Impact of distribution locational marginal pricing and cost-sharing pricing mechanisms on fairness, efficiency, and voltage quality in transactive energy systems
Daniel Galeano-Suárez , David Toquica , Nilson Henao , Kodjo Agbossou , JC Oviedo-Cepeda
{"title":"Impact of distribution locational marginal pricing and cost-sharing pricing mechanisms on fairness, efficiency, and voltage quality in transactive energy systems","authors":"Daniel Galeano-Suárez , David Toquica , Nilson Henao , Kodjo Agbossou , JC Oviedo-Cepeda","doi":"10.1016/j.jup.2025.101890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing integration of distributed energy resources and the evolution of smart grids pave the way to Transactive Energy Systems (TES). Numerous initiatives have been made to craft pricing mechanisms on TES as incentives to leverage resource flexibility and contribute to improving technical and economic indexes. Nevertheless, comparing these pricing mechanisms is challenging due to the fluctuating market conditions and diverse TES configurations. This research compares the impact of the Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) and Cost-Sharing (CS) pricing mechanisms on TES fairness, economic efficiency, and voltage quality under identical market conditions. In addition, a unified index is proposed to compile market metrics and facilitate Distribution System Operator (DSO) decisions on pricing according to weighted objectives. Accordingly, this research contributes valuable insights that promote TES expansion and better management for DSOs and market regulators. This paper uses a transactive forward market on the IEEE-33 bus test system as a case study. The results show that CS pricing yields complete price fairness. In contrast, the DLMP forgo fairness for the sake of economic efficiency. Here, the unified index reveals that CS pricing is preferable when the DSO weights equally fairness and efficiency, even though DLMP demonstrates a superior voltage quality index in the case study. The developed comparison framework is general to all pricing mechanisms as it simplifies the interactions between the DSO and the consumers through price and energy demand signals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23554,"journal":{"name":"Utilities Policy","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 101890"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilities Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178725000050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The increasing integration of distributed energy resources and the evolution of smart grids pave the way to Transactive Energy Systems (TES). Numerous initiatives have been made to craft pricing mechanisms on TES as incentives to leverage resource flexibility and contribute to improving technical and economic indexes. Nevertheless, comparing these pricing mechanisms is challenging due to the fluctuating market conditions and diverse TES configurations. This research compares the impact of the Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) and Cost-Sharing (CS) pricing mechanisms on TES fairness, economic efficiency, and voltage quality under identical market conditions. In addition, a unified index is proposed to compile market metrics and facilitate Distribution System Operator (DSO) decisions on pricing according to weighted objectives. Accordingly, this research contributes valuable insights that promote TES expansion and better management for DSOs and market regulators. This paper uses a transactive forward market on the IEEE-33 bus test system as a case study. The results show that CS pricing yields complete price fairness. In contrast, the DLMP forgo fairness for the sake of economic efficiency. Here, the unified index reveals that CS pricing is preferable when the DSO weights equally fairness and efficiency, even though DLMP demonstrates a superior voltage quality index in the case study. The developed comparison framework is general to all pricing mechanisms as it simplifies the interactions between the DSO and the consumers through price and energy demand signals.
期刊介绍:
Utilities Policy is deliberately international, interdisciplinary, and intersectoral. Articles address utility trends and issues in both developed and developing economies. Authors and reviewers come from various disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, law, finance, accounting, management, and engineering. Areas of focus include the utility and network industries providing essential electricity, natural gas, water and wastewater, solid waste, communications, broadband, postal, and public transportation services.
Utilities Policy invites submissions that apply various quantitative and qualitative methods. Contributions are welcome from both established and emerging scholars as well as accomplished practitioners. Interdisciplinary, comparative, and applied works are encouraged. Submissions to the journal should have a clear focus on governance, performance, and/or analysis of public utilities with an aim toward informing the policymaking process and providing recommendations as appropriate. Relevant topics and issues include but are not limited to industry structures and ownership, market design and dynamics, economic development, resource planning, system modeling, accounting and finance, infrastructure investment, supply and demand efficiency, strategic management and productivity, network operations and integration, supply chains, adaptation and flexibility, service-quality standards, benchmarking and metrics, benefit-cost analysis, behavior and incentives, pricing and demand response, economic and environmental regulation, regulatory performance and impact, restructuring and deregulation, and policy institutions.