.
Security-Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) ensures secure and economic supply of electricity from the set of committed generators to the aggregated forecasted load. In India, each state is equipped with State Load Dispatch Center (SLDC) to handle the intra-state loads from available generators. Uttar Pradesh uses the merit-order approach to schedule the available set of committed generators for the predicted load. A related case study for Uttar Pradesh is presented in this paper to understand the SCED benefits. This case study retroactively does Linear Programming (LP)-based SCED. Also, the classical SCED has been modified to include the commitment status of the generators, which aids in considering related administrative decisions. This analysis includes the marginal prices of load-generation balance, generators’ minimum, maximum, and ramp limits. Compared to the merit-order approach, LP-based SCED provides key insights regarding compensation or tariffs to be charged by Uttar Pradesh to individual generators, if needed, for altering the limits of the related generation constraints, including ramp limits. Lastly, the LP-based SCED analysis automatically considers each generator’s economics and provides a global optimal solution owing to the linear SCED model.
This paper investigates the role of cross-border electricity integration in enhancing renewable energy capacity credits and system reliability across South Asia. A regional capacity expansion model is developed for Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, supported by hourly unit commitment simulations that incorporate operational constraints such as startup/shutdown costs and reserve requirements. The study applies dual duration curve analysis to evaluate cost dynamics and transmission benefits under varying cooperation scenarios. Results show that regional integration could yield cumulative savings of nearly USD 11 billion by 2035, reduce average supply costs by about 5%, and increase the effective capacity credit of solar generation in Bangladesh by approximately 20-25% through factors like time zone diversity and complementary demand-supply patterns. The modelling framework also captures the impact of regional ancillary services coordination on operational efficiency and reliability, offering insights into the technical and economic dimensions of regional power system integration.
On the translation of the agenda (Kässi-Ramat) printed in Tallinn in 1699 This article provides an overview of the translation process of the Estonian-language agenda, a handbook for church services, printed in Tallinn in 1699. It also introduces two surviving translation manuscripts housed in the National Archives of Estonia in Tartu. The translation was based on the new Swedish-language church agenda published in 1693 in connection with the Swedish Church Law of 1686. The task of translation was to be carried out collaboratively by the clergy of Estonia and Livonia, who had recently been at odds over the Estonian language used in church texts (such as the Bible, hymns, etc.). According to a decree issued in 1694 by Swedish King Charles XI, the Consistory of Estonia was to prepare the translation, which would then be reviewed by the Supreme Consistory of Livonia. Once consensus on the translation was reached, the king would provide funding for printing. Initially, Estonian pastors proficient in Swedish prepared a draft translation, the cleanly rewritten version of which has survived (referred to as Manuscript A). The second surviving manuscript (Manuscript B) contains corrections made during two rounds of editing conducted in Estonia. This is likely the same manuscript that the Estonian Consistory sent to the Supreme Consistory of Livonia for review at the beginning of 1696. As the Supreme Consistory of Livonia was dissatisfied with the translation they received, their skilled linguists prepared an alternative version, which was sent back to Estonia for review later that same year. This version was cleanly rewritten by Johann Hornung, the author of an Estonian grammar and a well-known language reformer. The Estonian clergy were then tasked with comparing the two manuscripts and, where necessary, revising their translation based on the Livonian version. By the autumn of 1697, when the Supreme Consistory of Livonia requested their manuscript back, the work had not yet been completed. The revisions based on the Livonian translation were apparently incorporated into Manuscript B. Subsequently, the manuscript received from Livonia was returned to the Supreme Consistory of Livonia, but its further fate remains unknown.
