A Conceptual Analysis of Equilibrium Bidding Strategy in a Combined Oligopoly and Oligopsony Wholesale Electricity Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a semi-analytical method to obtain the equilibrium bidding strategies for generation and demand units in acombinedoligopoly and oligopsony wholesale electricity market. Such market structure is the outcome of the increasing deployment of demand response programs that facilitateactive participation of demand-side playersin the price-setting process. In this analysis, the concept of supply function equilibrium (SFE) is used to investigate the oligopolistic competition among generation units. The SFE model is extended and the demand function equilibrium (DFE) is obtained to study the oligopsonistic competition among demand units. The economic behavior of a market participant is formulated as a bi-level programming (BLP) problem. Theimperfect competitionamong generation units, as well as among demand units, are modeled as a non-cooperative game. Next, a direct method is developed to calculate all candidate equilibriums of the market, and the locational marginal prices (LMPs) in terms of the bidding strategies of the market participants. The BLP problem is solved by obtaining the coordinated Pareto-dominant Nash equilibrium of the market participants’ non-cooperative games. Finally, the proposed analysis is examined in case studies. Accordingly, we reportinsightful observationswith respect to the impact of the changes in the new market structure, at firm-level and market-level, such as in terms of mitigating market power of generation units, the market clearing prices and quantities, surplus for generation units and demand units, and potential impact on market efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".