Risk-Based Traded Demand Response Between Consumers’ Aggregator and Retailer Using Downside Risk Constraints Technique

Abstract

Electricity retailer is the most critical player in the restructured electricity market. Retailer's electricity procurement problem is a big challenge for them. Electricity retailer can purchase their energy from various options such as pool market, forward contracts, and etc. A relatively new way with a lesser investigation is the demand response exchange market. In this paper, the risk-constrained stochastic power procurement problem of electricity retailers is formulated by modeling the uncertainty of pool-market price and consumers' electricity demand. The Downside risk constraints (DRC) risk-evaluation method is used to obtain risk-based power procurement scheduling of electricity retailers. By using the proposed method, conservative electricity retailer can experience a scenario-independent strategy over the stochastic optimization. In other words, the proposed risk strategy is such that impose more cost for electricity retailer while having an equal cost in all scenarios. Based on the obtained results, the operation cost of electricity retailers in all scenarios is closed to about $4827570, which is a relatively zero-risk strategy due to equality overall scenarios. Besides, results are compared in two cases to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed risk-evaluation method. Also, the Pareto front between risk-in-cost and expected cost can introduce an optimal risk-strategy for electricity retailers in the presence of uncertainties. Finally, the riskaverse strategy of electricity retailer is proposed to obtain the retailer's optimal conservative schedule during power procurement in the presence of uncertainties. INDEX TERMS Electricity retailer, demand response exchange (DRX) market, downside risk-constraint (DRC), risk evaluation. NOMENCLATURE A. INDEXES SAYYAD NOJAVAN received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical power engineering from the

Auction-Based Single-Sided Bidding Electricity Market: An Alternative to the Bilateral Contractual Energy Trading Model in a Grid-Tied Microgrid

“…These techniques involve mathematical algorithms that analyze various factors such as demand forecasts, available energy resources, and pricing mechanisms to optimize energy flows between interconnected entities [24,25]. Risk management strategies [26,27] are also essential for reducing the risks that come with trading energy, such as changes in supply and demand, price volatility, and possible disruptions. The microgrid's resilience and sustainability are eventually enhanced by the use of strategies including hedging, diversification of energy sources, and realtime monitoring systems, which reduce risks and improve the stability of energy trading operations.…”

Robust Energy Resource Management Incorporating Risk Analysis Using Conditional Value-at-Risk

“…In the risk minimization stage, the aggregator can purchase energy from the wholesale market to meet the scheduled dayahead electricity, either in the day-ahead or real-time markets (to achieve imbalance reduction). The risk-constrained stochastic power procurement problem of electrical retailers is formulated in [24] taking into consideration load and poolmarket prices uncertainty. The authors propose a risk strategy to achieve equal cost in all uncertainty scenarios, making it a scenario-independent process that imposes more costs to the retailer but almost zero risk.…”

A Decision Model for an Electricity Retailer With Energy Storage and Virtual Bidding Under Daily and Hourly CVaR Assessment

“…An overview of the state of the art in decision-making models for electricity retailers was provided in [6] and [7]. Most of the existing works focused on the integration of price-based [8]- [14] incentive-based [15]- [21], combined [22] and contract-based [23], [24] DR mechanisms. Price-based DR mechanisms assume that retail customers manage their energy consumption according to specific pricing arrangements such as time-of-use and real-time pricing.…”