logo

SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, Volume 49 , Issue 8 : 1050-1065(2019) https://doi.org/10.1360/N112018-00073

A day-ahead electricity market-clearing model considering medium- and long-term transactions and wind producer participation

More info
  • ReceivedAug 27, 2018
  • AcceptedOct 16, 2018
  • PublishedAug 9, 2019

Abstract


Funded by

国家电网公司科技项目(18-GW-03)


References

[1] Liu D N. An Interpretation of the Basic Rules for Mid- and Long-Term Transactions in Electric Power(Provisional)---About protection of priority generation rights and renewable energy consumption. Energy Power Industry in China, 2017, 6: 44--46. Google Scholar

[2] Zhou M, Yan Y, Ding Q, et al. Transaction and settlement mechanism for foreign representative power markets and its enlightenment for chinese power market. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2017, 41: 1--8. Google Scholar

[3] Bao M L, Ding Y, Shao C Z, et al. Review of nordic electricity market and its suggestions for china. Proc CSEE, 2017, 37: 4881--4892. Google Scholar

[4] Xue Y S, Lei X, Xue F, et al. A review on impacts of wind power uncertainties on power systems. Proc CSEE, 2014, 34: 5029--5040. Google Scholar

[5] Figueiredo N C, Silva P P D, Cerqueira P. Wind generation influence on market splitting: the Iberian spot electricity market. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Lisbon, 2015. 1--5. Google Scholar

[6] Guo H Y, Chen Q X, Zhong H W, et al. Spot market mechanism design and path planning based on standard curve for financial delivery. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2017, 41: 1--8. Google Scholar

[7] Zou P, Chen Q X, Xia Q, et al. Logical analysis of electricty spot market design in foreign countries and enlightenment and policy suggestions for china. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2014, 38: 18--27. Google Scholar

[8] Jing Z X, Zhu J S. Simulation experiment analysis on market rules for monthly centralized bidding. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2017, 41: 42--48. Google Scholar

[9] Zhao C, Zhang S H. Generation asset allocation strategies based on IGDT. Control Dec, 2017, 32: 751--754. Google Scholar

[10] Nie Z, Gao F, Wu J, et al. Contract for difference energy decomposition model for maximizing social benefit in electricity market. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, Guilin, 2016. 2449--2454. Google Scholar

[11] van Stiphout A, De Vos K, Deconinck G. The Impact of Operating Reserves on Investment Planning of Renewable Power Systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2017, 32: 378-388 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[12] Zhang Z S, Sun Y Z, Gao D W. A Versatile Probability Distribution Model for Wind Power Forecast Errors and Its Application in Economic Dispatch. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2013, 28: 3114-3125 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[13] Papavasiliou A, Oren S S. Large-Scale Integration of Deferrable Demand and Renewable Energy Sources. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2014, 29: 489-499 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[14] Sharma K C, Bhakar R, Tiwari H P. Strategic bidding for wind power producers in electricity markets. Energy Convers Manage, 2014, 86: 259-267 CrossRef Google Scholar

[15] Banaei M, Oloomi-Buygi M, Zabetian-Hosseini S M. Strategic gaming of wind power producers joined with thermal units in electricity markets. Renew Energy, 2018, 115: 1067-1074 CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Wang X, Wang L H, Zhang S H. Impacts of cooperation between wind power producer and DR aggregator onelectricity market equilibrium. Power Syst Tech, 2012, 27: 894--903 [王??, 王留晖, 张少华. 风电商与DR聚合商联营对电力市场竞争的影响. 电网技术, 2018, 42: 110--116]. Google Scholar

[17] Pinson P, Chevallier C, Kariniotakis G N. Trading Wind Generation From Short-Term Probabilistic Forecasts of Wind Power. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2007, 22: 1148-1156 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[18] Chaves-ávila J P, Hakvoort R A, Ramos A. Short-term strategies for Dutch wind power producers to reduce imbalance costs. Energy Policy, 2013, 52: 573-582 CrossRef Google Scholar

[19] Wang X, Huang M T, Zhang S H. Equilibrium analysis of electricity market considering penalties for wind power's bidding deviation. Power Syst Tech, 2016, 40: 602--607. Google Scholar

[20] Brunetto C, Tina G. Wind generation imbalances penalties in day-ahead energy markets: The Italian case. Electric Power Syst Res, 2011, 81: 1446-1455 CrossRef Google Scholar

[21] Shao C C, Wang X F, Wang X L, et al. An electricity market clearing model for day-ahead pool market considering wind power. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2014, 38: 45--50. Google Scholar

[22] Zhang Y, Giannakis G B. Distributed Stochastic Market Clearing With High-Penetration Wind Power. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2016, 31: 895-906 CrossRef ADS arXiv Google Scholar

[23] Fernandez-Blanco R, Arroyo J M, Alguacil N. On?the?Solution?of?Revenue-?and?Network-Constrained Day-Ahead Market Clearing Under Marginal Pricing-Part I: An Exact Bilevel Programming Approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2017, 32: 208-219 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[24] Liu G Y, Chen N S, PU T J, et al. Mathematical model and clearing price analysis of co-optimization of energy regulation and operation reserves. Autom Electr Power Syst, 2014, 38: 71--78. Google Scholar

[25] Zheng T, Litvinov E. Ex Post Pricing in the Co-Optimized Energy and Reserve Market. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2006, 21: 1528-1538 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[26] Sores P, Divényi D, Polgári B, et al. Day-ahead market structures for co-optimized energy and reserve allocation. In: Proceedings of 2015 12th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Lisbon, 2015. 1--5. Google Scholar

[27] Fernandez-Blanco R, Arroyo J M, Alguacil N. A Unified Bilevel Programming Framework for Price-Based Market Clearing Under Marginal Pricing. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2012, 27: 517-525 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[28] Liu X, Wang B, Li Y. A transmission-constrained stochastic unit commitment model with real-time pricing for high wind power integration. In: Proceedings of Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Asia-Pacific, 2013. 1--6. Google Scholar

[29] Ma X Y. Scenario analysis and stochastic programming of wind-integrated power systems. Dissertation for PH.D. Degree. Wuhan: Wuhan University, 2014. Google Scholar

[30] Subcommittee P M. IEEE Reliability Test System. IEEE Trans Power Apparatus Syst, 1979, 98: 2047--2054. Google Scholar

  • Table 1   The consumption levels and the long-term contracts decomposition results (MW)
    c
    Load
    c
    The decompostion amount of long-term contracts
    Period 1 2 3 $Q^{CH}_{1t}$ $Q^{CH}_{2t}$ $Q^{CH}_{3t}$ $Q^{CH}_{4t}$ $Q^{CL}_{1t}$ $Q^{CL}_{2t}$ $Q^{CL}_{3t}$ $Q^{CL}_{4t}$
    1 500 220 280 500 200 100 50 150 100 80 50
    2 450 225 300 450 150 50 50 120 70 40 50
    3 450 200 290 500 150 75 50 80 90 60 50
  • Table 2   Generation levels in different proportion of long-term contract (MW)
    c
    High contract proportion (70%) c
    Low contract proportion (30%) No contract
    Period $P^g_{1t}$ $P^g_{2t}$ $P^g_{3t}$ $P^g_{wt}$ $P^g_{1t}$ $P^g_{2t}$ $P^g_{3t}$ $P^g_{wt}$ $P^g_{1t}$ $P^g_{2t}$ $P^g_{3t}$ $P^g_{wt}$
    1 600.0 180.0 127.9 92.1 600.0 177.1 128.3 94.6 600.0 177.1 128.3 94.6
    2 587.7 210.0 83.2 94.2 587.7 210.0 83.2 94.2 587.7 210.0 83.2 94.2
    3 600.0 177.4 75.0 92.6 600.0 190.6 60.0 89.4 600.0 194.6 49.87 95.6
  • Table 3   LMP of electricity and reserve in day-ahead market
    Bus c
    Co-optimized of energy and reserve c
    Orderly optimized of energy and reserve
    c
    LMP of energy (/MWh) c
    LMP of reserve (/MWh) LMP of energy (/MWh) LMP of reserve (/MWh)
    1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
    1 10.00 10.00 15.00 12.07 11.15 12.40 10.00 10.00 15.00 14.63 15.12 13.42
    2 15.00 16.98 15.00 12.13 12.89 12.65 11.87 16.98 15.00 16.85 13.34 13.63
    3 28.43 26.38 25.00 10.89 15.24 12.40 27.34 26.38 15.00 11.55 15.98 13.37
    4 30.00 30.00 15.67 11.13 16.15 13.92 30.00 30.00 15.00 12.40 16.6 14.1
    5 16.27 39.94 15.00 11.77 18.63 12.40 16.27 39.94 15.00 14.24 19.54 14.09
    Total cost 44762 47382
  • Table 4   The settlement results of the day-ahead market
    Unit c
    Long-term contract c
    Generation revenue ($\$$) Revenue of reserve ($\$$) Total revenue ($\$$)
    revenue ($\$$)
    1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
    Unit 1 6000 4560 4800 1000 2077 3000 0 0 0 21437
    Unit 2 2550 2890 2805 450.0 679.2 186.0 0 0 29.68 9590
    Unit 3 1395 1550 1705 2487 996.0 313.4 175.33 181.22 55.23 8858
    Unit 4 1000 1000 1000 685.0 1765 639.0 $-$175.33 $-$181.22 $-$84.91 5648
qqqq

Contact and support