The penalty for the cycling slack variable is too small and there is no implementation without the slack variable

The problem is two fold:

1. the use_slacks = false as indicated in https://nrel-sienna.github.io/StorageSystemsSimulations.jl/stable/formulation_library/StorageDispatchWithReserves/
   StorageDispatchWithReserves · StorageSystemsSimulations.jl
   Documentation for StorageSystemsSimulations.jl.
   won't work because there's no implementation for the no slack version of the constraint
2. The const CYCLE_VIOLATION_COST = 5e3 is effective 50 when using p.u. which make the cycle violation to be huge when the overall energy cost for the system is high.

Proof for NREL-Sienna/StorageSystemsSimulations.jl#2 is:
1000 ActivePowerInVariable_EnergyReservoirStorage_{VPP_BESS,_22} + 1000 ActivePowerInVariable_EnergyReservoirStorage_{VPP_BESS,_23} + 1000 ActivePowerInVariable_EnergyReservoirStorage_{VPP_BESS,_24} + 5000 StorageChargeCyclingSlackVariable_{VPP_BESS} + 5000 StorageDischargeCyclingSlackVariable_{VPP_BESS} + 1000000 slack_{SystemBalanceSlackDown,_2502,_1} + 1000000 slack_{SystemBalanceSlackUp,_2502,_1} + 1000000 slack_{SystemBalanceSlackDown,_25023,_1} + 1000000 slack_{SystemBalanceSlackUp,_25023,_1}

We have 10$/MW for charging, which is showing up right, which makes the penalty for slack variable 50$/cycle.