VIII-B Proof of Proposition 1
If , we have
|
|
|
Here, (a) comes from the optimal solution in Theorem 1. (b) relies on the setting that . (c) replies on
and the assumption that . (d) comes from the definition of given in (17).(e) comes from
|
|
|
(20) |
which can be derived from the optimality of
|
|
|
If , for passive prosumer, we have
|
|
|
Here,(a) comes from the optimal solution in Theorem 1. (b) relies on the setting that . (c) replies on
and the assumption that . (d) comes from the definition of given in (17). (e) replies on and . (f) comes from (20). (g) holds because and .
If , for active prosumer, we have
|
|
|
Here,(a) comes from Theorem 1 and the assumption that . (b) comes from the definition of given in (17) when for active prosumer. (c) comes from the optimality of , , and .
If , for active prosumer, we have
|
|
|
Here,(a) comes from Theorem 1 and the assumption that . (b) comes from the definition of given in (17) when . (c) holds because . (d) comes from
|
|
|
(21) |
which can be derived from the optimality of
|
|
|
(e) holds because and . ∎
VIII-C Proof of Proposition 2
Denoting the DERA surplus as , we have
|
|
|
Here, (a) comes from the definition of DERA surplus, which is the objective function of (1)and (b) comes from the optimal solution in Theorem 1. (c) follows the assumption that , representing positive surpluses for all prosumers under NEM X. From Lemma 2 and the upper bound of , we have ,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) comes from summing the equation above . ∎
Lemma 2.
Assume NEM X has production price equal to LMP, i.e., , then
|
|
|
(22) |
Proof: , and are defined in (13).
When , we have
|
|
|
Here, (a) follows the optimality of
|
|
|
(23) |
where . (b) relies on and . (c) comes from the definition of in (17) and .
When this prosumer is passive and , we have
|
|
|
where (a) follows the optimality of (23), (b) comes from the condition that , and (c) comes from the definition of in (17).
When this prosumer is active and , we have
|
|
|
where (a) follows the optimality of (23), (b) is direct, and (c) comes from the definition in (17).
When this prosumer is active and , we have
|
|
|
where (a) follows the optimality of (23), (b) relies on the condition that , and (c) comes from the definition in (17). ∎
VIII-D Proof of Theorem 1 and Proposition 3
We prove this proposition with Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of (1), and the inventory calculation with the optimal solution.
Assign dual variables to (1), we have
|
|
|
(24) |
The Lagrangian function is
|
|
|
Hence, from KKT conditions of (24), we have,
|
|
|
(27) |
where * indicates the optimal solution.
Combined with the complementary slackness condition, the first constraint of (24) is always binding with , and the optimal consumption equals to if it falls into the interval . So we have
|
|
|
|
(28) |
|
|
|
|
(29) |
where .
When , we have . The optimal value can be computed by
|
|
|
When , we have . The optimal value can be computed by
|
|
|
In all other cases, the optimal value is given by the equation below, which is not a function of .
|
|
|
(30) |
Denote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
To sum up over all cases, we have
|
|
|
(31) |
So, the maximum expected profit of DERA is given by
|
|
|
(32) |
∎
VIII-E Proof of Lemma 1
We here show that the LMP and dispatch result from (4) is at the bidding curve of DERA, i.e., (3).
Add dual variables and merge the energy consumption limits for (4), we have
|
|
|
(33) |
KKT conditions of the optimization (LABEL:eq:_SS_CCDiPro) gives
|
|
|
(34) |
where indicates the optimal solution. , is the -th column of the shift factor matrix , and . Replace in LMP with definition , (34) becomes
|
|
|
(35) |
When , from (35).
When , we have and from the complementarity slackness condition. So (35) becomes
|
|
|
(36) |
Known that the prosumer utility function is assumed to be concave and continuously differentiable. We have
Similarly, when , we have , , and .
So we find the optimal consumption of prosumer at PoA and transmission network bus has
|
|
|
which equals (2a). So the net production of the prosumer equals (3), which is at the bid/offer curve of the prosumer at PoA and bus . Therefore, the social welfare is the optimal value of (4).
By summing up DERA surplus in (50) and the prosumer surplus from the right-hand side of (1b), we can get the formulation for , which is
|
|
|
(37) |
∎
VIII-G Aggregated multiple prosumers at a single PoA
Consider a DERA aggregating heterogeneous prosumers under a single point of aggregation (PoA). Note that under the same PoA, the wholesale LMP is the same. Each prosumer has energy-consuming devices, including lamps, air-conditioners, washers/dryers, heat pumps, and electric vehicles. In real-time, the DERA solves for the consumption bundle of all customers and their payment functions , defined by
|
|
|
|
|
|
from the following optimization
|
|
|
(43) |
where the optimal objective value is the DERA profit given real-time BTM DG . The first constraint, referred to as the -competitive constraint, ensures that the surplus of prosumer under DERA is higher than the benchmark prosumer surplus when BTM DG has generation . and are consumption limits, and is the utility for the customers. We assume the utility function is concave, nonnegative, nondecreasing, continuously differentiable, additive (i.e., ) across the devices, and . The last constraint is added to limit the injection and withdrawal access at this single PoA with the distribution network injection and withdrawal capacities .
Theorem 3 ( ).
Given the wholesale market LMP , the optimal prosumer payment is given by
|
|
|
(44) |
And the optimal consumption bundle of prosumer , is
|
|
|
(45) |
where . We have , , and . The expected DERA surplus is
|
|
|
|
(46) |
|
where |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof: the proof follows directly from the KKT conditions of (43), since (43) is convex.
The Lagrangian function is
|
|
|
(47) |
Hence, from KKT conditions of (43), we have ,
|
|
|
Since , we have by the complementary slackness condition.
Let and . Known that dual variables for the inequality constraints are always nonnegative, i.e., , we have .
When , we have , from (43). From the KKT condition, we have
|
|
|
Thus, when , by complementary slackness condition, we have , so
|
|
|
When , we have , so
|
|
|
This gives . Similarly, when , we can show , and . From and the concavity of the utility function,
|
|
|
With the same method, we can show that when , and . And
when , and . ∎