Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A Linear Pricing Mechanism for Load Management in Day-Ahead Retail Energy Markets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By broadcasting a linear price curve for each day-ahead hour, a distribution operator can make cost-minimizing flexible loads reproduce a chosen target load profile, without two-way communication or customer bidding.

desk verdict A genuinely decoupled price-shaping mechanism, but the 'any day-ahead pricing' claim fails a monotonicity condition on β; still deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08166 v1 pith:2RZ7JBLP submitted 2025-09-09 eess.SY cs.SYecon.GNq-fin.EC

Phillippe K. Phanivong , Duncan S. Callaway This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords Load-ResponsivePricingday-aheadretailcongestionmanagementprice-signalcontrolquadraticprogrammingelectricvehiclechargingdistributionsystemslinearmechanism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Load-Responsive Pricing adds a price slope to each hour of a day-ahead tariff: instead of paying a flat per-kilowatt-hour rate, a customer pays a rate that rises with how much they consume in that hour. The paper shows that when flexible loads minimize their total bill under this quadratic cost, the right choice of slopes makes their combined behavior reproduce any load profile the distribution operator wants—for instance the profile that avoids low voltages—using only broadcast prices and meter data. Two versions are given: an optimal one that needs a target profile and a forecast of each customer's daily energy, and a heuristic one that only needs the ordinary energy prices. In simulations, the optimal version matched a centralized constrained-optimal EV charging plan to within 3.57e-4 kWh and kept all voltages above 0.95 per unit for a month on a 678-node feeder. If it works in practice, it offers congestion management without iterative bidding or two-way communication between the operator and customers.

What carries the argument

Eq. (10), α̂_t = (2α_seed x̂_seed + β_seed − β_t)/(2x̂_t), is the load-bearing identity. It is the inverse of the customer's Lagrange optimality condition for the quadratic cost Σ(α_t x_t^2 + β_t x_t) with a fixed daily energy total; given one seed hour (chosen as the hour with the largest β_t and nonzero target load), it converts any desired load shape into a vector of price slopes. The slopes are the only control signal, and the paper's feasibility rule replaces any negative or infinite computed slope with a nonnegative cap so the customer's optimization stays convex.

What would settle it

Run a field or simulation experiment with real energy-management behavior (e.g., EV chargers that enforce minimum state of charge and have uncertain arrival times): compute the LRP slopes from Eq. (10) using a forecast of each customer's daily energy, broadcast them, and compare the resulting aggregate load to the target profile. If the deviation is large enough to push voltages below 0.95 per unit or to shift load into the wrong hours, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a one-line formula, Eq. (10): once a DSO has chosen a target hourly load profile x̂_t for a customer and has a day-ahead volumetric price β_t, the slope α_t that makes a cost-minimizing customer choose that profile is α̂_t = (2α_seed x̂_seed + β_seed − β_t)/(2x̂_t). The formula comes from writing the customer's problem as a quadratic program—minimize Σ(α_t x_t^2 + β_t x_t) subject to the total energy over the day being a fixed X—and solving the Lagrange first-order conditions backward. With one seed hour pinned down, every other hour's slope is determined. The authors call this optimal-α LRP, and they show numerically that it is agnostic to how the target profile or

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every customer really is a cost-minimizing quadratic optimizer with a known, accurately forecast total daily energy demand, and that the target profile the DSO picks is feasible for that customer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A DSO can implement a day-ahead tariff that separates the energy price from the congestion signal: any β price schedule can be paired with α slopes that drive customers to the operator's target profile.
  • Congestion management becomes a one-way broadcast: customers need only receive the price curve and solve their own optimization; no bids, negotiations, or real-time grid telemetry are required to set the slopes.
  • When the DSO cannot run an OPF, the inverse-rank heuristic still shifts load away from the cheapest hours and, in the July 678-node case study, eliminated all voltage violations with a 0.31% increase in social cost.
  • Customer bills rise relative to unconstrained day-ahead pricing—roughly 4.5–5.5% for the building types tested—so the tariff must be paired with revenue-recycling or credits to be acceptable to ratepayers.
  • The same price-curve mechanism can be repurposed as an internal coordination signal for microgrids or as a sub-hourly refinement on top of hourly energy prices, as the paper suggests for future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exact-reproduction guarantee is an inverse of the customer's first-order condition, so it is only as good as the model of the customer; real deviations (comfort constraints, battery degradation, uncertain daily energy) have no feedback loop in the paper, suggesting a practical deployment would need to re-estimate the total energy X from meter data and re-issue slopes.
  • The seed hour and seed slope are free parameters: choosing a different seed changes all α values and hence the customer's bill, so the seeding rule is effectively a distributional lever that could be tuned to make the tariff revenue-neutral or to target specific customers.
  • The same α formula applies to any convex cost-minimizing agent, not just electricity customers; aggregators, building energy management systems, or even charging-network operators could be steered the same way, with the price curve acting as a generic coordination signal.
  • A natural testable extension is a closed-loop version: recompute α each day from the previous day's meter data; the paper's forecast-error analysis implies this would correct drift without adding communication, though the paper does not analyze stability of such a loop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Load-Responsive Pricing (LRP), a day-ahead retail tariff in which the price seen by a customer is a linear function of consumption, π_t = α_t x_t + β_t, making the customer's total cost quadratic. In the 'optimal-α LRP' variant, the DSO first chooses a target load profile x̂_t (e.g., from an OPF), then computes slopes α̂_t from Eq. (10) using a seed hour, so that a cost-minimizing customer with known total energy X will, by construction of the first-order conditions, reproduce x̂_t. An 'inverse-rank LRP' heuristic sets α_t inversely to β_t for cases where no target profile is available. Case Study I verifies the algebraic formula on a single customer with storage, and Case Study II on a 678-node three-phase feeder with 2,160 EVs shows that decentralized optimal-α LRP charging matches a centralized OPF-constrained charging schedule to 3.57e-4 kWh and avoids voltage violations over July. The paper claims this allows congestion management without bidirectional communication or customer bidding.

Significance. If the mechanism holds as stated, it would be a practical, low-communication alternative to bidding-based distribution congestion management, and the large-scale feeder case study is a meaningful demonstration. The paper's main strengths are the transparent algebraic derivation of Eq. (10), the use of a realistic 678-node feeder, and an honest discussion of several practical limitations (forecast error, cost increases, calibration of θ and η). The derivation is internally consistent, and the case-study numbers appear reproducible from the stated formulas. However, as detailed below, the central claim that optimal-α LRP works 'under any day-ahead pricing schedule' is not correct as written once bidirectional loads are allowed; an unstated monotonicity condition on the target profile and β prices is required. This is fixable, but it changes the scope of the main contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (10)-(12); Contribution 2] The claim that optimal-α LRP can shape customer load profiles 'under any day-ahead pricing schedule' is too strong. From Eq. (10), for a target injection hour (x̂_t < 0), nonnegativity of α̂_t requires β_t ≥ β_seed + 2α_seed x̂_seed, while for a target load hour (x̂_t > 0) it requires β_t ≤ β_seed + 2α_seed x̂_seed. Thus any target profile with an injection at an hour whose β is below the seed threshold produces α̂_t < 0. The θ-substitution in Eq. (12) does not restore the injection; for large θ the customer's FOC gives x_t ≈ (λ − β_t)/(2θ) ≈ 0, not the desired injection. The text after Eq. (13) states a version of this problem for single-meter bi-directional loads, but the restriction is general and applies to separately metered bi-directional loads as well. The Introduction and Contribution 2 should be revised to state the explicit feasibility condition (e.g., no injections, or injecti
  2. [Section III-B, Eqs. (4)-(10)] The theoretical derivation uses a customer problem with only a total-energy equality constraint, Eq. (4), and first-order conditions (6)-(9). Real flexible loads also have per-period inequality constraints, such as EV charging rate limits and final state-of-charge requirements, which are present in Case Study II. If the target profile is at the boundary of such a constraint, the equality FOC 2α_t x_t + β_t − λ = 0 need not hold, and the construction of α̂_t via Eq. (10) is not justified. The paper acknowledges this in Section VI-A ('If customers have binding constraints... the DSO’s optimization should be updated'), but this is a gap in the formal mechanism as stated. The derivation should either incorporate inequality constraints explicitly (e.g., via KKT conditions with complementary slackness) or restrict the claim to target profiles that are strictly interior to all local constraints
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III] The two columns for target load (kWh) and α_t are visually merged in Table III, e.g., rows '8 10. 1 × 10−13', '9 2. 0.0136', and '15 0. 10'. Please split into two clearly labeled columns so the numbers can be audited.
  2. [Section VI-A] The paragraph beginning 'Second, the optimal-α LRP depends on a seed α...' appears twice nearly verbatim. Remove the duplicate.
  3. [Section III-B, final sentence] The statement that Eq. (10)-(13) produce 'the minimum feasible vector of α_t prices' is not proven; no minimization criterion is specified. Rephrase as 'a feasible vector' or define what is being minimized.
  4. [Eq. (13)] The notation x̂_t is initially used as the DSO's target load profile, then redefined in Eq. (13) as the total meter load for customers with mixed controllable and non-controllable loads. Please clarify the distinction by using separate notation (e.g., x̂_t^total vs. x̂_t^ctrl) throughout Section III-B.
  5. [Throughout] Typos: 'ERPI analysis' should be 'EPRI analysis' (Section I); 'day-head' appears in the Introduction and should be 'day-ahead'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Optimal-α LRP target matching is by construction; the case-study 'prediction' is a numerical self-check.

  1. self definitional [Section III-B, Eq. (10)]
    "Equation (10) generalizes (9) to calculate optimal ˆαt values – that is, values that cause customers to reproduce the pre-computed optimal ˆxt values – using a selected seed load value ˆxtseed, associated βtseed price, and αtseed value."

    Equation (10) is obtained by solving the customer's first-order condition 2α_t x_t + β_t − λ = 0 for α_t after substituting x_t = x̂_t. Thus the statement 'customers reproduce the target profile' is not derived from independent premises; it is enforced by the definition of α. The customer's assumed quadratic objective and total-energy constraint are exactly the equations inverted, so the target is the unique optimizer by construction. Any later observation that customers match the target is a test of the solver, not of the mechanism.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V-B-3, 'LRP Designs' and Case Study II results]
    "For the Optimal-α LRP, we used the EV load profiles from the centralized optimization with the LDF constraint as target load profiles. The maximum absolute difference between the target load profiles and those generated by the optimal-α LRP was 3.57 × 10−4 kWh."

    The target load profile is the same object fed into Eq. (10) to set α. Reporting the difference between the simulated customer outcome and this fed-in target as evidence that LRP can 'shape customer load profiles to match target load profiles' is a self-consistency check on the optimizer, not an empirical validation. The residual only reflects numerical precision and the θ fallback; no independent customer behavior or constraint is tested. This is a fitted input being presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper is largely a mechanism-design exercise, and the IR-LRP heuristic case study is independent. However, the paper's second contribution, optimal-α LRP, constructs α_t by inverting the customer's first-order condition. Therefore the conclusion that cost-minimizing customers will select the DSO's target profile is guaranteed under the paper's own model, not discovered through the case studies. The 3.57×10−4 kWh match in Case Study II is a numerical verification of the same algebraic identity; it does not test customer rationality, forecast accuracy, or realism of the customer model. The paper is transparent about this ('values that cause customers to reproduce the pre-computed optimal values'), so the circularity is structural rather than hidden. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the uniqueness citation [23] is external, and the θ fallback in Eq. (12) patches nonpositive α rather than rescuing the 'any day-ahead pricing schedule' claim. The additional monotonicity restriction for bi-directional loads (Section III-B) is a correctness limitation, not a separate circular step. Overall, one central result reduces to its input by construction, while the IR-LRP congestion-management case study retains independent content; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing construction rests on a small set of behavioral and modeling assumptions rather than on fit parameters only: the DSO's price inversion (Eq. 10) is exact once the target profile, β, seed, and customer model are given. The free parameters are the seed choice (α_seed, t_seed), the θ fallback magnitude, the IR-LRP tuning knobs (τ range, η), and the invented target profile in Case Study I. The axioms that could invalidate the claim in the field are the perfect-customer behavioral model and the forecast of total energy X. No invented physical entities are introduced; αt is a contractual price component, not an entity.

free parameters (6)
  • θ (feasibility α substitute) = 10
    Eq. (12) substitutes θ when x̂t=0 gives infinity or α̂t<0 (non-convex). Chosen by experiment ('We examined performance for other high values of θ'); it determines the bounded tracking error at zero-load hours.
  • α_seed (seed slope) = 0
    Eqs. (10)-(11) use a seed slope chosen 'as small as practical' to minimize customer cost. It sets the common λ = 2α_seed·x̂_seed + β_seed for all hours and therefore determines the entire α vector and customer bills.
  • t_seed (seed hour) = Case I: hour 8; Case II: max-β hour
    Eq. (11) states max β with non-zero load, but Case I's Table III values are consistent only with hour 8 (max β among positive-load hours; hour 18 has higher β and negative target load). Seed choice determines feasibility of all αt.
  • τmin, τmax (IR-LRP range) = τmin=0.1; τmax=1.5 (Case I), 3 (Case II)
    Section IV-B: 'we found an effective linear range for τ is [0.1, τmax] with τmax ∈ [1,3]...'. τmax is the load-shifting aggressiveness knob, picked per case study with no derivation.
  • η (IR-LRP per-class scaling) = 0.001 (Case I); 1e-6 office, 1e-5 warehouse (Case II)
    Section IV-B/Table IV: chosen 'based on the order of magnitude of the non-controllable load at each building model'. Directly sets the price magnitude each customer sees.
  • Target load profile x̂ (Case Study I) = Table III (e.g., 15 kWh at hour 11, -10 kWh at hour 18)
    Section V-A2: 'We make no assumptions on the approach the DSO took to calculate these values.' The target is invented for the demonstration, not OPF-derived, so the tracking success is partly a free-choice demonstration.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Customers are price-takers who solve the stated convex quadratic program exactly and shift controllable load to minimize total cost
    Section II-B: 'we assume that customers will adjust the timing of their controllable load to minimize their total cost Ct'. This behavioral model is the engine of the whole mechanism.
  • domain assumption The DSO can accurately forecast each customer's total energy demand X over the day-ahead horizon
    Section III-A states this as the precondition for optimal-α; Section VI-A concedes forecast error changes outcomes and offers only qualitative mitigation.
  • domain assumption Target load profiles x̂ are feasible for each customer's local constraints
    Section III-B: 'the ˆxt values calculated by the DSO are assumed to be feasible solutions given each customer's local constraints.' Binding customer constraints would break the reproduction.
  • standard math KKT stationarity via Lagrange multipliers is sufficient for the customer's global optimum
    Eqs. (5)-(9): requires convexity (all αt ≥ 0, enforced by the Eq. (12) fallback) and a feasible simplex. Standard convex QP sufficiency.
  • domain assumption βt prices are accurate signals of energy value and βt > 0
    Section VI: 'this tariff assumes the βt prices are accurate price signals.' LRP shapes load around β; a wrong β yields the wrong shape.
  • domain assumption LinDistFlow linearization adequately represents voltage in the centralized baseline
    Section V-B2, Eqs. (16)-(17): the comparison baseline and the target profiles for optimal-α rely on this approximation; the paper attributes IR-LRP's apparent cost advantage to its error.
  • domain assumption Controllable and non-controllable load can be attributed to a single meter and modeled as constant-power, balanced loads
    Section III-B Eq. (13) and Section V-B2 Eq. (18): both LRP variants need the meter-level split; the paper flags mixed-meter customers as a real-world issue.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Linear Pricing Mechanism for Load Management in Day-Ahead Retail Energy Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RZ7JBLP

@misc{pith2026250908166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Linear Pricing Mechanism for Load Management in Day-Ahead Retail Energy Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RZ7JBLP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08166}
}
read the original abstract

Regulators and utilities have been exploring hourly retail electricity pricing, with several existing programs providing day-ahead hourly pricing schedules. At the same time, customers are deploying distributed energy resources and smart energy management systems that have significant flexibility and can optimally follow price signals. In aggregate, these optimally controlled loads can create congestion management issues for distribution system operators (DSOs). In this paper, we describe a new linear pricing mechanism for day-ahead retail electricity pricing that provides a signal for customers to follow to mitigate over-consumption while still consuming energy at hours that are preferential for system performance. We show that by broadcasting a linear price designed for price-signal control of cost-optimizing loads, we can shape customer load profiles to provide congestion management without the need for bi-directional communication or customer bidding programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08166 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. A Constant-α, hourly LRP. The intercept at each hour is the βt (red asterisk) while the price is calculated with a slope of α for all times t. The optimal-α LRP shares some similarities to the Dynamic Power Tariff (DPT) proposed in Huang et al. [24], though the prices are constructed in different ways. Huang et al. build on their quadratic DLMP pricing work [23] by proposing a quadratic power tariff with prices dete… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hypothetical hourly IR-LRP example with constant lo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Case Study I - Load profile for a customer following the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case Study I - Prices for a customer following the day- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graph representation of the distribution feeder mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advance d Strategies for Demand Flexibility Management and Customer DER Compensation,

    A. Madduri, M. Foudeh, P . Philips, and A. Gupta, “Advance d Strategies for Demand Flexibility Management and Customer DER Compensation,” California Public Utilities Commissio n, Energy Division White Paper, Jun. 22, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    2022 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Me- tering,

    “2022 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Me- tering,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Staff Repo rt, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ferc.gov/media/2022- assessment-demand-response-and-advanced- metering

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Benchmarking Study of U.S. Regulated Utility Real Time Pricing Programs, Architecture and Design: Final Report,

    “Benchmarking Study of U.S. Regulated Utility Real Time Pricing Programs, Architecture and Design: Final Report,” EPRI, 3002021204, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www. epri.com/research/programs/072127/results/3002021204

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Can dis- tribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential el ectri- fication and electric vehicle adoption in northern californ ia?

    S. Elmallah, A. M. Brockway, and D. Callaway, “Can dis- tribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential el ectri- fication and electric vehicle adoption in northern californ ia?” en, Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 045 005, Nov. 2022, ISSN : 2634-4505. DOI : 10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c

    work page doi:10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c 2022

  5. [5]

    Real-time market concept architecture for ecogr id eu—a prototype for european smart grids,

    Y . Ding, S. Pineda, P . Nyeng, J. Østergaard, E. M. Larsen, and Q. Wu, “Real-time market concept architecture for ecogr id eu—a prototype for european smart grids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 2006–2016, Dec. 2013, ISSN : 1949-3061. DOI : 10.1109/TSG.2013.2258048

    work page arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Identifying Potential Markets for Behind-the-Meter Batt ery Energy Storage: A Survey of U.S. Demand Charges,

    J. McLaren, N. Laws, K. Anderson, and S. Mullendore, “Identifying Potential Markets for Behind-the-Meter Batt ery Energy Storage: A Survey of U.S. Demand Charges,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report number: NREL/BR- 6A20-68963, Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Controlled workplace charging of electr ic vehicles: The impact of rate schedules on transformer aging ,

    S. Powell, E. C. Kara, R. Sevlian, G. V . Cezar, S. Kiliccot e, and R. Rajagopal, “Controlled workplace charging of electr ic vehicles: The impact of rate schedules on transformer aging ,” en, Applied Energy, vol. 276, p. 115 352, Oct. 15, 2020, ISSN : 0306-2619. DOI : 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115352

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    The economics of fixed cost recov- ery by utilities,

    S. Borenstein, “The economics of fixed cost recov- ery by utilities,” en, The Electricity Journal , vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 5–12, Sep. 1, 2016, ISSN : 1040-6190. DOI : 10.1016/j.tej.2016.07.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tej.2016.07.013 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    The Impacts of Retail Tariff design on Electric V ehicle Charging for Commercial Customers,

    P . K. Phanivong and D. S. Callaway, “The Impacts of Retail Tariff design on Electric V ehicle Charging for Commercial Customers,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , pp. 1–13, 2023. DOI : 10.1109/TEMPR.2023.3343631. 11

    2023

  2. [10]

    Electricity retail rate design in a decarbon ized economy: An analysis of time-of-use and critical peak pric- ing,

    T. Schittekatte, D. S. Mallapragada, P . L. Joskow, and R . Schmalensee, “Electricity retail rate design in a decarbon ized economy: An analysis of time-of-use and critical peak pric- ing,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 30560, Oct. 2022. DOI : 10.3386/w30560

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Trans- active control of commercial buildings for demand re- sponse,

    H. Hao, C. D. Corbin, K. Kalsi, and R. G. Pratt, “Trans- active control of commercial buildings for demand re- sponse,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 774–783, Jan. 2017, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2559485

    2017

  4. [12]

    Distributed transactive energy trading framework in distribution networks,

    J. Li, C. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Wang, J. Zhao, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Distributed transactive energy trading framework in distribution networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 7215–7227, Nov. 2018, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2854649

    2018

  5. [13]

    Transactive energy mar- ket operation through coordinated tso-dsos-ders interac- tions,

    M. H. Ullah and J.-D. Park, “Transactive energy mar- ket operation through coordinated tso-dsos-ders interac- tions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1976–1988, Mar. 2023, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2022.3212065

    1976

  6. [14]

    Demand response with capacit y constrained supply function bidding,

    Y . Xu, N. Li, and S. H. Low, “Demand response with capacit y constrained supply function bidding,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1377–1394, 2016. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2421932

    2016

  7. [15]

    Nodal pricing for distri - bution networks: Efficient pricing for efficiency enhanc- ing DG,

    P . Sotkiewicz and J. Vignolo, “Nodal pricing for distri - bution networks: Efficient pricing for efficiency enhanc- ing DG,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1013–1014, May 2006, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2006.873006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Distribution locational marginal pricing for optimal electric vehicle charging man - agement,

    R. Li, Q. Wu, and S. S. Oren, “Distribution locational marginal pricing for optimal electric vehicle charging man - agement,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 203–211, Jan. 2014, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2278952

    2014

  9. [17]

    Co-optimization of power and reserves in dynamic t&d power markets with nondispatchable renewable generation and distributed energy resources,

    M. Caramanis, E. Ntakou, W. W. Hogan, A. Chakrabortty, and J. Schoene, “Co-optimization of power and reserves in dynamic t&d power markets with nondispatchable renewable generation and distributed energy resources,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 807–836, Apr. 2...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Dis- tribution locational marginal pricing (DLMP) for unbalanc ed three-phase networks,

    S. Mohammadi, M. R. Hesamzadeh, and D. W. Bunn, “Dis- tribution locational marginal pricing (DLMP) for unbalanc ed three-phase networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3443–3457, Sep. 2022, ISSN : 1558-0679. DOI : 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3138798

    2022

  11. [19]

    Distribution locational marginal pricing under un- certainty considering coordination of distribution and wh ole- sale markets,

    Z. Zhao, Y . Liu, L. Guo, L. Bai, Z. Wang, and C. Wang, “Distribution locational marginal pricing under un- certainty considering coordination of distribution and wh ole- sale markets,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1590–1606, Mar. 2023, ISSN : 1949-306...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dynamic subsidy method for conges- tion management in distribution networks,

    S. Huang and Q. Wu, “Dynamic subsidy method for conges- tion management in distribution networks,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2140–2151, May 2018, ISSN : 1949-3061. DOI : 10.1109/TSG.2016.2607720

    2018

  13. [21]

    An incentive-based mechanism to alleviate active power congestion in a multi- agent distribution system,

    S. Fattaheian-Dehkordi, M. Tavakkoli, A. Abbaspour, M . Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Lehtonen, “An incentive-based mechanism to alleviate active power congestion in a multi- agent distribution system,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1978–1988, May 2021, ISSN...

    1978

  14. [22]

    Coordinating urban power- traffic networks: A subsidy-based nash–stackelberg–nash g ame model,

    S. Lv, S. Chen, and Z. Wei, “Coordinating urban power- traffic networks: A subsidy-based nash–stackelberg–nash g ame model,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1778–1790, Feb. 2023, ISSN : 1941-0050. DOI : 10.1109/TII.2022.3182124

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dis- tribution locational marginal pricing through quadratic p ro- gramming for congestion management in distribution net- works,

    S. Huang, Q. Wu, S. S. Oren, R. Li, and Z. Liu, “Dis- tribution locational marginal pricing through quadratic p ro- gramming for congestion management in distribution net- works,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2170–2178, Jul. 2015, ISSN : 1558-0679. ...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Dy- namic power tariff for congestion management in distribu- tion networks,

    S. Huang, Q. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. liu, “Dy- namic power tariff for congestion management in distribu- tion networks,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2148–2157, Mar. 2019, ISSN : 1949-3061. DOI : 10.1109/TSG.2018.2790638

    2019

  17. [25]

    Natick, Massachusetts: The Mathworks, Inc., 2020

    MATLAB:R2020a. Natick, Massachusetts: The Mathworks, Inc., 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimi zation in matlab,

    J. L¨ ofberg, “Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimi zation in matlab,” Taipei, Taiwan, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Gurobi Optimization, Gurobi optimizer reference manual ,

    L. Gurobi Optimization, Gurobi optimizer reference manual ,

  20. [28]

    Potential bill impacts of dynamic electricity pricing on California utility custo mers,

    B. F. Gerke, M. St¨ ubs, S. Murthy, et al., “Potential bill impacts of dynamic electricity pricing on California utility custo mers,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Dec. 2022. [Online ]. Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2wj199mq

    2022

  21. [29]

    Grid lab- d: An open-source power systems modeling and simulation environment,

    D. P . Chassin, K. Schneider, and C. Gerkensmeyer, “Grid lab- d: An open-source power systems modeling and simulation environment,” ISSN: 2160-8563, Apr. 2008, pp. 1–5. DOI : 10.1109/TDC.2008.4517260

    2008

  22. [30]

    Advanced Control Technologies for Distribution Grid V oltage and Stability with Electric V ehicles and Distributed Gener - ation,

    J. Mead, V . Donde, and J. Garnett (Pacific Gas and Electri c), “Advanced Control Technologies for Distribution Grid V oltage and Stability with Electric V ehicles and Distributed Gener - ation,” California Energy Commission, Publication number : CEC-500-2015-046, 2014

    2015

  23. [31]

    U.s. department of energy commercial reference building models of the national build ing stock,

    M. Deru, K. Field, D. Studer, et al., “U.s. department of energy commercial reference building models of the national build ing stock,” en, Tech. Rep., Feb. 1, 2011, NREL/TP–5500-46861, 1 009 264. DOI : 10.2172/1009264

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Building america house simulation protocols (revised),

    R. Hendron and C. Engebrecht, “Building america house simulation protocols (revised),” en, Tech. Rep., Oct. 1, 20 10, NREL/TP–550-49246, DOE/GO-102010–3141, 989 422. DOI : 10.2172/989422

    doi

  25. [33]

    15, 2022

    Resolution to adopt updates to the Avoided Cost Calcula - tor for use in demand-side distributed energy resource cost - effectiveness analyses, California Public Utilities Comm is- sion, Resolution E-5228, Sep. 15, 2022. [Online]. Avail- able: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Publishe...

    2022

  26. [34]

    [Online]

    2022 ACC Electric Model version 1b. [Online]. Availabl e: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/elect rical- energy/demand-side-management/energy-efficiency/ids m

    2022

  27. [35]

    Optimal sizing of capacitors placed on a radial distribution system,

    M. Baran and F. Wu, “Optimal sizing of capacitors placed on a radial distribution system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 735–743, Jan. 1989, ISSN : 1937-

    1989

  28. [36]

    Convex relaxations and linear appr ox- imation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks ,

    L. Gan and S. H. Low, “Convex relaxations and linear appr ox- imation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks ,” in 2014 Power Systems Computation Conference , Aug. 2014, pp. 1–9. DOI : 10.1109/PSCC.2014.7038399

    2014

  29. [37]

    A linearized power flow model for opti- mization in unbalanced distribution systems,

    M. D. Sankur, R. Dobbe, E. Stewart, D. S. Callaway, and D. B. Arnold, “A linearized power flow model for opti- mization in unbalanced distribution systems,” Nov. 2016, arXiv: 1606.04492. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1606.04492

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment – V oltage Ratings (60 Hertz) , ANSI Standard C84.1-2016

    2016

  31. [2020]

    Available: https://www.gurobi.com

    [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com

  32. [2256]

    DOI : 10.1109/JPROC.2016.2520758

    2016

  33. [4208]

    DOI : 10.1109/61.19266

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.