论文部分内容阅读
PJM(Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland)电力市场中经济需求响应(economic demand response,EDR)虽已经实施得比较成功,但同时也存在着一定问题。针对PJM电力市场中近年来发生的Electric Power Supply Association(EPSA)决议风波所暴露出来的各方利益不均衡等问题,提出在原有PJM电力批发市场中,使发电商也参与到EDR的交易中,采用负荷转移与负荷削减模式共存的EDR代替原先单一负荷削减模式下的EDR。同时在构建EDR模型时,考虑用户基线负荷(customer baseline load,CBL)误差不确定性的因素,以准确地计算EDR的真实响应误差。案例分析结果表明:考虑CBL误差能估计出需求响应误差的真实成本;而负荷转移模式能够一定程度上协调发电商、负荷服务商实体(load serving entities,LSE)和削减服务提供商(curtailment service providers,CSP)之间的利益。
Although the economic demand response (EDR) in PJM (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland) power market has been successfully implemented, there are also some problems. In view of the unbalanced interests of all parties exposed by the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) resolution in the PJM power market in recent years, it is proposed that in the original PJM power wholesale market, power suppliers should also be involved in the EDR transactions. The EDR in the previous single load reduction mode is replaced by the EDR in which the load transfer and load reduction modes coexist. At the same time, we consider the uncertainty of customer baseline load (CBL) when constructing EDR model to accurately calculate the true response error of EDR. The case study shows that considering the CBL error can estimate the real cost of demand response error, while the load transfer mode can coordinate the power provider, load serving entities (LSE) and curtailment service providers , CSP) between the benefits.