Optimal Electricity Imbalance Pricing for the Emerging Penetration of Renewable and Low-Cost Generators

Y. Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, Rodrigo Belo, Mohammed Reza Hesamzadeh, D. Bunn
{"title":"Optimal Electricity Imbalance Pricing for the Emerging Penetration of Renewable and Low-Cost Generators","authors":"Y. Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, Rodrigo Belo, Mohammed Reza Hesamzadeh, D. Bunn","doi":"10.1287/msom.2021.0555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: With the rise of renewables and the decline of fossil fuels, electricity markets are shifting toward a capacity mix in which low-cost generators (LCGs) are dominant. Within this transition, policymakers have been considering whether current market designs are still fundamentally fit for purpose. This research analyses a key aspect: the design of real-time imbalance pricing mechanisms. Currently, markets mostly use either single pricing or dual pricing as their imbalance pricing mechanisms. Single-pricing mechanisms apply identical prices for buying and selling, whereas dual-pricing mechanisms use different prices. The recent harmonization initiative in Europe sets single pricing as the default and dual pricing as the exception. This leaves open the question of when dual pricing is advantageous. We compare the economic efficiency of two dual-pricing mechanisms in current practice with that of a single-pricing design and identify conditions under which dual pricing can be beneficial. We also prove the existence of an optimal pricing mechanism. Methodology/results: We first analytically compare the economic efficiency of single-pricing and dual-pricing mechanisms. Furthermore, we formulate an optimal pricing mechanism that can deter the potential exercise of market power by LCGs. Our analytical results characterize the conditions under which a dual pricing is advantageous over a single pricing. We further compare the economic efficiency of these mechanisms with respect to our proposed optimal mechanism through simulations. We show that the proposed pricing mechanism would be the most efficient in comparison with others and discuss its practicability. Managerial implications: Our analytical comparison reveals market conditions under which each pricing mechanism is a better fit and whether there is a need for a redesign. In particular, our results suggest that existing pricing mechanisms are adequate at low/moderate market shares of LCGs but not for the high levels currently envisaged by policymakers in the transition to decarbonization, where the optimal pricing mechanism will become more attractive. Funding: Rodrigo Belo acknowledges funding by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB/00124/2020, UIDP/00124/2020 and Social Sciences DataLab – PINFRA/22209/2016), POR Lisboa, and POR Norte (Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016). Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0555 .","PeriodicalId":119284,"journal":{"name":"Manufacturing & Service Operations Management","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manufacturing & Service Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem definition: With the rise of renewables and the decline of fossil fuels, electricity markets are shifting toward a capacity mix in which low-cost generators (LCGs) are dominant. Within this transition, policymakers have been considering whether current market designs are still fundamentally fit for purpose. This research analyses a key aspect: the design of real-time imbalance pricing mechanisms. Currently, markets mostly use either single pricing or dual pricing as their imbalance pricing mechanisms. Single-pricing mechanisms apply identical prices for buying and selling, whereas dual-pricing mechanisms use different prices. The recent harmonization initiative in Europe sets single pricing as the default and dual pricing as the exception. This leaves open the question of when dual pricing is advantageous. We compare the economic efficiency of two dual-pricing mechanisms in current practice with that of a single-pricing design and identify conditions under which dual pricing can be beneficial. We also prove the existence of an optimal pricing mechanism. Methodology/results: We first analytically compare the economic efficiency of single-pricing and dual-pricing mechanisms. Furthermore, we formulate an optimal pricing mechanism that can deter the potential exercise of market power by LCGs. Our analytical results characterize the conditions under which a dual pricing is advantageous over a single pricing. We further compare the economic efficiency of these mechanisms with respect to our proposed optimal mechanism through simulations. We show that the proposed pricing mechanism would be the most efficient in comparison with others and discuss its practicability. Managerial implications: Our analytical comparison reveals market conditions under which each pricing mechanism is a better fit and whether there is a need for a redesign. In particular, our results suggest that existing pricing mechanisms are adequate at low/moderate market shares of LCGs but not for the high levels currently envisaged by policymakers in the transition to decarbonization, where the optimal pricing mechanism will become more attractive. Funding: Rodrigo Belo acknowledges funding by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB/00124/2020, UIDP/00124/2020 and Social Sciences DataLab – PINFRA/22209/2016), POR Lisboa, and POR Norte (Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016). Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0555 .
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新兴可再生能源和低成本发电机组渗透的最优电力不平衡定价
问题定义:随着可再生能源的兴起和化石燃料的衰落,电力市场正在转向以低成本发电机(lcg)为主导的容量组合。在这一转变过程中,政策制定者一直在考虑当前的市场设计是否仍然从根本上符合目的。本研究分析了一个关键方面:实时不平衡定价机制的设计。目前,市场主要采用单一定价或双重定价作为不平衡定价机制。单一定价机制对买卖采用相同的价格,而双重定价机制使用不同的价格。欧洲最近的统一倡议将单一定价作为默认值,将双重定价作为例外。这就留下了双重定价何时有利的问题。我们比较了当前实践中两种双重定价机制与单一定价设计的经济效率,并确定了双重定价可能有益的条件。我们还证明了最优定价机制的存在性。方法/结果:我们首先分析比较了单一定价机制和双重定价机制的经济效率。此外,我们制定了一个最优定价机制,可以阻止潜在的lcg行使市场力量。我们的分析结果描述了双重定价优于单一定价的条件。我们进一步通过模拟比较了这些机制与我们提出的最优机制的经济效率。我们证明了与其他定价机制相比,所提出的定价机制将是最有效的,并讨论了其实用性。管理意义:我们的分析比较揭示了每种定价机制更适合的市场条件,以及是否需要重新设计。特别是,我们的研究结果表明,现有的定价机制适用于低/中等LCGs市场份额,但不适用于决策者目前在向脱碳过渡中设想的高市场份额,此时最优定价机制将变得更具吸引力。资金:Rodrigo Belo感谢funda para a Ciência e a tecologia (UIDB/00124/2020, UIDP/00124/2020)和社会科学数据库(PINFRA/22209/2016)、里斯本和北港(POR社会科学数据库,PINFRA/22209/2016)的资助。补充材料:电子伴侣可在https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0555上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Physician Adoption of AI Assistant Disclosing Delivery Performance Information When Consumers Are Sensitive to Promised Delivery Time, Delivery Reliability, and Price Loyalty Currency and Mental Accounting: Do Consumers Treat Points Like Money? Dealership or Marketplace with Fulfillment Services: A Dynamic Comparison Introduction: Frontiers in Operations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1