4.7 Article

Impact of Public Aggregate Wind Forecasts on Electricity Market Outcomes

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 1394-1405

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSTE.2017.2682299

关键词

Aggregate forecasts; equilibrium; game theory; public data; wind power

资金

  1. public service of Wallonia-Department of Energy and Sustainable Building, within GREDOR
  2. Danish Strategic Council for Strategic Research through PROAIN [3045-00012B/DSF]
  3. 5s-Future Electricity Markets [12-132636/DSF]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following a call to foster a transparent and more competitive market, member states of the European transmission system operator are required to publish, among other information, aggregate wind power forecasts. The publication of the latter information is expected to benefit market participants by offering better knowledge of the market operation, leading subsequently to a more competitive energy market. Driven by the above regulation, we consider an equilibrium study to address how public information of aggregate wind power forecasts can potentially affect market results, social welfare, as well as the profits of participating power producers. We investigate, therefore, a joint day-ahead energy and reserve auction, where producers offer their conventional power strategically based on a complementarity approach and their wind power at generation cost based on a forecast. In parallel, an iterative game-theoretic approach (diagonalization) is incorporated in order to investigate the existence of an equilibrium for various values of aggregate forecast. As anticipated, variations in public forecasts will affect market results and, more precisely, underforecasts can mislead power producers to make decisions that favor social welfare, while overforecasts will cause the opposite effect. Furthermore, energy and reserve market prices can also be affected by deviations in aggregate wind forecasts altering, inevitably, the profits of all power producers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据