Assessing the value and impact of demand side response using whole-system approach

Abstract

This paper describes the whole-system based model called Whole-electricity System Investment Model to quantify the benefits of demand flexibility. Whole-electricity System Investment Model is a holistic and comprehensive electricity system analysis model, which simultaneously optimises the long-term investment decisions against real-time operation decisions taking into account the flexibility provided by demand. The optimisation considers the impact of demand side response across all power subsystems, i.e. generation, transmission and distribution systems, in a coordinated fashion. This allows the model to capture the potential conflicts and synergies between different applications of demand side response in supporting particularly intermittency management at the national level, improving capacity margin, and minimising the cost of electrification. The impact and value of demand side response driven by whole-system approach are compared against the impact and value of distribution system operator or transmission system operator centric (silo approaches) demand side response applications and the importance of control coordination between distribution system operator and transmission system operator for optimal demand side response is discussed and highlighted.

Keywords

Demand side response optimisation whole-system approach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooper

SJG

McManus

Pudjianto

et al.

Detailed simulation of electrical demands due to nationwide adoption of heat pumps, taking account of renewable generation and mitigation. IET Renew Power Gener 2016; 10: 380–387.

Strbac

. Demand side management: Benefits and challenges. Energy Policy 2008; 36: 4419–4426.

Tan Y and Kirschen D. Co-optimization of energy and reserve in electricity markets with demand-side participation in reserve services. In: Power systems conference and exposition, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2006.

Wang

Redondo

Galiana

. Demand-side reserve offers in joint energy/reserve electricity markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2003; 18: 1300–1306.

Short

Infield

Freris

. Stabilization of grid frequency through dynamic demand control. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2007; 22: 1284–1293.

Lu N and Hammerstrom DJ. Design considerations for frequency responsive grid friendly appliances. In: Transmission and distribution conference and exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 2006.

Aunedi

Kountouriotis

Calderon

JEO

et al.

Economic and environmental benefits of dynamic demand in providing frequency regulation. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2013; 4: 2036–2048.

Pudjianto

Aunedi

Djapic

et al.

Whole-systems assessment of the value of energy storage in low-carbon electricity systems. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2013; 5: 1098–1109.

FICO Xpress optimization suite. [Online]. http://optimization.fico.com.

10.

Gan CK, Aunedi M, Stanojevic V, et al. Investigation of the impact of electrifying transport and heat sectors on the UK Distribution Networks. In: 21st international conference on electricity distribution (CIRED), Frankfurt, UK, 2011.

11.

Papadaskalopoulos

Strbac

Mancarella

et al.

Decentralized participation of flexible demand in electricity Markets—Part II: Application with electric vehicles and heat pump systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2013; 28: 3667–3674.

12.

Green JP, Smith SA and Strbac G. Evaluation of electricity distribution system design strategies. In: IEE proceedings - generation, transmission and distribution, 1999, p. 53.

13.

Gan

Mancarella

Pudjianto

et al.

Statistical appraisal of economic design strategies of LV distribution networks. Electric Power Syst Res 2011; 81: 1363–1372.

14.

Foxon

Hammond

Pearson

PJG

. Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2010; 77: 1203–1213.

15.

The UK HM Government. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. 2009.

16.

Castro

Pudjianto

Djapic

et al.

Reliability-driven transmission investment in systems with wind generation. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2011; 5: 850–850.

17.

Pudjianto

Djapic

Aunedi

et al.

Smart control for minimizing distribution network reinforcement cost due to electrification. Energy Policy 2013; 52: 76–84.

18.

Newbery

Pollitt

. The restructuring and privatisation of Britain’s CEGB-Was it worth it? J Ind Econ 2003; 45: 269–303.