Penalty mechanism in transactive energy: A mechanism design approach for day-ahead markets

IF 7.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS Energy Strategy Reviews Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-25 DOI:10.1016/j.esr.2025.101712
Alejandro Parrado-Duque , Nilson Henao , Sousso Kelouwani , Kodjo Agbossou , Juan C. Oviedo-Cepeda
{"title":"Penalty mechanism in transactive energy: A mechanism design approach for day-ahead markets","authors":"Alejandro Parrado-Duque ,&nbsp;Nilson Henao ,&nbsp;Sousso Kelouwani ,&nbsp;Kodjo Agbossou ,&nbsp;Juan C. Oviedo-Cepeda","doi":"10.1016/j.esr.2025.101712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Ensuring incentive compatibility mechanisms to enforce market obligations is crucial in deploying a transactive energy system. While previous studies have reported adopting penalty mechanisms for market compliance, these studies did not generally analyse the incentive compatibility property of mechanism design. Neglecting this mechanism design property can lead to inefficient market outcomes and economic losses for system operators. This paper analyses self-enforcing policies to verify whether they comply with the incentive compatibility property in a one-shot market architecture. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive introduction to the phases of mechanism design – <em>ex-ante</em>, <em>interim</em>, and <em>ex-post</em> – and their relationship with key design principles: individual rationality, efficiency, budget balance, and incentive compatibility, highlighting expected outcomes at each phase. A case study demonstrates how a strategy-proof mechanism significantly influences individual rationality, efficiency, and budget balance, offering practical insights for improving decision-making frameworks in electricity markets. Moreover, the findings reveal that adopting a non-strategy-proof mechanism undermines the long-term viability of transactive energy systems. This work provides actionable recommendations for system operators and policymakers on implementing mechanisms that prevent strategic behaviour from agents.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11546,"journal":{"name":"Energy Strategy Reviews","volume":"59 ","pages":"Article 101712"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Strategy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X25000756","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ensuring incentive compatibility mechanisms to enforce market obligations is crucial in deploying a transactive energy system. While previous studies have reported adopting penalty mechanisms for market compliance, these studies did not generally analyse the incentive compatibility property of mechanism design. Neglecting this mechanism design property can lead to inefficient market outcomes and economic losses for system operators. This paper analyses self-enforcing policies to verify whether they comply with the incentive compatibility property in a one-shot market architecture. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive introduction to the phases of mechanism design – ex-ante, interim, and ex-post – and their relationship with key design principles: individual rationality, efficiency, budget balance, and incentive compatibility, highlighting expected outcomes at each phase. A case study demonstrates how a strategy-proof mechanism significantly influences individual rationality, efficiency, and budget balance, offering practical insights for improving decision-making frameworks in electricity markets. Moreover, the findings reveal that adopting a non-strategy-proof mechanism undermines the long-term viability of transactive energy systems. This work provides actionable recommendations for system operators and policymakers on implementing mechanisms that prevent strategic behaviour from agents.
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
交易能源中的惩罚机制:日前市场的机制设计方法
确保激励兼容机制以执行市场义务对于部署交易能源系统至关重要。虽然以前的研究报道了采用惩罚机制来满足市场合规,但这些研究并没有普遍分析机制设计的激励兼容性。忽视这一机制设计属性会导致低效的市场结果和系统运营商的经济损失。本文分析了自执行政策是否符合一次性市场结构下的激励相容性质。此外,它还全面介绍了机制设计的各个阶段——事前、中期和事后——以及它们与关键设计原则(个人理性、效率、预算平衡和激励兼容性)的关系,并强调了每个阶段的预期结果。案例研究展示了策略验证机制如何显著影响个人理性、效率和预算平衡,为改善电力市场决策框架提供实用见解。此外,研究结果表明,采用非战略证明机制会破坏能源交易系统的长期可行性。这项工作为系统操作员和决策者提供了可操作的建议,以实施防止代理战略行为的机制。
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
Energy Strategy Reviews
Energy Strategy Reviews Energy-Energy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
167
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy Strategy Reviews is a gold open access journal that provides authoritative content on strategic decision-making and vision-sharing related to society''s energy needs. Energy Strategy Reviews publishes: • Analyses • Methodologies • Case Studies • Reviews And by invitation: • Report Reviews • Viewpoints
期刊最新文献
Exploring the interplay between renewable energy, agriculture, clean technologies, natural resources, and environmental sustainability Climate-adaptive energy strategies for sustainable greenhouse systems: A Köppen-based systematic review Recent advancements and perspectives in lithium-ion battery technology A novel fractal fuzzy decision-making model for ESG-based prioritization of energy poverty alleviation strategies Energy price crisis and crash early warning system
×
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:604180095
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