼800 s
10 scen.
hour 1
OP(CO) equal switch
24 bus
HUI NSE flow limits SO→IO
piecewise yes 40 lines
[59] SO-TS & 2 SU - - - ND-RES - yes yes - - reactances 24 h
(3 blocks) 0.1% gap 32 units (r) ∼15,000 s
IO ND-RES-C phase angles
1 win gen. 10 scen.
MILP solver TL
hour 24
switch
SO→IO
OP(CO) equal
73 bus
HUI NSE flow limits
yes 147 lines 1322.7 s
[60] SO-TS & linear 1 SU - - - ND-RES - yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits ** reactances 24 h
0.03% gap 96 units (r) 50 scen.
RO ND-RES-C phase angles
15 win gen.
MILP solver TL
OP(DP)
[61] heuristics quadratic 1 SU - - - greater - - yes - - - near-opt. 20 units (r) 24 h 137 s
MIP solver
OP(CO)
[62] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 29 units (r) 24 h ∼37 s
heur. alg.
OP(CO) 10 units 3.4 s
[68] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
GA 100 units (r) 21.6 s
OP(CO)
[69] quadratic exponential - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 12 units 24 h 2 h 25 min
SA
OP(CO)
[70] quadratic 1 SU - - - greater spinning - yes - bounded spinning reserve - near-opt. 40 units 24 h 187 s
TSA
OP(CO)
[71] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 1 h 42 min
EP
OP(CO)
[72] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h ∼9 s
PSO
OP(CO) 10 units 39 s
[73] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
ACO 100 units (r) 1535 s
OP(CO)
[74] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h ∼4 min
ALO
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 22 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
135.23 s
(1 core)
1216.08 s
10 units
(1 core)
100 units (r)
8456.52 s
OP(CO) PBUC 1000 units (r) (1 core)
[75] quadratic 2 SU - - - - - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
ABCA lower 10 units 14.87 s
(20 cores)
100 units (r)
109.16 s
1000 units (r)
(20 cores)
457.24 s
(20 cores)
OP(CO) PBUC 10 units ∼13.25 s
[76] quadratic 1 SU - - - spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
AFSA lower 100 units (r) ∼664.52 s
OP(CO) PBUC
[77] quadratic 2 SU - - - spinning * - yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 81 s
AISA lower
10 units
equal
OP(CO) reservoir energy limits 1 PSU
[78] quadratic 2 SU - - - ND-RES spinning - yes - - near-opt. 24 h -
ASA turb. and pump. limits 1 wind gen.
ESS
1 solar gen.
OP(CO) 10 units 110 s
[79] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning * yes * yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
BFA 100 units (r) 5800 s
OP(CO)
[80] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 4 units 8h 1.91 s
CSA
OP(CO) 10 units 27.4 s
[81] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
DEA 100 units (r) 663.9 s
OP(CO) prohibited operating zones
[82] quadratic - - - - equal - yes - - - near-opt. 15 units 1 time step <1 s
EMA generation losses
OP(CO)
[83] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 113 s
FFA
61.57 s
(equal)
10 units
1039.80 s
equal
OP(CO) 100 units (r) (equal)
[84] quadratic 2 SU - - - PBUC spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
FWA 10 units 58.77 s
lower
(PBUC)
100 units (r)
1124.87 s
(PBUC)
OP(CO) fuel cost of valve points
[85] quadratic - - - - equal - - - - - near-opt. 13 units 1 time step 150.32 s
GSA (sinusoidal function)
equal
OP(CO) 10 units
[86] quadratic 2 SU - - - ND-RES - yes yes - - - near-opt. 24 h -
GWO 1 wind gen.
ND-RES-C
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 23 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
horizon max. 118 bus
OP(CO) equal flow limits
[87] quadratic 2 SU - - - - yes yes gen-emiss. reactive generation limits near-opt. 186 lines 24 h 71.2 s
ICA TL voltage limits
(quadratic) 54 units
OP(CO)
[88] quadratic * 1 SU * - - - equal * spinning * - yes * - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h -
IHHO
OP(CO) PBUC
[89] quadratic 1 SU - - - spinning - - - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h -
MMA lower
OP(CO) 10 units ∼30 s
[90] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
QEIA 100 units (r) ∼300 s
OP(CO)
[91] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 100 units (r) 24 h 61.4 s
QOTLBA
OP(CO)
[92] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h -
SFLA
OP(CO) PBUC
[93] quadratic 2 SU - - - spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 34.86 s
SCA lower
OP(CO) PBUC
[94] quadratic 2 SU - - - spinning yes * yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 37.86 s
WOA lower
1 SU 38 units 459 s
OP(CO)
[95] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 41 s
BFA & GA
2 SU 100 units (r) 4503 s
OP(CO)
[96] quadratic 2 SU - - - PBUC spinning yes yes - bilateral contracts - near-opt. 10 units 24 h -
EP & PSO
OP(CO) PBUC
[97] quadratic 1 SU - - - spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 116 s
DE & SM lower
118 bus
186 lines
54 units
flow limits 2 DSs 2.53 s
OP(CO) equal TSO-DSO coordination
[98] quadratic 1 SU 1 SD - - - yes yes - reactances near-opt. 24 h
DE & PSO TL 1 DSs bus ∼5 generators 118 bus 279.13 s
phase angles
186 lines
54 units
32 DSs
OP(CO)
[99] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h -
SA & PSO
OP(CO) piecewise
[102] 11 SU 1 SD - - PBUC spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - yes 1 unit 24 h slight
MILP solver (3 blocks)
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 24 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
spinning reserve bounds
reservoir inflows *
reservoir spillage *
cascade reservoirs *
reservoir volume limits *
equal
reservoir discharge limits 13 thermal
OP(CO) piecewise * HS
[103] 1 SU 1 SD - - spinning * - yes - HR function (piecewise) * - yes 16 hydro 24 h ∼69 s
MIP solver (3 blocks) imports
reservoir SU/SD costs 1 intercon.
exports
reservoir TU/TD
import/export limits
import loss coefficient *
export loss coefficient *
system loss coefficient *
10 min spinning power trajectories
OP(CO) piecewise
[104] 11 SU 1 SD - - PBUC 10 min non-spin. yes - - SU/SD capacity limits - yes 1 unit 24 h 51.51 s
MILP solver (10 blocks)
30 min operative AGC representation
24 h 0.66 s
power trajectories 48 h (r) 4.10 s
OP(CO)
[105] linear 1 SU 1 SD - - PBUC - yes yes - SU/SD durations - yes 1 unit
MILP solver 96 h (r) 14.35 s
SU/SD power trajectories
168 h (r) 153.01 s
97.61 s
3 scen.
305.43 s
OP(DP) reservoir energy limits 9 scen.
greater 25 thermal
[107] SO-MS piecewise * stairwise * - - - spinning * - yes * - turb. and pump. limits - yes 192 h
ESS 7 PSUs 569.18 s
MILP solver pumping efficiency
15 scen.
794.93 s
22 scen.
residual 40 units in
OP(CO) piecewise demand and portfolio
[109] 1 SU - - - - yes yes - - - yes 24 h ∼15 min
MILP solver (4 blocks) price-quota 120 units
curves in market
piecewise
flow limits 8 bus
OP(CO) supply
[110] quadratic - - - - - - - - - reactances near-opt. 11 lines 24 h -
heur. alg. curve
phase angles 6 units
TL
OP(CO) primary
[111] quadratic exponential - - - equal yes yes - - - near-opt. 10 units 24 h 19 s
heur. alg. secondary
reservoir inflows
reservoir spillage
equal * reservoir final volume
OP(CO) 44 thermal 168 h
NSE reservoir volume limits
[112] heuristics linear * 2 SU * 1 SD * - - spinning * yes * - - - near-opt. 102 hydro by ≤4 h ∼40 min
HS reservoir discharge limits
MILP solver 6 PSUs time steps
ESS HR func. (3-block piecewise)
pumping capacity limits
pumping efficiency
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 25 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
dispatch-deviation penalties
reserve-deviation penalties 20 thermal 28 h
OP(CO) equal *
[113] linear * - - - - spinning * yes * - - non-smooth power profile pen. - yes 6 hydro by 20 min <10 s
MILP solver NSE
power trajectories 5 PSUs time steps
AGC representation
OP(CO) PBUC 10 units 6s
[114] quadratic 1 SU - - - spinning - yes - - - near-opt. 24 h
heur. alg. lower 100 units (r) 27 s
OP(CO)
piecewise
[115] heuristics 1 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - - - near-opt. 54 units 24 h 6.57 s
(10 blocks)
MILP solver
bilateral contracts
OP(CO) spinning 54 thermal
[116] piecewise 1 SU - - - PBUC yes yes - CCGT configuration modes - yes 24 h ∼90 s
MILP solver non-spinning 12 CCGTs
mode transition fuel
OP(CO) piecewise * PBUC *
[117] 1 SU * 1 SD * - - spinning * yes * yes * - - - yes 27 units 24 h -
MILP solver (2 blocks) equal *
reactive generation limits 118 bus
horizon max. max. sustained ramp rate 186 lines
ho. unit max. CCGT configuration modes 54 thermal
equal
OP(DP) spinning gen-emiss. TU per configuration flow limits 12 CCGTs
[118] quadratic 1 SU - - - ESS yes yes near-opt. 24 h ∼100 s
heur. alg. operative (linear) fuel blending operation voltage limits 2 FBUs
TL
SU emiss. fuel switching operation 2 FSUs
(1 step) unit fuel consump. limits 7 hydro
horizon fuel consump. limits 3 PSUs
reservoir energy inflows 2 bus
reservoir energy limits 2 lines
equal
OP(CO) reservoir energy splits 21 thermal
HS
[119] heuristics quadratic * 1 SU * - - - operative - yes - turb. and pump. limits - near-opt. 8 gas-units 24 h -
ESS
rMIP solver pumping efficiency 4 hydro
imports
import facilities 2 PSUs
max. LNG consumption 3 intercon.
OP(CO) piecewise yes 10 units 1s
[120] 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - SU/SD capacity limits * - 24 h
MILP solver (4 blocks) 0.5% gap 100 units (r) 123 s
yes
OP(CO) piecewise bilateral contracts
[121] 10 SU 1 SD - - PBUC - yes yes - - 0.0001% 15 units 24 h ∼300 s
MILP solver (3 blocks) SU/SD capacity limits
gap
1 unit
OP(CO)
[122] piecewise - - - - PBUC - yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - yes (8 type 24 h ∼20 s
MILP solver
of units)
OP(CO) piecewise yes
[123] 2 SU - - - greater spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 187 units (r) 24 h 3556.6 s
MILP solver (2 blocks) 1% gap
power trajectories yes 96 h (r) 0.109 s
OP(CO)
[124] linear 5 SU 1 SD - - PBUC - yes yes - SU/SD durations - 0.0001% 1 unit
MILP solver 6144 h (r) 53.181 s
SU/SD power trajectories gap
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 26 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
equal ** 118 bus
power trajectories
OP(CO) NSE 186 lines 24 h
SU/SD durations flow limits yes <2 h
[125] SO-TS linear 2 SU 1 SD - - ND-RES ** reserve yes yes - 54 slow units by 5 min
SU/SD power trajectories shift factor 0.05% gap 20 scen.
MILP solver ND-RES-C 10 fast units ** time steps
flow-limit violation penalties
TL 3 wind gen.
1% gap
OP(CO) equal 280–1870 units (r) 24 h or 10 h
[126] linear 2 SU 1 SD - - spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - yes
MILP solver NSE 28–187 units (r) 168 h (r) 0.1% gap
or 1 h
yes 1536 h (r) 0.57 s
OP(CO)
[127] linear 1 SU - - - PBUC - - yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 0.0001% 10 units
MILP solver 12288 h (r) 8.08 s
gap
power trajectories
secondary yes 10 units 9.1 s
OP(CO) SU/SD durations
[128] linear 3 SU - - - equal tertiary yes yes - - 0.0001% 24 h
MILP solver SU/SD power trajectories 100 units (r) 1001 s
offline tertiary gap
interval ramp capabilities
equal power trajectories 118 bus
yes 24 h 27.61 s
OP(CO) ND-RES SU/SD capacity limits flow limits 186 lines
[129] linear 2 SU 1 SD - - reserve yes yes - 0.0001%
MILP solver ND-RES-C SU/SD durations shift factor 54 units 60 h 267.23 s
gap
TL SU/SD power trajectories 3 wind gen.
reservoir inflows **
reservoir spillage **
OP(CO) equal yes 200 thermal (r)
[130] piecewise 1 SU - - - - yes ** yes - cascade reservoirs ** - 24 h 314 s
MILP solver HS 0.5% gap 100 hydro (r)
reservoir volume limits **
reservoir discharge limits **
yes
OP(CO) 0.5% gap 200 units (r) 1243 s
[131] quadratic ** 1 SU ** - - - equal ** reserve ** yes ** yes ** - SU/SD capacity limits ** - 24 h
MILP solver yes 50 units (r) 4877 s
0.01% gap
OP(CO) 10 units 1.58 s
[132] heuristics quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - near-opt. 24 h
rMISOCP solver 100 units (r) 29.09 s

yes
0.1% gap
10 units 4.25 s
yes
OP(CO) 0.1% gap 200 units (r) 104.87 s
[133] quadratic ** 2 SU ** - - - equal ** spinning ** yes ** yes ** - SU/SD capacity limits ** - 24 h
MILP solver yes 10 units 11.12 s
0.01% gap
200 units (r) 3553.05 s
yes
0.01% gap
OP(CO) 10 units 1.05 s
[134] heuristics quadratic ** 2 SU ** - - - equal ** spinning ** yes ** yes ** - SU/SD capacity limits ** - near-opt. 24 h
rMISOCP solver 200 units (r) 21.33 s
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 27 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
yes
0.5% gap
yes
10 units 0.21 s
0.5% gap
200 units (r) 19.28 s
yes
OP(CO) 0.1% gap 10 units 0.84 s
[135] quadratic 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 24 h
MILP solver yes 200 units (r) 51.37 s
0.1% gap
28 units (r) 1.87 s
yes
1080 units (r) 3775.95 s
0.5% gap
yes
0.5% gap
horizon max.
OP(CO) PBUC prod-emiss 0.05 s
[136] quadratic 1 SU - - - - yes * yes trade-off curve (201 runs) - near-opt. 6 units 168 h
Pareto optimz. lower (quadratic & per run
exponential)
horizon max.
OP(CO) PBUC prod-emiss 0.12 s
[137] quadratic 2 SU - - - - yes yes trade-off curve (201 runs) - near-opt. 15 units 168 h
Pareto optimz. lower (quadratic & per run
exponential)
flow limits 118 bus
OP(CO) equal
[138] quadratic 2 SU - quadratic - spinning yes yes - - reactances near-opt. 186 lines 24 h 208 s
heur. alg. TL
phase angles 54 units
bilateral contracts
SU/SD capacity limits
max. sustained ramp rate
reservoir inflows
OP(CO) reservoir spillage
piecewise PBUC near-opt. 13 thermal
[139] heuristics 1 SU 1 SD linear - spinning yes yes - cascade reservoirs - 24 h reasonab.
(5 blocks) HS 5% gap 5 hydro
MILP solver reservoir volume limits
reservoir discharge limits
HR func. (3-block piecewise)
reservoir SU/SD costs
reservoir TU/TD
OP(CO) piecewise PBUC 24 h 9.06 s
[140] 1 SU - piecewise - - yes yes - - - yes 20 units (r)
MILP solver (5 blocks) lower 168 h (r) 652.78 s
prohibited operating zones
max. sustained ramp rate
reservoir inflows
flow limits 8 bus
equal reservoir spillage
OP(CO) spinning * voltage limits 10 lines
[141] piecewise 1 SU - - - HS yes yes - reservoir volume limits yes 24 h -
MILP solver operative * reactances 5 thermal
TL reservoir discharge limits
phase angles 1 hydro
HR function (piecewise)
reservoir SU cost
reservoir TU/TD
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 28 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
194 thermal
9 CCGTs
1 HCCP
equal * fuel consumption limits *
OP(CO) flow limits * 4 IPPs
[142] quadratic * 2 SU * - - - NSE spinning * yes * yes * - gas consumption limits * yes 24 h 15.12 min
MIQCP solver shift factor * 2 gas sector
TL load losses limits *
Mexican
transmission
network
fuel consump. limits
equal reactive generation limits 118 bus
ND-RES horizon max. CAES volume limits 186 lines
OP(CO) spinning flow limits
[143] piecewise 1 SU - - - ND-RES-C yes yes gen-emiss. CAES inject limits yes 54 units 24 h -
MILP solver non-spinning voltage limits
ESS (piecewise) CAES release limits 1 CAES
TL inject efficiency 3 wind gen.
release efficiency
118 bus
OP(CO) yes 186 lines
[144] - - - - - - - - - - branching symmetry exploitting - 4h 875 s
MILP solver 0.2% gap (9 parallel)
54 units
OP(CO) yes
[145] piecewise 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - symmetry breaking constraints - 100 units (r) 24 h 115.64 s
MILP solver 0.0% gap
OP(CO) piecewise
[146] 2 SU - - - greater spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - yes 46-72 units (r) 24 h ∼73.09 s
MILP solver (2 blocks)
yes
OP(CO) symmetry breaking constraints
[147] piecewise 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes * yes - - <0.03% 100 units (r) 24 h ∼7200 s
MILP solver SU/SD capacity limits *
gap
OP(CO) piecewise yes ≤8 agg. units
[148] 2 SU - - - equal spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 24 h ∼38.03 s
MILP solver (2 blocks) 0.01% gap (28–187 units r)
336 h
equal secondary calculated 45 units (r) daily runs
OP(CO) piecewise AGC representation
[149] 3 SU 1 SD - - NSE tertiary spinning yes yes after - yes 1 wind gen. with 38 h ∼1 h
MILP solver (3 blocks) ramp rates under AGC
ND-RES tertiary non-spin. resolution 1 solar gen. look ahead
capacity
equal must run units
OP(CO) NSE mayor overhaul costs yes
[151] linear 1 SU - linear yes - yes yes - - 301 units (r) 336 h -
MILP solver ND-RES relation with increases 0.1% gap
ND-RES-C of SU in slow&fast units
equal 118 bus
NSE 186 lines
OP(CO) flow limits yes
[152] linear 1 SU - - - ND-RES secondary yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits 54 agg. units 24 h 406 s
MILP solver shift factor 0.01% gap
ND-RES-C (540 units r)
TL 3 wind gen.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 29 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
136 s
piecewise equal 2% wind
OP(CO) yes PJM
[155] (1 to 10 ≤2 SU - - - ND-RES spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 48 h
MILP solver 0.1% gap Inteconnection 185 s
blocks) ND-RES-C
30% wind
CCGT configuration modes **
capacity limits per mode **
ramp rates per mode ** 4 units (r) 2.4 s
OP(CO) transition ramp rates ** yes
[156] linear ** 1 SU ** - - - - spinning ** yes ** yes ** - - 10 units (r) 24 h 4.8 s
MILP solver mode transition costs ** 0.1% gap
prod. costs per mode ** 16 units (r) 124.9 s
SU cost per mode **
TU/TD per mode **
<10 s
1 HR
reservoir inflows
3 blocks
cascade reservoirs
198 thermal
reservoir volume limits 4549.14 s
OP(CO) equal yes 72 hydro
[157] piecewise ** 1 SU ** - - - - - - - reservoir discharge limits - 168 h 3 HR
MILP solver ESS 0.5% gap 34 IPPs
HR func. (s-block piecewise) 3 blocks
10 PSUs
pumping capacity limits
39304.84 s
pumping efficiency
3 HR
6 blocks
reservoir inflows
cascade reservoirs
31 bus
greater reservoir volume limits flow limits
OP(CO) yes 43 lines
[158] piecewise * 2 SU - - - ESS spinning yes yes - reservoir discharge limits reactances 24 h 116.9 s
MILP solver 0.0% gap 16 thermal
TL HR function (piecewise) phase angles
2 PSUs
pumping capacity limits
pumping efficiency
31 bus
43 lines
flow limits 16 units 104.5 s
OP(CO) greater yes
[159] linear 2 SU - - - spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits * reactances 24 h
MILP solver TL 0.0% gap 118 bus 37.2 s
phase angles
186 lines
54 units
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 30 of 40

Table 3. Cont.
Production Start-up Shut-down Emission Mainten. Demand Reserve Ramp TU/TD Emission Operative Network Problem Time CPU
Ref Method Optimal
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Constraint Constraints Limits Constraints Constraints Constraints Constraints Size Span Time
reservoir inflows
cascade reservoirs
31 bus
reservoir volume limits
43 lines
reservoir discharge limits
13 no-gas units
HR function (piecewise)
3 gas units
greater pumping capacity limits flow limits
OP(CO) yes 7 gas nodes
[160] linear 2 SU - - - ESS - yes yes - pumping efficiency reactances 24 h 480.5 s
MILP solver 1% gap 5 gas loads
TL gas-unit consump. piecewise f. phase angles
5 pipelines
gas network representation
1 compressor
gas pressure linearizations:
2 supply nodes
· node piecewise function
2 PSUs
· pipeline piecewise funct.
· compressor piecewise funct.
118 bus
OP(CO) equal flow limits yes
[161] linear 1 SU 1 SD - - - yes yes - - 186 lines 24 h ∼296 s
MILP solver TL shift factor 0.01% gap
54 units
280–1870 units (r)
piecewise
2 SU
28–187 units (r)
24 h ∼367.8 s
(2 blocks)
OP(CO) 2 SU yes PJM
168 h ∼286.3 s
[162] (2 blocks) - - - equal spinning yes yes - - -
MILP solver ≤2 SU 0.01% gap Interconnection 24 h ∼34.3 s
(1–10 blo.)
≤2 SU PJM 168 h ∼664.7 s
(1–10 blo.)
Interconnection
OP(CO) yes
[163] linear 1 SU 1 SD - - equal spinning yes yes - SU/SD capacity limits - 800 units (r) 24 h ∼285 s
MILP solver 0.1% gap
equal
NSE
piecewise flow limits
OP(CO) OE reserve-deviation penalties yes PJM
[164] (1 to 10 ≤2 SU - - - spinning yes yes - reactances 48 h ∼300 s
MILP solver ND-RES SU/SD capacity limits 0.01% gap Interconnection
blocks) phase angles
ND-RES-C
TL

* The constraint is formulated, but the corresponding input data for the case study are not provided. ** The constraint is formulated, but the corresponding input data for the case study
are missing due to an offline link or the lack of information in a reference.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 31 of 40

5. Conclusions
This article presents a literature review on the different available alternatives to set out
and solve the unit commitment problem. One of the main goals is establishing a hierarchical
classification of the computational techniques that could be applied to each stage of the
problem. This proposal differs from other surveys, which mix identification principles
and describe several modeling techniques, resolution algorithms, etc., without any more
profound distinction.
The exposed layout allows to quickly acquire a general idea of the different options to
represent and optimize the operation of power systems. Furthermore, their advantages and
disadvantages are elaborately described, allowing an easy recognition of the research gaps
for further developments and introducing a solid basis to implement new improvements.
Some examples of research necessities in this field are enhancing the computational
efficiency when handling uncertainty; improving modeling detail, such as a more precise
characterization of the start-up processes, or going in-depth with the operational flexibility
representation; extending the unit commitment horizon to facilitate coordination with
markedly medium-term tasks, such as hydro management, fuel purchases, or financial
contracting; representing the real demand variability for thermal generators in current
and future electricity markets with high penetration of non-dispatchable energy sources;
or studying the most efficient procedure for achieving widespread integration of non-
conventional energy-storage technologies in modern power systems.
In order to not provide an immeasurable amount of references, the most popular and
recent unit commitment approaches have been cited throughout the different sections. To
conclude this review, the historical events and ongoing trends in the most widespread
technique applied to the unit commitment problem are introduced. Hence, the current
state is presented, focusing on the thermal generation of electricity markets which is
optimized through commercial solvers. The reader is referred to recent surveys if interested
in obtaining a deeper knowledge of specific problems, such as the hydro unit commitment
problem, the operational representation of energy-storage technologies, and evolutionary
optimization.
Moreover, the scope of the different methodologies described in the paper is clearly
identified through a comparison table, where the modeling detail adopted in the references
is analyzed in depth. In turn, the problem sizes are also precisely presented, providing the
elements that compound the power systems represented in the case studies. Furthermore,
the computational performance of each proceeding can be discerned, too, according to the
corresponding run times and optimality of the solutions.
This characterization entails a significant development against the conventional re-
views on the unit commitment problem, which only offer a broad vision of the modeling
scope of their cites at most. Additionally, this accurate description can also be used as
a benchmark to look for different options to model a specific technical or economic as-
pect, choosing the formulation that apparently offers a greater computational efficiency
according to the desired methodology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.M., A.B. and J.R.; methodology, L.M., A.B. and J.R.;
formal analysis, L.M.; investigation, L.M.; resources, L.M.; data curation, L.M.; writing—original draft
preparation, L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., A.B. and J.R.; visualization, L.M.; supervision,
A.B. and J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 32 of 40

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ACO Ant Colony Optimization

AGC Automatic Generation Control
ALO Ant Lion Optimizer
ABCA Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm
AFSA Artificial Fish Swarm Algorithm
AISA Artificial Immune System Algorithm
ASA Artificial Sheep Algorithm
BD Benders Decomposition
BFA Bacterial Foraging Algorithm
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
CO Conventional Optimization
CCO Chance Constrained Optimization
CSA Cuckoo Search Algorithm
DEA Differential Evolution Algorithm
DS Distribution System
DSO Distribution System Operator
DP Dynamic Programming
DWD Dantzig-Wolfe Decomposition
EA Electrolytic Aluminium series
EE Exhaustive Enumeration
EF Electrolytic arc Furnance
EIE Energy Intensive Enterprise
EMA Exchange Market Algorithm
EO Evolutionary Optimization
EP Evolutionary Programming
ES Expert System
ESS Energy Storage System
EV Electric Vehicle
FBU Fuel Blending Unit
FFA Firefly Algorithm
FL Fuzzy Logic
FSU Fuel Switching Unit
FWA Fireworks Algorithm
GA Genetic Algorithm
GSA Gravitational Search Algorithm
GWO Grey Wolf Optimizer
HCCP Hybrid Combined Cycle Plants
HM Hybrid Methodologies
HS Hydro Spillage
HR Head Range
HUI Hybrid Uncertainty Implementation
ICA Imperialist Competitive Algorithm
IHHO Intensify Harris Hawks Optimizer
IO Interval Optimization
IP Integer Programming
IPP Independent Power Producer
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LP Linear Programming
LR Lagrangian Relaxation
MCS Monte Carlo Simulation
MILP Mixed Integer Linear Programming
MIQP Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming
MIQCP Mixed Integer Quadratically Constrained Programming
MINLP Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 33 of 40

MIP Mixed Integer Programming

MISOCP Mixed Integer Second Order Cone Programming
MMA Memory Management Algorithm
MS Multi Stage
ND-RES Non-Dispatchable Renewable Energy Sources
ND-RES-C Non-Dispatchable Renewable Energy Sources Curtailment
NLP Non Linear Programming
NN Neural Network
NO Numerical Optimization
NSE Non-Served Energy
OE Oversupplied Energy
OF Objective Function
OP Optimization Problem
QIEA Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm
QOTLBA Quasi-Oppositional Teaching Learning Based Algorithm
PBUC Price-Based Unit Commitment
PJM Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland
PL Priority List
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PSU Pumping Storage Unit
QP Quadratic Programming
QCP Quadratically Constrained Programming
RC Risk Consideration
rMILP Relaxed Mixed Integer Linear Programming
rMIQP Relaxed Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming
rMIQCP Relaxed Mixed Integer Quadratically Constrained Programming
rMINLP Relaxed Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming
rMISOCP Relaxed Mixed Integer Second Order Cone Programming
RES Renewable Energy Sources
RO Robust Optimization
SA Simulated Annealing
SCA Sine–Cosine Algorithm
SCUC Security Constrained Unit Commitment
SD Shut-Down
SFLA Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm
SO Stochastic Optimization
SOCP Second Order Cone Programming
SU Start-Up
TD Time Down
TL Transmission Losses
TS Two Stage
TSA Tabu Search Algorithm
TSO Transmission System Operator
TU Time Up
UC Unit Commitment
WOA Whale Optimization Algorithm

Appendix A. Formulating Options

• Integer Programming (IP): The formulation employs only discrete variables. A discrete
variable, that is commonly called an integer variable, accomplishes an integer value
after the problem resolution (x I ∈ Z). According to the numerical methods utilized by
computers to solve the problem, the integrality of these variables is related to a toler-
ance. Formulating exclusive-integer problems is not common. The habitual practice
is to utilize continuous variables as well. For that reason, the integer programming
term is usually employed as a reference to the usage of integer variables in the unit
commitment problem and energy models.
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 34 of 40

• Mixed Integer Programming (MIP): The formulation uses a mix of integer and continu-
ous variables (xC ∈ R). The MIP has several subgroups attending to the mathematical
formulation of the OF and constraints. If the OF and all the constraints are linear, the
problem is called MILP. If the constraints are linear but the OF is quadratic, it is called
MIQP. On the other hand, if there are some quadratic constraints and a linear OF, the
problem is an MIQCP. This quadratic constraints can be represented as second-order
cones in a MISOCP problem. Finally, if there is any non-linear constraint or OF, that
will be an MINLP problem.
• Linear Programming (LP): The formulation only employs continuous variables. In
turn, both their objective function and constraints are linear. LP can be a result of
relaxing the discrete variables of a MIP. When the integer variables of MILP are relaxed
(considered as continuous in order to facilitate the resolution of the problem), the new
problem is known as an rMILP and there is not any difference with an LP.
• Non-Linear Programming (NLP): The formulation utilizes continuous variables; mean-
while, the objective function or some constraint is a non-linear function. As well as in
LP, the relaxation of an MINLP turns out into a problem which it is solved as an NLP,
an rMINLP. Quadratic Programming (QP), Quadratically Constrained Programming
(QCP), and Second-Order Cone Programming (SOCP) are non-linear techniques. Nev-
ertheless, they are not frequently included in this group in the literature because their
convexity properties allow them to be solved easier than NLP used to be. Relaxing
MIQP, MIQCP, or MISOCP converts the problem in an rMIQP, rMIQCP, or rMISOCP
that is also solved such as a QP, QCP, or SOCP problem.

References
1. Padhy, N. Unit commitment-A bibliographical survey. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2004, 19, 1196–1205. [CrossRef]
2. Hara, K.; Kimura, M.; Honda, N. A method for planning economic unit commitment and maintenance of thermal power systems.
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst. 1966, PAS-85, 427–436. [CrossRef]
3. Li, S.; Shahidehpour, S.M.; Wang, C. Promoting the application of expert systems in short-term unit commitment. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 1993, 3, 286–292. [CrossRef]
4. Delarue, E.; Cattrysse, D.; D’haeseleer, W. Enhanced priority list unit commitment method for power systems with a high share
of renewables. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2013, 105, 115–123. [CrossRef]
5. Moradi, S.; Khanmohammadi, S.; Hagh, M.T.; Mohammadiivatloo, B. A semi-analytical non-iterative primary approach based on
priority list to solve unit commitment problem. Energy 2015, 88, 244–259. [CrossRef]
6. Elsayed, A.M.; Maklad, A.M.; Farrag, S.M. A New Priority List Unit Commitment Method for Large-Scale Power Systems.
In Proceedings of the 2017 Nineteenth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Cairo, Egypt, 19–21
December 2017.
7. Shahbazitabar, M.; Abdi, H. A novel priority-based stochastic unit commitment considering renewable energy sources and
parking lot cooperation. Energy 2018, 161, 308–324. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, B.; Li, Y.; Watada, J. Re-Scheduling the Unit Commitment Problem in Fuzzy Environment. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, 27–30 June 2011; pp. 1090–1095.
9. Leou, R. A Price-Based Unit Commitment Model considering uncertainties with a Fuzzy Regression Model. Int. J. Energy Sci.
2012, 2, 51–58.
10. Zhang, N.; Hu, Z.; Han, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, Y. A fuzzy chance constrained program for unit commitment problem considering
demand response, electric vehicle and wind power. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 65, 201–209. [CrossRef]
11. Shanti-Swarup, K.; Simi, P.V. Neural computation using discrete and continuous Hopfield networks for power system economic
dispatch and unit commitment. Neurocomputing 2006, 70, 119–129. [CrossRef]
12. Jahromi, M.Z.; Bioki, M.M.H.; Nejad, M.R.; Fadaeinedjad, R. Solution to the unit commitment problem using an artificial neural
network. Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2013, 21, 198–212.
13. Yang, Y.; Wu, L. Machine learning approaches to the unit commitment problem: Current trends, emerging challenges, and new
strategies. Electr. J. 2021, 34, 369–389. [CrossRef]
14. Pokharel, B.K.; Shrestha, G.B.; Lie T.T.; Fleten, S.E. Price based unit commitment for Gencos in deregulated markets. In
Proceedings of the Power Engineering Society General Meeting, IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 12–16 June 2005; pp. 428–433.
15. Kumar, S.S.; Palanisamy, V. A dynamic programming based fast computation Hopfield neural network for unit commitment and
economic dispatch. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2007, 77, 917–925. [CrossRef]
16. Dieu, V.N.; Ongsakul, W. Ramp rate constrained unit commitment by improved priority list and augmented Lagrange Hopfield
network. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2008, 78, 291–301. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 35 of 40

17. Silva, I.C.; Carneiro, S.; de Oliveira, E.J.; Pereira, J.L.R.; Garcia, P.A.N.; Marcato, A.L.M. A lagrangian multiplier based sensitive
index to determine the unit commitment of thermal units. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2008, 30, 504–510. [CrossRef]
18. Patra, S.; Goswami, S.K.; Goswami, B. Fuzzy and simulated annealing based dynamic programming for the unit commitment
problem. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 5081–5086. [CrossRef]
19. Nascimento, F.R.; Silva, I.C.; Oliveira, E.J.; Dias, B.H.; Marcato, A.L.M. Thermal Unit Commitment Using Improved Ant Colony
Optimization Algorithm via Lagrange Multipliers. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech, Trondheim, Norway,
19–23 June 2011; pp. 1–5.
20. Chen, P.H. Two-level hierarchical approach to unit commitment using expert system and elite PSO. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012,
27, 780–789. [CrossRef]
21. Najafi, A.; Farshad, M.; Falaghi, H. A new heuristic method to solve unit commitment by using a time-variant acceleration
coefficients particle swarm optimization algorithm. Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2015, 23, 354–369. [CrossRef]
22. Taktak, R.; D’Ambrosio, C. An overview on mathematical programming approaches for the deterministic unit commitment
problem in hydro valleys. Energy Syst. 2015, 7, 1–23. [CrossRef]
23. Howlader, H.; Adewuyi, B.; Hong, Y.Y.; Mandal, P.; Hemeida, A.M.; Senjyu, T. Energy storage system analysis review for optimal
unit commitment. Energies 2020, 13, 158. [CrossRef]
24. Bellman, R. Dynamic Programming; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1957.
25. Frangioni, A.; Gentile, C. Solving nonlinear single-unit commitment problems with ramping constraints. Oper. Res. 2006, 54,
767–775. [CrossRef]
26. Frangioni, A.; Gentile, C.; Lacalandra, F. Solving unit commitment problems with general ramp constraints. Intl. J. Electr. Power
Syst. 2008, 30, 316–326. [CrossRef]
27. Singhal, P.K.; Sharma, R.N. Dynamic programming approach for large scale unit commitment problem. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), Katra, India, 3–5 June 2011;
pp. 714–717.
28. Analui, B.; Scaglione, A. A dynamic multistage stochastic unit commitment formulation for intraday markets. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2018, 33, 3653–3663. [CrossRef]
29. Zou, J.; Ahmed, S.; Sun, X.A. Multistage stochastic unit commitment using stochastic dual dynamic integer programming. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2018, 34, 1814–1823. [CrossRef]
30. Xu, Y.; Ding, T.; Qu, M.; Du, P. Adaptive dynamic programming for gas-power network constrained unit commitment to
accommodate renewable energy with combined-cycle units. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2019, 11, 2028–2039. [CrossRef]
31. Papavasiliou, A.; Oren, S.S.; Rountree, B. Applying high performance computing to transmission-constrained stochastic unit
commitment for renewable energy integration. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 30, 1109–1120. [CrossRef]
32. Bakirtzis, E.A.; Biskas, P.N. Multiple time resolution stochastic scheduling for systems with high renewable penetration. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 1030–1040. [CrossRef]
33. Schulze, T.; Grothey, A.; McKinnon, K. A stabilised scenario decomposition algorithm applied to stochastic unit commitment
problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 261, 247–259. [CrossRef]
34. Geng, Z.; Conejo, A.J.; Chen, Q. Power generation scheduling considering stochastic emission limits. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 2018, 95, 374–383. [CrossRef]
35. Lopez-Salgado, C.J.; Año O.; Ojeda-Esteybar, D.M. Stochastic unit commitment and optimal allocation of reserves: A hybrid
decomposition approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2018, 33, 5542–5552. [CrossRef]
36. Rachunok, B.; Staid, A.; Watson, J.P.; Woodruff, D.L.; Yang, D. Stochastic unit commitment performance considering Monte Carlo
wind power scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power
Systems (PMAPS), Boise, ID, USA, 24–28 June 2018; pp. 1–6.
37. Scuzziato, M.R.; Finardi, E.C.; Frangioni, A. Comparing spatial and scenario decomposition for stochastic hydrothermal unit
commitment problems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 9, 1307–1317. [CrossRef]
38. Shi, J.; Oren, S.S. Flexible line ratings in stochastic unit commitment for power systems with large-scale renewable generation.
Energy Syst. 2020, 11, 1–19. [CrossRef]
39. Vatanpour, M.; Yazdankhah, A.S. The impact of energy storage modeling in coordination with wind farm and thermal units on
security and reliability in a stochastic unit commitment. Energy 2018, 162, 476–490. [CrossRef]
40. Shiina, T.; Birge, J.R. Stochastic unit commitment problem. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2004, 11, 19–32. [CrossRef]
41. Cerisola, S.; Baíllo, A.; Fernández-López, J.M.; Ramos, A.; Gollmer, R. Stochastic power generation unit commitment in electricity
markets: A novel formulation and a comparison of solution methods. Oper. Res. 2009, 57, 32–46. [CrossRef]
42. Hreinsson, K.; Analui, B.; Scaglione, A. Continuous time multi-stage stochastic reserve and unit commitment. In Proceedings of
the 2018 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Dublin, Ireland, 11–15 June 2018; pp. 1–7.
43. Ahmadi-Khatir, A.; Bozorg, M.; Cherkaoui, R. Probabilistic spinning reserve provision model in multi-control zone power system.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 2819–2829. [CrossRef]
44. Xiong, P.; Jirutitijaroen, P. A stochastic optimization formulation of unit commitment with reliability constraints. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 2013, 4, 2200–2208. [CrossRef]
45. Bruninx, K.; Delarue, E. Endogenous probabilistic reserve sizing and allocation in unit commitment models: Cost-effective,
reliable, and fast. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 2593–2603. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 36 of 40

46. Hreinsson, K.; Vrakopoulou, M.; Andersson, G. Stochastic security constrained unit commitment and non-spinning reserve
allocation with performance guarantees. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 72, 109–115. [CrossRef]
47. Wu, Z.; Zeng, P.; Zhang, X.P.; Zhou, Q. A solution to the chanceconstrained two-stage stochastic program for unit commitment
with wind energy integration. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 4185–4196. [CrossRef]
48. Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Zeng, B.; Hu, Z. Chance-constrained two-stage unit commitment under uncertain load and wind power
output using bilinear benders decomposition. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 3637–3647. [CrossRef]
49. Jin, H.; Li, Z.; Sun, H.; Guo, Q.; Chen, R.; Wang, B. A robust aggregate model and the two-stage solution method to incorporate
energy intensive enterprises in power system unit commitment. Appl. Energy 2017, 206, 1364–1378. [CrossRef]
50. Morales-Espana, G.; Lorca, A.; de Weerdt, M.M. Robust unit commitment with dispatchable wind power. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
2018, 155, 58–66. [CrossRef]
51. Razavi, S.E.; Nezhad, A.E.; Mavalizadeh, H.; Raeisi, F.; Ahmadi, A. Robust hydrothermal unit commitment: A mixed-integer
linear framework. Energy 2018, 165, 593–602. [CrossRef]
52. Wu, L.; Shahidehpour, M.; Li, Z. Comparison of scenario-based and interval optimization approaches to stochastic SCUC. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 27, 913–921. [CrossRef]
53. Zhou, M.; Xia, S.; Li, G.; Han, X. Interval optimization combined with point estimate method for stochastic security-constrained
unit commitment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 63, 276–284. [CrossRef]
54. Pandzic, H.; Dvorkin, Y.; Qiu, T.; Wang, Y.; Kirschen, D.S. Toward cost efficient and reliable unit commitment under uncertainty.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 970–982. [CrossRef]
55. Wang, J.; Shahidehpour, M.; Li, Z. Security-constrained unit commitment with volatile wind power generation. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2008, 23, 1319–1327. [CrossRef]
56. Bello, A.; Bunn, D.W.; Reneses, J.; Muñoz, A. Medium-term probabilistic forecasting of electricity prices: A hybrid approach IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 334–343. [CrossRef]
57. Montero, L.; Bello, A.; Reneses, J. A new methodology to obtain a feasible thermal operation in power systems in a medium-term
horizon. Energies 2020, 12, 3056. [CrossRef]
58. Huang, Y.; Zheng, Q.P.; Wang, J. Two-stage stochastic unit commitment model including non-generation resources with
conditional value-at-risk constraints. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2014, 116, 427–438. [CrossRef]
59. Dvorkin, Y.; Pandzic, H.; Ortega-Vazquez, M.A.; Kirschen, D.S. A hybrid stochastic/interval approach to transmission-constrained
unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 30, 621–631. [CrossRef]
60. Blanco, I.; Morales, J.M. An efficient robust solution to the two-stage stochastic unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2017, 32, 4477–4488. [CrossRef]
61. Shiina, T.; Yurugi, T.; Morito, S.; Imaizumi, J. Unit commitment by column generation. In Operations Research Proceedings 2014;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, February 2016; pp. 559–565.
62. Kuo M.T.; Lu, S.D. Random feasible directions algorithm with a generalized Lagrangian relaxation algorithm for solving unit
commitment problem. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2015, 38, 547–561. [CrossRef]
63. Gurobi: Gurobi Optimizer. Available online: https://www.gurobi.com/ (accessed on 5 November 2021).
64. IBM: CPLEX Optimizer. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/es-es/analytics/cplex-optimizer (accessed on 5 Novem-
ber 2021).
65. MOSEK: MOSEK Solver. Available online: https://www.mosek.com/ (accessed on 5 November 2021).
66. BARON: BARON Solver. Available online: https://minlp.com/baron-solver (accessed on 5 November 2021).
67. Nocedal, J.; Wright, S.J. Numerical Optimization; ser. Springer Series in Operations Research; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
68. Jo K.H.; Kim, M.K. Improved genetic algorithm-based unit commitment considering uncertainty integration method. Energies
2018, 11, 1387. [CrossRef]
69. Dudek, G. Adaptive simulated annealing schedule to the unit commitment problem. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2010, 80, 465–472.
[CrossRef]
70. Chang, C.S.; Chen, R.C. Optimal unit commitment decision with risk assessment using tabu search. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 2007, 28,
965–984. [CrossRef]
71. Juste, K.A.; Kita, H.; Tanaka, E.; Hasegawa, J. An evolutionary programming solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 1999, 14, 1452–1459. [CrossRef]
72. Darvishan, A.; Mollashahi, H.; Ghaffari, V.; Lariche, M.J. Unit commitment-based load uncertainties based on improved particle
swarm optimisation. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2019, 40, 594–599. [CrossRef]
73. Jang, S.H.; Roh, J.H.; Kim, W.; Sherpa, T.; Kim, J.H.; Park, J.B. A novel binary ant colony optimization: Application to the unit
commitment problem of power systems. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2011, 6, 174–181. [CrossRef]
74. Sam’on, I.N.; Yasin, Z.M.; Zakaria, Z. Ant Lion Optimizer for solving unit commitment problem in smart grid system. Indones. J.
Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2017, 8, 129–136. [CrossRef]
75. Columbus, C.C.; Simon, S.P. Profit based unit commitment: A parallel ABC approach using a workstation cluster. J. Compu.
Electr. Eng. 2012, 38, 724–745. [CrossRef]
76. Singhal, P.K.; Sharma, V.; Naresh, R. Binary fish swarm algorithm for profit-based unit commitment problem in competitive
electricity market with ramp rate constraints. IET Gener. Transmiss. Distrib. 2015, 9, 1697–1707. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 37 of 40

77. Lakshmi, K.; Vasantharathna, S. Genco’s profit based unit commitment using artificial immune system in day ahead competitive
electricity markets. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2014, 17, 275–282.
78. Wang, W.; Li, C.; Liao, X.; Qin, H. Study on unit commitment problem considering pumped storage and renewable energy via a
novel binary artificial sheep algorithm. Appl. Energy 2017, 187, 612–626. [CrossRef]
79. Eslamian, M.; Hosseinian, S.H.; Vahidi, B. Bacterial foragingbased solution to the unit-commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2009, 24, 1478–1488. [CrossRef]
80. Zhao, J.; Liu, S.; Zhou, M.; Guo, X.; Qi, L. Modified cuckoo search algorithm to solve economic power dispatch optimization
problems. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2018, 5, 794–806. [CrossRef]
81. Datta, D.; Dutta, S. A binary-real-coded differential evolution for unit commitment problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
2012, 42, 517–524. [CrossRef]
82. Ghorbani, N.; Babaei, E. Exchange market algorithm for economic load dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 75, 19–27.
[CrossRef]
83. Koodalsamy, B.; Veerayan, M.B.; Koodalsamy, C.; Simon, S.P. Firefly algorithm with multiple workers for the power system unit
commitment problem. Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2016, 24, 4773–4789. [CrossRef]
84. Reddy, K.S.; Panwar, L.K.; Kumar, R.; Panigrahi, B.K. Binary fireworks algorithm for profit based unit commitment (PBUC)
problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 83, 270–282. [CrossRef]
85. Swain, R.K.; Sahu, N.C.; Hota, P.K. Gravitational search algorithm for optimal economic dispatch. Procedia Technol. 2012, 6,
411–419. [CrossRef]
86. Sakthi, S.S.; Santhi, R.K.; Krishnan, N.M.; Ganesan, S.; Subramanian, S. Wind integrated thermal unit commitment solution using
grey wolf optimizer. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017, 7, 2088–8708. [CrossRef]
87. Aghdam, F.H.; Hagh, M.T. Security Constrained Unit Commitment (SCUC) formulation and its solving with Modified Imperialist
Competitive Algorithm (MICA). J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2019, 31, 253–261. [CrossRef]
88. Nandi, A.; Kamboj, V.K. A New Solution to Profit Based Unit Commitment Problem Considering PEVs/BEVs and Renewable
Energy Sources. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2020; p. 01070.
89. Amudha, A.; Rajan, C.C.A. Effect of Reserve in Profit Based Unit Commitment Using Worst Fit Algorithm. In Proceedings of
the 2011 International Conference on Process Automation, Control and Computing, IEEE, Coimbatore, India, 20–22 July 2011;
pp. 1–7.
90. Chung, C.Y.; Yu, H.; Wong, K.P. An advanced quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2011, 26, 847–854. [CrossRef]
91. Roy, P.K.; Sarkar, R. Solution of unit commitment problem using quasi-oppositional teaching learning based algorithm. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 60, 96–106. [CrossRef]
92. Barati, M.; Farsangi, M.M. Solving unit commitment problem by a binary shuffled frog leaping algorithm. IET Gener. Transmiss.
Distrib. 2014, 8, 1050–1060. [CrossRef]
93. Reddy, K.S.; Panwar, L.K.; Panigrahi, B.K.; Kumar, R. A new binary variant of sine—cosine algorithm: Development and
application to solve profit-based unit commitment problem. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2017, 48, 4041–4056. [CrossRef]
94. Reddy, K.S.; Panwar, L.K.; Panigrahi, B.K.; Kumar, R. Binary whale optimization algorithm: A new metaheuristic approach for
profitbased unit commitment problems in competitive electricity markets. Eng. Optim. 2019, 51, 369–389. [CrossRef]
95. Elattar, E.E. Adaptive bacterial foraging and genetic algorithm for unit commitment problem with ramp rate constraint. Int.
Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2016, 26, 1555–1569. [CrossRef]
96. Bikeri, A.; Kihato, P.; Maina, C. Profit Based Unit Commitment Using Evolutionary Particle Swarm Optimization. In Proceedings
of the 2017 IEEE AFRICON, Cape Town, South Africa, 18–20 September 2017; pp. 1137–1142.
97. Sudhakar, A.; Karri, C.; Laxmi, A.J. Profit based unit commitment for GENCOs using lagrange relaxation—differential evolution.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2017, 20, 738–747. [CrossRef]
98. Nawaz, A.; Wang, H.; Wu, Q.; Ochani, M.K. TSO and DSO with large-scale distributed energy resources: A security constrained
unit commitment coordinated solution. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2020, 30, 1–26. [CrossRef]
99. Zhai, Y.; Liao, X.; Mu, N.; Le, J. A two-layer algorithm based on PSO for solving unit commitment problem. Soft Comput. 2020,
24, 9161–9178. [CrossRef]
100. Muralikrishnan, N.; Jebaraj, L.; Rajan, C.C.A. A Comprehensive Review on Evolutionary Optimization Techniques Applied for
Unit Commitment Problem. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 132980–133014. [CrossRef]
101. Koch, T.; Achterberg, T.; Andersen, E.; Bastert, O.; Berthold, T.; Bixby, R.E.; Danna, E.; Gamrath, G.; Gleixner, A.M.; Heinz, S.; et al.
MIPLIB 2010. Math. Program. Comput. 2011, 3, 103–163. [CrossRef]
102. Arroyo, J.M.; Conejo, A.J. Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2000, 15,
1098–1104. [CrossRef]
103. Yu, Z.; Sparrow, F.T.; Bowen, B.; Smardo, F.J. On convexity issues of short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 2000, 22, 451–457. [CrossRef]
104. Arroyo, J.M.; Conejo, A.J. Optimal response of a power generator to energy, AGC, and reserve pool-based markets. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2002, 17, 404–410. [CrossRef]
105. Arroyo, J.M.; Conejo, A.J. Modeling of start-up and shut-down power trajectories of thermal units. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2004,
19, 1562–1568. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 38 of 40

106. Wu, L. A tighter piecewise linear approximation of quadratic cost curves for unit commitment problems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2011, 26, 2581–2583. [CrossRef]
107. Nowak, M.P.; Römisch, W. Stochastic Lagrangian relaxation applied to power scheduling in a hydro-thermal system under
uncertainty. Ann. Oper. Res. 2000, 100, 251–272. [CrossRef]
108. Bendotti, P.; Fouilhoux, P.; Rottner, C. On the complexity of the unit commitment problem. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 274, 119–130.
[CrossRef]
109. de La Torre, S.; Arroyo, J.M.; Conejo, A.J.; Contreras, J. Price-maker self-scheduling in a pool-based electricity market: A mixed-
integer LP approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2002, 17, 1037–1042. [CrossRef]
110. Li, T.; Shahidehpour, M. Strategic bidding of transmission-constrained GENCOS with incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2005, 20, 437–447. [CrossRef]
111. Larsen, T.J.; Wangensteen, I.; Gjengedal, T. Sequential Time Step Unit Commitment. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA, 28 January–1 February 2001; pp. 1524–1529.
112. Parrilla, E.; García-González, J. Improving the B&B search for large-scale hydrothermal weekly scheduling problems. Int. J. Electr.
Power Electr. Syst. 2006, 28, 339–348.
113. García-González, J.; Roque, A.M.S.; Campos, F.A.; Villar, J. Connecting the intraday energy and reserve markets by an optimal
redispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2007, 22, 2220–2231. [CrossRef]
114. Sharma, D.; Trivedi, A.; Srinivasan, D.; Thillainathan, L. Multiagent modeling for solving profit based unit commitment problem.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 3751–3761. [CrossRef]
115. Hosseini, S.H.; Khodaei, A.; Aminifar, F. A novel straightforward unit commitment method for large-scale power systems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2007, 22, 2134–2143. [CrossRef]
116. Li, T.; Shahidehpour, M. Price-based unit commitment: A case of lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer programming. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2005, 20, 2015–2025. [CrossRef]
117. Chang, G.W.; Tsai, Y.D.; Lai, C.Y.; Chung, J.S. A Practical Mixed Integer Linear Programming Based Approach for Unit
Commitment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 6–10 June 2004;
Volume 221, pp. 221–225.
118. Lu, B.; Shahidehpour, M. Unit commitment with flexible generating units. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2005, 20, 1022–1034. [CrossRef]
119. Sawa, T.; Sato, Y.; Tsurugai, M. Security Constrained Integrated Unit Commitment Using Quadratic Programming. In Proceedings
of the 2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1–5 July 2007; pp. 1858–1863.
120. Carrion, M.; Arroyo, J.M. A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2006, 21, 1371–1378. [CrossRef]
121. Bisanovic, S.; Hajro, M.; Dlakic, M. Mixed integer linear programming based thermal unit commitment problem in deregulated
environment. J. Electr. Syst. 2010, 6, 466–479.
122. Ostrowski, J.; Anjos, M.; Vannelli, A. Tight Mixed-Integer Linear Programming Formulations for Generator Self-Scheduling. In
Proceedings of the 2010 23rd Canadian Conference Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Calgary, AB, Canada, 2–5
May 2010; pp. 1–4.
123. Ostrowski, J.; Anjos, M.; Vannelli, A. Tight mixed integer linear programming formulations for the unit commitment problem.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 27, 39–46. [CrossRef]
124. Morales-Espana, G.; Latorre, J.M.; Ramos, A. Tight and compact MILP formulation of start-up and shut-down ramping in unit
commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 1288–1296. [CrossRef]
125. Morales-España, G.; Ramírez-Elizondo, L.; Hobbs, B.F. Hidden power system inflexibilities imposed by traditional unit
commitment formulations. Appl. Energy 2017, 191, 223–238. [CrossRef]
126. Morales-Espana, G.; Latorre, J.M.; Ramos, A. Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 4897–4908. [CrossRef]
127. Gentile, C.; Morales-Espana, G.; Ramos, A. A tight MIP formulation of the unit commitment problem with start-up and shut-down
constraints. EURO J. Comput. Optim. 2016, 5, 1–25. [CrossRef]
128. Morales-Espana, G.; Ramos, A.; Garcia-Gonzalez, J. An MIP formulation for joint market-clearing of energy and reserves based
on ramp scheduling. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 476–488. [CrossRef]
129. Morales-Espana, Gentile, C.; G.; Ramos, A. Tight MIP formulations of the power-based unit commitment problem. OR Spectrum
2015, 37, 929–950. [CrossRef]
130. Frangioni, A.; Gentile, C.; Lacalandra, F. Tighter approximated MILP formulations for unit commitment problems. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2009, 24, 105–113. [CrossRef]
131. Jabr, R.A. Tight polyhedral approximation for mixed-integer linear programming unit commitment formulations. IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 2012, 6, 1104–1111. [CrossRef]
132. Quan, R.; Jian, J.B.; Mu, Y.D. Tighter relaxation method for unit commitment based on second-order cone programming and valid
inequalities. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 55, 82–90. [CrossRef]
133. Yang, L.; Jian, J.; Wang, Y.; Dong, Z. Projected mixed integer programming formulations for unit commitment problem. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 68, 195–202. [CrossRef]
134. Yang, L.; Jian, J.; Zhu, Y.; Dong, Z. Tight relaxation method for unit commitment problem using reformulation and lift-andproject.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 30, 13–23. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 39 of 40

135. Yang, L.; Zhang, C.; Jian, J.; Meng, K.; Xu, Y.; Dong, Z. A novel projected two-binary-variable formulation for unit commitment in
power systems. Appl. Energy 2017, 187, 732–745. [CrossRef]
136. Catalao, J.P.S.; Mariano, S.J.P.S.; Mendes, V.M.F.; Ferreira, L.A.F.M. A practical approach for profit-based unit commitment with
emission limitation. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2010, 32, 218–224. [CrossRef]
137. Catalao, J.P.S.; Mendes, V.M.F. Influence of environmental constraints on profit-based short-term thermal scheduling. IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 2011, 2, 131–138. [CrossRef]
138. Shafie-Khah, M.; Moghaddam, M.P.; Sheikh-El-Eslami, M.K. Unified solution of a non-convex SCUC problem using combination
of modified branch-and-bound method with quadratic programming. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 3425–3432. [CrossRef]
139. Lotfi, M.M. Short-term price-based unit commitment of hydrothermal gencos: A pre-emptive goal programming approach. Int. J.
Eng. 2013, 26, 1017–1030. [CrossRef]
140. Che, P.; Shi, G. An MILP Approach for a Profit-Based Unit Commitment Problem with Emissions Penalty. In Proceedings of the
26th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC), Changsha, China, 31 May–2 June 2014; pp. 4474–4477.
141. Daneshi, H.; Choobbari, A.L.; Shahidehpour, S.M.; Li, Z. Mixed Integer Programming Method to Solve Security Constrained
Unit Commitment with Restricted Operating Zone Limits. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on
Electro/Information Technology, IEEE EIT 2008 Conference, Ames, IA, USA, 18–20 May 2008; pp. 187–192.
142. Alvarez-Lopez, J.; Ceciliano-Meza, J.L.; Guillén-Moya, I.; Nieva-Gómez, R. A MIQCP formulation to solve the unit commitment
problem for large-scale power systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2012, 36, 68–75. [CrossRef]
143. Daneshi, H.; Srivastava, A.K. Security-constrained unit commitment with wind generation and compressed air energy storage.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2012, 6, 167–175. [CrossRef]
144. Ostrowski, J.; Wang, J.; Liu, C. Exploiting symmetry in transmission lines for transmission switching. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2012, 27, 1708–1709. [CrossRef]
145. Alemany, J.; Magnago, F.; Moitre, D.; Pinto, H. Symmetry Issues in Mixed Integer Programming based Unit Commitment. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 54, 86–90. [CrossRef]
146. Ostrowski, J.; Anjos, M.F.; Vannelli, A. Modified orbital branching for structured symmetry with an application to unit
commitment. Math. Program. 2015, 150, 99–129. [CrossRef]
147. Lima, R.M.; Novais, A.Q. Symmetry breaking in MILP formulations for unit commitment problems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2016,
85, 162–176. [CrossRef]
148. Knueven, B.; Ostrowski, J. Exploiting Identical Generators in Unit Commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 33, 4496–4507.
[CrossRef]
149. Aliprandi, F.; Stoppato, A.; Mirandola, A. Estimating CO2 emissions reduction from renewable energy use in Italy. Renew. Energy
2016, 96, 220–232. [CrossRef]
150. Keatley, P.; Shibli, A.; Hewitt, N.J. Estimating power plant start costs in cyclic operation. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 550–557.
[CrossRef]
151. Hermans, M.; Delarue, E. Impact of Start-Up Mode on Flexible Power Plant Operation and System Cost. In Proceedings of the
2016 13th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Porto, Portugal, 6–9 June 2016; pp. 1–6.
152. Morales-Espana, G.; Tejada-Arango, D.A. Modeling the hidden flexibility of clustered unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2019, 34, 3294–3296. [CrossRef]
153. Brandenberg, R.; Huber, M.; Silbernagl, M. The summed start-up costs in a unit commitment problem. EURO J. Comput. Optim.
2017, 5, 203–238. [CrossRef]
154. Brandenberg, R.; Silbernagl, M. Implementing a unit commitment power market model in FICO Xpress-Mosel. arXiv 2014,
arXiv:1412.4504.
155. Knueven, B.; Ostrowski, J.; Watson, J.P. A novel matching formulation for startup costs in unit commitment. Math. Program.
Comput. 2017, 12, 225–248. [CrossRef]
156. Morales-Espana, G.; Correa-Posada, C.M.; Ramos, A. Tight and compact MIP formulation of configuration-based combined-cycle
units. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 1350–1359. [CrossRef]
157. Chen, C.H.; Chen, N.; Luh, P.B. Head dependence of pump-storageunit model applied to generation scheduling. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2017, 32, 2869–2877. [CrossRef]
158. Alvarez, G.E.; Marcovecchio, M.G.; Aguirre, P.A. Security constrained unit commitment problem including thermal and pumped
storage units: An MILP formulation by the application of linear approximations techniques. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2018, 154,
67–74. [CrossRef]
159. Alvarez, G.E.; Marcovecchio, M.G.; Aguirre, P.A. Security constrained unit commitment scheduling: A new MILP formulation
for solving transmission constraints. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2018, 115, 455–473. [CrossRef]
160. Alvarez, G.E.; Marcovecchio, M.G.; Aguirre, P.A. Optimization of the integration among traditional fossil fuels, clean energies,
renewable sources, and energy storages: An MILP model for the coupled electric power, hydraulic, and natural gas systems.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 139, 106141. [CrossRef]
161. Pan, K.; Guan, Y.; Watson, J.P.; Wang, J. Strengthened MILP formulation for certain gas turbine unit commitment problems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 1440–1448. [CrossRef]
162. Atakan, S.; Lulli, G.; Sen, S. A state transition MIP formulation for the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017,
33, 736–748. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1296 40 of 40

163. Tejada-Arango, D.A.; Lumbreras, S.; Sánchez-Martín, P.; Ramos, A. Which unit-commitment formulation is best? A comparison
framework. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2020, 35, 2926–2936. [CrossRef]
164. Knueven, B.; Ostrowski, J.; Watson, J.P. On mixed-integer programming formulations for the unit commitment problem.
INFORMS J. Comput. 2020, 32, 857–876. [CrossRef]
165. Kazarlis, S.A.; Bakirtzis, A.G.; Petridis, V. A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
1996, 11, 83–92. [CrossRef]
166. IEEE 118-Bus: System Data. Available online: http://motor.ece.iit.edu/Data/ (accessed on 5 November 2021).
167. Morales-España, G. Unit Commitment Computational Performance, System Representation and Wind Uncertainty Management.
Ph.D. Thesis, Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain, 2014.
168. Grigg, C.; Wong, P.; Albrecht, P.; Allan, R.; Bhavaraju, M.; Billinton, R.; Chen, Q.; Fong, C.; Haddad, S.; Kuruganty, S.; et al. The
IEEE Reliability Test System—1996. A report prepared by the Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability
Methods Subcommittee. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1999, 14, 1010–1020. [CrossRef]
169. Abujarad, S.Y.; Mustafa, M.; Jamian, J. Recent approaches of unit commitment in the presence of intermittent renewable energy
resources: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 215–223. [CrossRef]
170. Abdou, I.; Tkiouat, M. Unit commitment problem in electrical power system: A literature review. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2018,
8, 1357. [CrossRef]
171. Håberg, M. Fundamentals and recent developments in stochastic unit commitment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 109,
38–48. [CrossRef]
172. Hong, Y.Y.; Apolinario, G.F.D. Uncertainty in Unit Commitment in Power Systems: A Review of Models, Methods, and
Applications. Energies 2021, 14, 6658. [CrossRef]
173. Saravanan, B.; Das, S.; Sikri, S.; Kothari, D.P. A solution to the unit commitment problem—A review. Front. Energy 2013, 7,
223–236. [CrossRef]
174. Abdi, H. Profit-based unit commitment problem: A review of models, methods, challenges, and future directions. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2020, 1, 1–28. [CrossRef]
175. Anjos, M.F.; Conejo, A.J. Unit commitment in electric energy systems. Found. Trends Electr. Energy Syst. 2017, 1, 220–310.
[CrossRef]