Electricity Cost-Sharing in Energy Communities Under Dynamic Pricing and Uncertainty

Abstract

Most of the prosumers nowadays are constrained to trade only with the supplier under a flat tariff or dynamic time-of-use price signals. This paper models and discusses the cost-saving benefits of flexible prosumers as members of energy communities who can exchange electricity among peers and on the wholesale markets through a community manager. Authors propose a novel centralized post-process sharing method by introducing a two-stage mechanism which, unlike the existing methods, guarantees benefits for prosumers joining the energy community. The first stage assesses internal price calculation in three different methods: Bill Sharing Method Net (BSMN), Mid-Market Rate Net (MMRN), and Supply-Demand Ratio Net (SDRN). In their original form, prices are calculated in a single stage and the comprehensive analyses in the paper show that some members face increased cost. To solve this issue, the paper improves the methods by introducing the second stage in which the compensation methodology is defined for the distribution of savings which ensures that all community members gain benefits. Results investigate the value of inner technical flexibility of the prosumer (flexible preferences of the final consumer can reduce the cost from 3% up to 20 %). Moreover, incentives/penalties encourage the utilization of a flexible behavior to adjust the real-time consumption of prosumers' appliances to a predefined day-ahead schedule. This type of pricing results in a lower amount of benefits sharing in the community (the reduction of 18-47% in MMRN and 49-114% in SDRN compared to existing pricing) which makes this incentives/penalties pricing more preferable. The paper concludes that prosumers with an excess PV production would not benefit from the internal energy exchange in the community under BSMN due to free energy exchange between members.INDEX TERMS cost-sharing, day-ahead market, demand response, energy community, peer-to-peer trading I. NOMENCLATUREStochastic and non-stochastic parameters are presented as bold text, while variables are a regular type of text. Where augmented with the subscripts s and t, they refer to the values they take on in scenario s and time period t, while the subscript d stands for a household and ap for a different uninterruptible flexible appliance. If not stated differently, variables and parameters are positive. Indices and Sets ap∈ AUninterruptible flexible appliances d∈ D Households d∈ D + Community members with decreased cost in the first stage d∈ D -Community members with increased cost in the first stage t ∈ T Time steps

Modeling Economic Sharing of Joint Assets in Community Energy Projects Under LV Network Constraints

“…In the context of energy communities characterized with renewable energy systems, coalitional game theory has been identified as a promising solution for energy sharing VOLUME 4, 2016 schemes [72], cost allocation [73], and benefit redistribution [21] schemes among the community members. For instance, Alam et al [19] proposed an energy exchange mechanism in rural communities that aimed to reduce battery usage and where approximated Shapley value was used for the distribution of benefits among the households.…”

Designing a Robust Decentralized Energy Transactions Framework for Active Prosumers in Peer-to-Peer Local Electricity Markets

“…This pricing model enhances the profit of EV owners and increases the share of charge stations in P2P energy markets. In [32], a model of energy transaction is proposed for the members of an energy community in which the flexible buyers can trade energy with other members of their community and participate in the wholesale market with the aid of a community manager. Authors in [33] developed a novel model using blockchain technology for prosumers' P2P transactions of energy-backed tokens.…”

Local Energy Communities in Spain: Economic Implications of the New Tariff and Variable Coefficients

“…One step further is considering these prosumers not just as collaborators, but as members of a LEC. On this line, Dorotić et al [30] simulated a community energy system on an island employing only intermittent renewable energies, Chakraborty et al [31] simulated a LEC under different billing mechanisms, Awad et al [32] developed a model to simulate the LEC demand and a method to maximise self-consumption and minimise the energy cost, Lilla et al [33] modelled mathematically the day-ahead scheduling power allocation of a LEC and Grzanic et al [34] developed a method to share and bill energy within a LEC in a fair way for all members. On the Spanish framework, Gallego-Castillo et al [35] performed a regional analysis of optimal self-consumption for energy communities under the new energy Spanish regulation passed in 2019 concluding that self-consumption is cost-effective in all territory.…”

“…X X [34] Centralised post-process sharing method by introducing a twostage mechanism and impact of different flexible appliances on electricity cost reduction. X X…”