AGM Center
AboutResearchLearningGallery

AGM Center

Advancing power systems for a sustainable future through research, tools, and collaboration.

About

  • Who We Are
  • Our Team
  • What We Do
  • Get Involved

Documentation

  • Introduction
  • KPG TestGrid
  • KPG Run
  • KPG View

Our Location

Korea Institute of Energy Technology (KENTECH)
200 Hyeoksin-ro, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do
Korea 58330

Office Hours
Mon–Fri 09:00–18:00 KST

© 2026 AGM CENTER. All rights reserved

Terms and Conditions|Privacy Policy
Learning

KPG Showcase

  • Minimum Working Example
  • Online Exhibition
  • Comparison Report
KPG Platform Showcase

Step 03

Comparison Report

Why This Comparison

This report compares KPG Run (within KPG Platform) with commercial and open-source reference tools to answer two questions:

  1. How numerically consistent are KPG Run results against trusted reference tools?

  2. When assumptions differ, what explains the observed gaps?

The primary goal is to provide quantitative evidence of technical credibility and establish a baseline for future improvements.

What Was Compared

Target tools

Tool

Type

Why included

PLEXOS

Commercial

Practical UC reference widely used in planning and operations

PSS/E

Commercial

Industry-standard transmission power-flow benchmark for AC behavior

UnitCommitment.jl

Open-source

Transparent and reproducible UC benchmark

PowerModels.jl

Open-source

Transparent and reproducible DCOPF/ACOPF benchmark

Comparison scope

KPG Run function

Commercial comparison

Open-source comparison

UC

PLEXOS

UnitCommitment.jl

DCOPF

-

PowerModels.jl (DC)

ACOPF

PSS/E

PowerModels.jl (AC)

Baseline versions and period

  • Baseline versions: KPG193 v1.5, KPG Run v1.0, KPG View v1.0

  • Main body period: Day 1-90

  • Full-period appendix window: Day 1-365

Key Results (Day 1-90)

  • UC vs UnitCommitment.jl: average objective absolute difference 0.0447%, average status mismatch rate 1.17%

  • DCOPF vs PowerModels.jl: objective absolute difference not observed (0.0%)

  • ACOPF vs PowerModels.jl: average objective absolute difference 0.0303% (max 0.105%, Day 29)

  • UC vs PLEXOS: average status mismatch 28.1%, average dispatch MAE 207.7 MW (primarily due to modeling and temporal-linkage differences)

  • ACOPF vs PSS/E: high alignment under simplified HVDC treatment (equiv_load), with larger gaps under native two-terminal DC modeling

Full Report (Embedded)

Open KPG Comparison Report PDF

The full report PDF is provided in English, and this page additionally offers a quick summary plus reproducibility guidance.

Reproducibility Assets

Comparison Data and Conversion Code

The comparison workflow is organized in the KPG Platform Converters Repository, which keeps conversion scripts lightweight and reproducible while loading base datasets from tagged KPG TestGrid releases.

  • Repository: KPG Platform Converters Repository

  • Dataset source: KPG TestGrid Repository

  • Core intent: conversion-only structure for cross-tool benchmarking (PLEXOS, PSS/E, UnitCommitment.jl, PowerModels.jl)

Converter Modules Used in This Report

Module path

Purpose

Main script(s)

converters/plexos

Build PLEXOS profile CSV inputs from KPG dataset

build_plexos_profiles.jl

converters/psse

Convert MATPOWER .mat case to PSS/E .raw

convert_mat_to_raw.m, save2psse.m

converters/unitcommitment

UC reference-run pipeline

run_uc.jl

converters/powermodels

OPF reference-run pipeline

run_opf.jl

Output Artifacts (PSS/E and PLEXOS)

The repository writes generated artifacts to outputs/ so the same pipeline can be rerun with pinned dataset tags. For PLEXOS, this workflow generates profile CSV inputs; the full XML model is provided separately.

Expected paths used for this report include:

  • outputs/plexos/profile/demand/PLEXOS_demandP.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables/PLEXOS_solarP.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables/PLEXOS_windP.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables/PLEXOS_hydroP.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables_ratio/PLEXOS_solarRatio.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables_ratio/PLEXOS_windRatio.csv

  • outputs/plexos/profile/renewables_ratio/PLEXOS_hydroRatio.csv

  • outputs/psse/KPG193_ver1_5.raw

Regeneration Commands

# PLEXOS profile CSV outputs
julia converters/plexos/build_plexos_profiles.jl \
  --dataset-dir data/external/kpg-testgrid/KPG193_ver1_5 \
  --output-dir outputs/plexos

# PSS/E RAW output
matlab -batch "addpath('converters/psse', '-begin'); convert_mat_to_raw('input.mat', 'outputs/psse/KPG193_ver1_5.raw')"

Notes

  • Commercial comparisons (PLEXOS, PSS/E) require licensed environments.

  • Differences versus commercial tools should be interpreted with modeling assumptions (e.g., temporal linkage and HVDC treatment), not solver behavior alone.

  • Full-period reruns can be reproduced with the same commands and dataset-tag workflow.

Previous
Online Exhibition