Direct Energy Trading of Microgrids in Distribution Energy Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancement of distributed renewable generation has motivated microgrids to trade energy directly with one another, as well as with the utility, in order to minimize their operational costs. Energy trading among microgrids, however, confronts challenges such as reaching a fair trading price, maximizing participants' profit, and satisfying power network constraints. In this paper, we formulate the direct energy trading among multiple microgrids as a generalized Nash bargaining (GNB) problem that involves the distribution network's operational constraints (e.g., power balance equations, voltage limits). We prove that solving the GNB problem maximizes the social welfare and also distributes the revenue among the microgrids based on their market power. To address the nonconvexity of the GNB problem, we propose a two-phase approach. The first phase involves solving the optimal power flow problem in a distributed fashion using the alternative direction method of multipliers to determine the amount of energy trading. The second phase determines the market clearing price and mutual payments of the microgrids. Simulation results on an IEEE 33-bus system with four microgrids show that the proposed framework substantially reduces total network cost by 37.2%. Our results suggest direct trading need to be enforced by the regulators in order to maximize the social welfare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".