Carlos Matamala;Luis Badesa;Rodrigo Moreno;Goran Strbac
{"title":"惯性和频率响应辅助服务的成本分配","authors":"Carlos Matamala;Luis Badesa;Rodrigo Moreno;Goran Strbac","doi":"10.1109/TEMPR.2024.3355291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The reduction in system inertia is creating an important market for frequency-containment Ancillary Services (AS) such as enhanced frequency response (e.g., provided by battery storage), traditional primary frequency response and inertia itself. This market presents an important difference with the energy market: while the need for energy production is driven by the demand from consumers, frequency-containment AS are procured because of the need to deal with the largest generation/demand loss in the system (or smaller losses that could potentially compromise frequency stability). Thus, a question that arises is: who should pay for frequency-containment AS? In this work, we propose a cost-allocation methodology based on the nucleolus concept, in order to distribute the total payments for frequency-containment AS among all generators or loads that create the need for these services. It is shown that this method complies with necessary properties for the AS market, such as avoidance of cross-subsidies and maintaining players in this cooperative game. Finally, we demonstrate its practical applicability through a case study for the Great Britain power system, while comparing its performance with two alternative mechanisms, namely proportional and Shapley value cost allocation.","PeriodicalId":100639,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation","volume":"2 3","pages":"328-338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost Allocation for Inertia and Frequency Response Ancillary Services\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Matamala;Luis Badesa;Rodrigo Moreno;Goran Strbac\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/TEMPR.2024.3355291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The reduction in system inertia is creating an important market for frequency-containment Ancillary Services (AS) such as enhanced frequency response (e.g., provided by battery storage), traditional primary frequency response and inertia itself. This market presents an important difference with the energy market: while the need for energy production is driven by the demand from consumers, frequency-containment AS are procured because of the need to deal with the largest generation/demand loss in the system (or smaller losses that could potentially compromise frequency stability). Thus, a question that arises is: who should pay for frequency-containment AS? In this work, we propose a cost-allocation methodology based on the nucleolus concept, in order to distribute the total payments for frequency-containment AS among all generators or loads that create the need for these services. It is shown that this method complies with necessary properties for the AS market, such as avoidance of cross-subsidies and maintaining players in this cooperative game. Finally, we demonstrate its practical applicability through a case study for the Great Britain power system, while comparing its performance with two alternative mechanisms, namely proportional and Shapley value cost allocation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation\",\"volume\":\"2 3\",\"pages\":\"328-338\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10401947/\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10401947/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
系统惯性的减少为频率控制辅助服务(AS)创造了一个重要的市场,如增强频率响应(如电池储能提供的频率响应)、传统的一次频率响应和惯性本身。这个市场与能源市场有一个重要区别:能源生产的需求是由消费者的需求驱动的,而频率控制辅助服务的采购则是因为需要处理系统中最大的发电/需求损失(或有可能影响频率稳定的较小损失)。因此,出现的一个问题是:谁应该为频率控制自动系统付费?在这项工作中,我们提出了一种基于核子概念的成本分配方法,以便将频率控制 AS 的总支付额分配给所有需要这些服务的发电机或负载。结果表明,该方法符合自动服务市场的必要属性,如避免交叉补贴和维持合作博弈中的参与者。最后,我们通过对大不列颠电力系统的案例研究证明了该方法的实际适用性,同时将其性能与两种替代机制(即比例成本分配和沙普利价值成本分配)进行了比较。
Cost Allocation for Inertia and Frequency Response Ancillary Services
The reduction in system inertia is creating an important market for frequency-containment Ancillary Services (AS) such as enhanced frequency response (e.g., provided by battery storage), traditional primary frequency response and inertia itself. This market presents an important difference with the energy market: while the need for energy production is driven by the demand from consumers, frequency-containment AS are procured because of the need to deal with the largest generation/demand loss in the system (or smaller losses that could potentially compromise frequency stability). Thus, a question that arises is: who should pay for frequency-containment AS? In this work, we propose a cost-allocation methodology based on the nucleolus concept, in order to distribute the total payments for frequency-containment AS among all generators or loads that create the need for these services. It is shown that this method complies with necessary properties for the AS market, such as avoidance of cross-subsidies and maintaining players in this cooperative game. Finally, we demonstrate its practical applicability through a case study for the Great Britain power system, while comparing its performance with two alternative mechanisms, namely proportional and Shapley value cost allocation.