4.8 Article

An auction framework to integrate dynamic transmission expansion planning and pay-as-bid wind connection auctions

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 2462-2477

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.073

关键词

Renewable energy; Electricity transmission; Optimisation; Auction design

资金

  1. Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI) Cycle 5
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. Oxford Martin Programme on Integrating Renewable Energy
  4. European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [743582]
  5. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI/15/SPP/E3125, 09/SRC/E1780]
  6. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [SFI/15/SPP/E3125]
  7. ESRI Energy Policy Research Centre
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [743582] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Competitive renewable energy procurement auctions are becoming increasingly prevalent. In a pay-as-bid auction, investors bid the price support required and receive that price if successful. Bidding strategy may be influenced by factors external to the auction, such as transmission expansion planning decisions. This may increase costs. In this paper, we show that integrating a pay-as-bid auction with transmission expansion planning may allow for closer total system cost minimisation over many time periods. This paper develops an auction mechanism and associated modelling framework to carry this out. The contributions of this framework are verified using a numerical example. Our results show that ignoring generation costs in transmission expansion planning can have economic consequences, while traditional pay-as-bid auctions can benefit from incorporating features associated with transmission expansion planning, such as multi-period optimisation. Full integration of both modelling frameworks can lead to efficiency improvements, both in terms of reduced investor rent-seeking and a more efficient deployment path.

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

4.8
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