Recommended articles：

Global Energy Interconnection
Volume 3, Issue 4, Aug 2020, Pages 346354
Generationexpansion planning with linearized primary frequency response constraints
Keywords
Abstract
As renewable energy resources increasingly penetrate the electric grid, the inertia capability of power systems has become a developmental bottleneck.Nevertheless, the importance of primary frequency response (PFR) when making generationexpansion plans has been largely ignored.In this paper, we propose an optimal generationexpansion planning framework for wind and thermal power plants that takes PFR into account.The model is based on the frequency equivalent model.It includes investment, startup/shutdown, and typical operating costs for both thermal and renewable generators.The linearization constraints of PFR are derived theoretically.Case studies based on the modified IEEE 39bus system demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed method.Compared with methods that ignore PFR,the method proposed in this paper can effectively reduce the cost of the entire planning and operation cycle, improving the accommodation rate of renewable energy.
1 Introduction
In recent years, the continually increasing development and utilization of renewable energy has made the integration of wind power into the grid a major issue in powergeneration system development.However, due to the complete decoupling of mechanical power and system electromagnetic power in a variablespeed constantfrequency (VSCF) wind turbine, and the consequent decoupling of rotor speed and system frequency, the wind turbine has little inertial response [1][2].To solve the problem of providing adequate primary frequency response(PFR) in the power system, it is essential to incorporate PFR constraints in the generationexpansion planning stage.
An abnormal frequency will seriously affect the steady operation of a power system;when the frequency deviates greatly, the system will respond.Among the various stages of response to a frequency transient, PFR is the fastest:the governors' response time is on the order of seconds to prevent further deviations in frequency [3][4].The frequency nadir, reflecting the maximum deviation of frequency, will appear during the PFR phase [5].For these reasons, this paper takes PFR as the main compensatory measure for large and sudden outages.
The most important methods used to analyze the dynamic frequency response of a power system to a disturbance are the timedomain simulation method [6]and the equivalentmodel method [7][8][9][10][11].The timedomain simulation method is highly accurate but entails complex calculations;it is difficult to use in modeling.The equivalentmodel method simplifies the power system to a singleunit singleload model;it can be nearly as accurate as dynamic simulation at a more reasonable calculation cost.Through a series of simplifications and by highlighting the main influencing factors, a systemfrequency response model is established in [7], but the analytical form of the frequency response is highly nonlinear, and it is difficult to find an explicit linear approximation.The authors of [8]propose linear constraints on PFR suitable for an optimal power flow (OPF) framework and clearly define the concept of the governor reserve, but the impact of the load damping rate is not considered.A method to calculate the maximum frequency deviation using the governormodel approximation and a frequency feedback loop is presented in [9], but load variation with frequency is neglected.Linearized PFR constraints are incorporated into power system scheduling in [10], taking the PFR capacity and ramp rate requirement into account.A novel mixedinteger linear programming (MILP) formulation for system frequency constraints is presented in [11];it ensures that the postfault frequency deviation remains within limits.However,the effect of the ratio of maximum primary reserves to the generator capacity is not analyzed.Moreover, the proposed MILP formulation is only applied to securityconstrained economic dispatch or unit commitment during the operation stage, not to the impact of PFR on generation planning.
In practice, few existing studies and projects have considered the requirements for systemwide PFR when making planning decisions.Without such consideration, a system operator will tend to overinvest in renewable energy resources, while the total delivery of PFR may be reduced in real time, leading to renewable production curtailment.We therefore incorporate linearized PFR constraints into a collaborative planning model of thermal power and renewable energy and develop an optimal generationexpansion planning framework.Our major contributions are the following:
(1) An optimal generationexpansion planning framework for a power system is proposed considering the PFR requirement.As an MILP formulation, this framework can coordinate the expansion of renewable and conventional generation, thereby ensuring security of realtime operation and avoiding overinvestment in renewable energy resources.
(2) An equivalent model of PFR is formulated to keep the frequency deviation within limits, considering the impact of the load damping rate.This equivalent model includes a series of linearization formulas for the frequency nadir and the limits of primary reserves for governor use.
2 Primary frequency response model
This section proposes the equivalent model of frequency evolution, formulates the limits of primary reserves for governor use, and linearizes the constraints of the maximum allowable frequency deviation.
2.1 Equivalent model of frequency evolution
At present, the power supply of a power system is composed mainly of thermal power units.The whole power system is equivalent to a single generator, and its PFR equivalent machine model is shown in Fig.1.
Fig.1 Equivalent model of power system
The fundamental singlemachine model of the frequency evolution process can be expressed as [12]
where ΔPm represents the mechanical power deviation,ΔPe is the electromagnetic power deviation, H refers to the system inertia, and Δω means the rotor speed deviation.
In general, the power system load is a series of electrical devices, including both frequencyinsensitive and frequencysensitive ones.The electromagnetic power deviation can be expressed as
where ΔPL is the frequencyinsensitive load change, and DΔω is the frequencysensitive load change [13].Note that D is the load damping rate, which can be expressed as the percentage change in load caused by a 1% deviation of frequency;it is introduced into the model to reflect how the load regulates the power system frequency [14][15].The velocity ω of the equivalent machine represents the frequency of the system.When the perunit value system is used, the system frequency deviation Δf is equal to Δω.
Equation (1) can be converted into
The firstorder differential equation (3) expresses the dynamics of system frequency deviation.The main parameters affecting frequency deviation are the system inertia and the load damping rate.Assuming that wind power cannot provide inertia for the system, the inertia of the system [16][17]can be expressed as
where Pg,max is the nominal power of thermal generator g;Hg is the inertia constant of generator g;SB is the base power of system;the binary variable indicates whether the conventional generator g is included in the construction plans;and the binary variable xg,t indicates whether thermal generator g is online in time slot t.
By analyzing the timedependent relationship between the generator output regulated by the governor and the system frequency in the actual response stage, the former can be expressed as a piecewise linear function of the frequency [8].Such piecewise linearization of the governor model makes it convenient to incorporate the PFR constraints into the planning and design of the power system.The total delivery of PFR in the power system is then given by
where Td is the delivery time of PFR, less than 10 s according to the present British practice [18];R means the total PFR provision from thermal power units [19][20];and tDB is the deadband, which prevents the governor from excessively reacting to small and frequent frequency changes [21][22].At the same time, since the existence of deadbands will delay the response speed of the governor,appropriately reducing the deadband time will improve the PFR of the system.
By integrating (3) and denoting ttDB by t’, the frequency deviation Δf during the PFR phase (t≤Td+tDB) can be expressed as
where ΔfDB means frequency deadband.The total frequency response provision of system R satisfies
where Rg,s,t is defined as the primary reserve from unit g for governor use;it is distributed among the different participant generators in primary frequency response [23].The primary reserve Rg,s,t and the scheduled generation for an arbitrary unit g under scenario s in time slot t satisfy
where Rg,max is rampup limit under primary regulation,namely the maximum primary reserve of unit g.
A necessary (but not sufficient) condition [8]for the system to regulate postfault frequency deviation within limits is that the sum of primary reserves from all thermal units be larger than the largest possible loss:
where Ploss means a sudden loss of power generation,especially the loss of maximum power of any single generating unit, and, in this case, ΔPL is equal to the negative value of Ploss.
2.2 Linearized formulation for the frequency nadir
After sudden, large disturbances, such as the loss of the unit with the largest capacity, the minimum frequency(the “frequency nadir”) exists during the primary frequency response phase.The frequency nadir meets the condition of∂Δf /∂t=0, then the time t* satisfies:
The deviation of the frequency nadir can be expressed as
where HR corresponds to the square of the energy provided by the governor to keep the system unit running at the original speed, denoted by z;DTdΔPL corresponds to the product of the energy change generated by the frequencyinsensitive load change with the fluctuation value of the loaddemand energy caused by the frequency change during the PFR stage, denoted by A;ΔPL/D corresponds to the change in frequency caused directly by the load change,depending on the load damping, denoted by ΔfD.
The frequency deviation should not exceed the predefined threshold:
According to (12) and (13), the deviation of the frequency nadir is limited by
The left side of the inequality is a monotonically decreasing function of z.The equation can be established if and only if z=z*.z* satisfies:
According to monotonicity,z≥z*.In addition,considering z=HR and (4), although z is formulated into an explicit form, the relational expression contains the nonlinearity.Considering the constraint imposed by the unit planning variable on the unit state variable xg,t, and denoting the product xg,t R by a new continuous variable yg,t,the following mixed integer linear constraints are satisfied:
where M is a large number.Constraints (16), (17), and (18)give the limits of the frequency nadir.Constraints (19), (20),(21), and (22) show the limits of primary reserves in the power grid.Constraints (23) show the limit of the unit state variable xg,t imposed by the unit planning variable.
3 Optimal planning model
In this section, an optimal generationexpansion planning model of a power system with load growth is proposed, taking into account the PFR constraints.Considering the uncertainties on both the supply and demand sides, including the uncertainties in windpower output and demand for power, the model requires stochastic optimization [24].
The different powersupply components in the powergeneration plan will have different service lives, and therefore different remaining service lifetimes at the end of the planning year.Our model deals with this part of the residual value by using the uniform annual value.The objective function being minimized is the expected uniform annual value Ce consisting of the total cost of planning and operation for all scenarios.The problem of finding the optimal planning strategy is formulated as follows:
where Cp and Co are the uniform annual values of generation planning and actual operation, respectively;Cp is the uniform annual investment cost in conventional (thermal)generators and renewable energy sources;Co is the uniform annual operating cost of thermal power units (including the startup, shutdown, and running generation costs) and the annual subsidy of wind power generation.
In the objective function, ΦS, ΦT, ΦCG and ΦRG are the sets of scenarios, time slots, thermal generators,and renewable generators, respectively;γs refers to the probability of scenario s.In the planning stage, the binary variable indicates whether or not the conventional generator g is included in the construction plans;the binary variable means whether or not the renewable generator r is included in the construction plans;βi is the annual average coefficient of the fixed constructioninvestment cost of generator i;rD is the discount rate [25];is the service life of the newly constructed generator i;and are the construction costs of thermal generator g and renewable generator r, respectively.The decision variables in the operation stage are the thermal generators' power, the renewable power and the thermal generators'startup/shutdown variables Ug,t/Vg,t;, and are the generation cost, startup cost and shutdown cost of thermal generator g;μRG is the unit subsidy for renewable energy production.The objective is to minimize the total costs of planning and operation.
The framework in this paper linearizes this problem so that it becomes an MILP problem, thereby permitting PFR constraints to be included in generationexpansion planning.This framework considers not only PFR constraints, the powerflow limits for lines, and securityconstrained unit commitment (SCUC) during the operation stage, but also constraints of primary reserves from units participating in frequency regulation.The full constraints of the generationexpansion planning model are elaborated in the Appendix.
4 Case study
Case studies were performed using MATLAB R2016a and CPLEX 12.4 [27]on a computer with 2.40 GHz CPU and 16 GB RAM.The modified IEEE 39bus system (Fig.2)with 24hour time slots was the grid used for the case studies.From a security perspective (e.g., the N1 security criterion), the adequate provision of PFR ensures that, after a contingency, the system frequency is maintained above the frequency threshold.
Fig.2 Structure of the modified IEEE 39bus system
4.1 Data description
The existing types of conventional generators in the system are shown in Table 1;the number of units of types A, B, C, and D is 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.Because of increased power demand, the installed capacity needs to be increased.The plan is to build conventional thermal generators and wind turbines at nodes 6 and 16,respectively, because the load demand near these two nodes is large, and the location distribution of the two nodes can balance the system power more reasonably.The thermal generators to be built are selected from the units provided in Table 1.Suppose the wind turbine has no capability to provide inertial response or primary reserves for governor use, when power expansion planning is carried out.The capacity of a single wind turbine is 1 MW;the construction cost is 1.3 M$, and the maximum planned capacity of the wind farm is 800 MW.
Table 1 Parameters of 4 types of thermal power units
Unit Capacity Cost of coal consumption ($/MWh)A 300 204 20 B 450 300 9.8 C 600 378 10.7 D 900 546 13.9(MW)Cost of construction(M$)
The wind power and load profiles are collected from the PJM market in the U.S.[28][29].Fig.3 shows the output of a 1 MW wind turbine and the systemload data under 10 daily scenarios selected from yearly data by kmeans clustering.It is assumed that all thermal generators have a service life of 10 years, a frequency deadband at 15 mHz,a delivery time of 5 s, and an inertia constant (the same for all generators) of 5.5 s.The maximum primary reserve ratio of unit nominal capacity for each thermal generator is 20%.The service life of a wind turbine is 11 years.The allowed maximum frequency deviation by the system is set to 0.5 Hz.
Fig.3 (left) Onemegawatt wind turbine:Power output over time;(right) System load under ten scenarios
To demonstrate the effectiveness and benefits of the proposed generationexpansion planning framework, three methods are compared in the case studies:
(1) M1 is the method proposed in this paper, considering PFR constraints in both the planning and operation stages;
(2) M2 is the currently prevalent planning method, in which PFR constraints are not considered in the planning stage;
(3) M3 is a benchmark, in which PFR constraints are not considered even in the operation stage.
4.2 Optimal planning strategy
Data concerning optimal generationexpansion planning methods are shown in Fig.4.In M1, construction of one B thermal power unit and 356 1 MW wind turbines is planned,with a wind accommodation rate of 88.05%.In M2,construction of one B thermal power unit and 800 1 MW wind turbines is planned, with a wind accommodation rate of 83.39%.Because M3 is not limited by PFR in either the planning or the operation stage, it adopts the same planning strategy as M2:one B thermal power unit and 800 1 MW wind turbines.
Fig.4 Market revenues and accommodation rates for three methods of generationexpansion planning
Because it does not consider PFR in the planning stage as M1 does, M2 invests an extra 444 MW in wind turbines;the total cost of M2 is 4.35 M$ more than that of M1.Due to the smaller windpower ratio in the generation output, the operational cost of M1 is more than those of the others.The operational cost of M3, which ignores PFR, will be as low as 267.39 M$, and the expected equivalent annual value of its total cost will be 413.59 M$, far less than the total cost of M1.Moreover, M3's wind accommodation rate will reach a satisfactory level close to 1.Although M3 has the least total cost among the three methods, it fails to ensure realtime reliability, because it may be unable to deliver adequate PFR.
Fig.5 demonstrates the link between the frequency threshold and system frequency nadirs after a contingency for all three methods under 10 daily scenarios in the operation stage.M1 and M2 take the PFR constraints into account so that the power system can ensure primary response adequacy with the frequency nadir above threshold.Without any measure to restrain the scale of wind power integration and to maintain a certain number of thermal generators online, M3 will have a postcontingency frequency nadir in the operation stage that exceeds the predefined threshold.
Fig.5 System frequency nadirs after a contingency for the three methods under 10 daily scenarios
In actual operation, considering the realtime balance of system power and SCUC, excessive penetration of wind power will force thermal generators out of operation.Therefore, it is necessary to restrain the penetration of the 800 MW wind turbines and to maintain the number of online thermal generators in M2.With the grid connection of the wind turbines reduced, the windpower accommodation rate is only 83.39%, which means 16.61% of wind power cannot be accommodated in the initial strategy.Renewable resources will not bring the expected economic benefits,leading to an increase in the actual annual value of the operating cost, and a total expected cost higher than that of M1.M2, which does not consider PFR constraints in the planning stage, tends to overinvest in renewable energy.
According to this analysis, the frequency nadir can be guaranteed above the threshold under many different scenarios of actual operation in M1, because this method takes into account PFR constraints both in planning and in operation.M1 limits the number of wind turbines to be built to 356, and constructs one B thermal generator.The purpose of establishing the thermal generator is to ensure that the system has sufficient PFR provision.Type B is chosen because it has significant advantages over other thermal power generators in terms of construction and operating costs.The windpower accommodation rate of M1 is 5.59%higher than that of M2, and the total cost is reduced by 4.35 M$.Thus, by considering PFR constraints in the planning stage, M1 avoids excessive investment in wind power and ensures optimality in planning for the expansion of the power system.
4.3 Sensitivity analysis
We assume that the inertia time constant of wind turbines is almost zero, and that primary reserves cannot be provided by them for PFR.In a given powergeneration plan, the larger the inertia time constant of each thermal generator is, the more adequate the PFR delivery of the system will be, thus allowing more wind power access.
As shown in Fig.6, the annual total cost decreases by 17.10% (from 514.06 M$ to 426.18 M$) when the inertia constant of thermal units increases from 4.5 s to 7 s.From the perspective of windpower scaleplanning, the overall growth comes in the form of steps.In different stepped phases, the system operators carry out different thermalgeneration construction plans;in the same step, thermal power units of the same type are built.The descentslope period in a step is mainly limited by the maximum primary reserve ratio of unit nominal capacity;the platform period is mainly affected by unit commitment.For instance, when H increases from 5.68 s to 6.09 s, the construction scale of wind power decreases, because the primary reserves provided for the governors are not adequate in this stage.In this descentslope period, more windpower construction can balance a larger part of the load demand in the operation stage, so adequate primary reserves from thermal generators can be set aside for PFR.In the platform period, mainly influenced by SCUC, there is no need to invest in additional wind power:coordinating the output of thermal generators and existing wind generators can ensure the stable operation of the system.
Fig.6 Wind power construction scale and annual total cost with the increase in the inertia constant H of thermal units
From Fig.7, with the increase of H, the total cost of generationexpansion planning can be gradually reduced.During the steppedpart phase, when thermal generators of the same type are planned, increasing H is conducive to satisfying PFR constraints.More windpower penetration will force the thermal generators to shut down, so windpower investment should be reduced or stay the same to ensure PFR adequacy.The general trend, illustrated in Fig.7, is that, as the basic inertia of the system increases, so does the degree of allowable connection to wind power.Therefore,choosing a thermal unit with a higher inertia constant enhances the primary frequency response.
Fig.7 General trend of wind power construction scale and annual total cost with the increase in the inertia constant H
5 Conclusion
In this paper, an optimal generationexpansion planning framework is proposed that considers primary frequency response.The essential requirement for incorporating PFR constraints during the expansionplanning stage has been formulated as a set of MILP constraints.Case studies based on the modified IEEE 39bus system demonstrate:(1) A more costeffective planning strategy can be achieved by considering PFR constraints in the planning stage.When making generationplanning decisions, the expansion of renewable and conventional generation should be coordinated, so that the windpower accommodation rate can be improved.(2) Selecting units with a higher inertia constant and setting a higher maximum primary reserve ratio help to ensure that sufficient PFR capacity is available for system regulation.These measures can reduce the frequency deviation during failure and facilitate access to more renewable energy.
Appendix
The constraints governing generationexpansion planning in our model are as follows:
(1) Power balance:
Constraints (A1) require that the system load and power balance, whereis the load demand at bus b and Φb is the set of buses.
(2) Power limit of conventional generators:
Constraints (A2) and (A3) show the power limits of thermal generators, where and are the minimum and maximum power, respectively.
(3) Power limits of renewable generators:
Constraints (A4) represent the power limit of renewable generator r, whereis the forecasted power and indicates whether renewable generator r is included in the construction plans or not.
(4) PFRrelated constraints (16)(23):
The PFRrelated constraints are derived in Section 2.
(5) Minimum on/off hours for thermal generators:
Constraints (A5) and (A6) enforce thermal generator g to be online or offline for at least or hours.Constraints (A7) and (A8) describe the relations among the startup, shutdown, and running states of the thermal generators, where Ug,t and Vg,t are the binary variables for startup and shutdown.
(6) Power flow equations and power limit for lines:
The constraints above show the limits of the power flow on the transmission line [30], whereis the transmission power on line l, is the capacity of transmission line l, and Flb is the generation shift distribution factor of line l to bus b.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.U1966204, 51907064).
References

[1]
Attya ABT, Hartkopf T (2013) Control and quantification of kinetic energy released by wind farms during power system frequency drops.IET Renewable Power Generation, 7(3):210224 [百度学术]

[2]
Xing P, Shi Q, Wang G et al (2016) Influence analysis of wind power generation on the characteristic of power system frequency.2016 IEEE 8th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference (IPEMCECCE Asia), pp.14441447 [百度学术]

[3]
Rebours YG, Kirschen DS, Trotignon M, Rossignol S (2007) A survey of frequency and voltage control ancillary services—Part I:technical features.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22(1);350357 [百度学术]

[4]
R.J.Koessler, J.W.Feltes, and J.R.Willis (1999) A methodology for management of spinning reserves requirements.Proc.IEEE Power Eng.Soc.Winter Meeting, vol.1, Feb.1999,pp.584589 [百度学术]

[5]
Li W, Du P and Lu N (2018) Design of a New Primary Frequency Control Market for Hosting Frequency Response Reserve Offers From Both Generators and Loads.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.9, no.5, pp.48834892 [百度学术]

[6]
Li M, McCalley JD (2012) Influence of renewable integration on frequency dynamics.2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2012, pp.17 [百度学术]

[7]
Anderson PM, Mirheydar M (1990) A loworder system frequency response model.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,5(3):720729 [百度学术]

[8]
Chávez H., Baldick R, Sharma S (2014) Governor rateconstrained OPF for primary frequency control adequacy.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29(3):14731480 [百度学术]

[9]
Egido I, FernandezBernal F, Centeno P, Rouco L (2009)Maximum frequency deviation calculation in small isolated power systems.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24(4):17311738 [百度学术]

[10]
Zhang G, McCalley J (2014) Optimal power flow with primary and secondary frequency constraint.2014 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Pullman, WA, 2014, pp.16 [百度学术]

[11]
Teng F, Trovato V, Strbac G (2016) Stochastic scheduling with inertiadependent fast frequency response requirements.2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM),Boston, MA, 2016, pp.15571566 [百度学术]

[12]
Kundur P (1994) Power system stability and control.McGrawHill, London [百度学术]

[13]
B.Porretta and S.Porretta (2018) Calculation of power systems inertia and frequency response.2018 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC), College Station, TX, 2018, pp.16 [百度学术]

[14]
Huang H and Li F (2014) Sensitivity analysis of loaddamping,generator inertia and governor speed characteristics in hydraulic power system frequency regulation.2014 Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC), Perth,WA, 2014, pp.16 [百度学术]

[15]
Liao S, Xu J, Sun Y et al (2016) LoadDamping Characteristic Control Method in an Isolated Power System With Industrial VoltageSensitive Load.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,vol.31, no.2, pp.11181128 [百度学术]

[16]
Agüero ED, Colomé DG, Granda NV (2016) Adjustment of frequency transient response with reserve deficit using artificial neural network.2016 IEEE PES Transmission &Distribution Conference and ExpositionLatin America (PES T&DLA),Morelia, 2016, pp.16 [百度学术]

[17]
Zhang G, Ela E and Wang Q (2019) Market Scheduling and Pricing for Primary and Secondary Frequency Reserve.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.34, no.4, pp.29142924 [百度学术]

[18]
National Grid (2017) Security and Quality of Supply Standards.https://www.nationalgrideso.com/industryinformation/codes/securityandqualitysupplystandards/codedocuments.Accessed 2 May 2020 [百度学术]

[19]
Z.Jlassi, K.Ben Kilani, M.Elleuch and C.Bouchoucha (2016)Primary reserves managment in power systems.2016 13th International MultiConference on Systems, Signals &Devices(SSD), Leipzig, 2016, pp.194199 [百度学术]

[20]
You S, Liu Y, Tan J et al (2019) Comparative Assessment of Tactics to Improve Primary Frequency Response Without Curtailing Solar Output in High Photovoltaic Interconnection Grids.IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol.10, no.2,pp.718728 [百度学术]

[21]
Chengwei F, Xiaoru W, Yufei T, Wencheng W (2017) Minimum frequency estimation of power system considering governor deadbands.IET Generation, Transmission &Distribution, 11(15):3814382 [百度学术]

[22]
S.Mohajeryami, A.R.Neelakantan, I.N.Moghaddam and Z.Salami (2015) Modeling of deadband function of governor model and its effect on frequency Response characteristics.2015 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Charlotte, NC, 2015, pp.15 [百度学术]

[23]
Jlassi Z, Kilani KB, Elleuch M, Bouchoucha C (2016) Primary reserves management in power systems.2016 13th International MultiConference on Systems, Signals &Devices (SSD),Leipzig, 2016, pp.194199 [百度学术]

[24]
Wang J, Zhong H, Wu C et al (2019) Incentivizing distributed energy resource aggregation in energy and capacity markets:An energy sharing scheme and mechanism design.Applied Energy,252:113471 [百度学术]

[25]
S.Dehghan, N.Amjady and A.Kazemi (2014) TwoStage Robust Generation Expansion Planning:A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Model.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.29, no.2, pp.584597 [百度学术]

[26]
A.Zare, C.Y.Chung, N.Safari, S.O.Faried and S.Mahdi Mazhari (2018) A BiLevel PolyhedralBased MILP Model for Expansion Planning of Active Distribution Networks Incorporating Distributed Generation.2018 IEEE Power &Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Portland, OR, pp.15 [百度学术]

[27]
The IBM ILOG CPLEX website (2020) http://www01.ibm.com/software/websphere/products/optimization/academicinitiative/index.html.Accessed 5 April 2020 [百度学术]

[28]
Wang J, Qin J, Zhong H et al (2019) Reliability value of distributed solar+storage systems amidst rare weather events.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(4):44764486 [百度学术]

[29]
PJM Data Directory (2019) PJM wind generation.https://dataminer2.pjm.com.Accessed 23 April 2019 [百度学术]

[30]
Wang J, Zhong H, Yang Z et al (2019) Incentive mechanism for clearing energy and reserve markets in multiarea power systems.IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy [百度学术]
Fund Information
supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1966204, 51907064)；
supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1966204, 51907064)；