Dynamic Network Prices for Prosumer-aware Hosting Capacity Management

Frederik Geth; Gregor Verbic; Jiawei Zhang; Julio Braslavsky; Mohsen Aldaadi; Rahmat Heidari

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Dynamic Network Prices for Prosumer-aware Hosting Capacity Management

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A bilevel optimization framework can design dynamic network export prices that enforce distribution network limits while leaving solar and battery decisions to prosumers.

desk verdict Competent bilevel tariff design paper whose main numerical claim is weakened by an unquantified SOCP relaxation gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12573 v1 pith:A4FCPCFB submitted 2026-02-13 eess.SY cs.SY

Jiawei Zhang , Gregor Verbic , Frederik Geth , Mohsen Aldaadi , Rahmat Heidari , Julio Braslavsky This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords bileveloptimizationdynamicnetworkpriceshostingcapacitymanagementprosumerdecision-makingdistributedenergyresourcesdistributionStackelberggamecostrecovery

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

The paper tries to show that distribution network hosting capacity can be managed with price signals instead of fixed export caps. It builds a bilevel model in which the distribution system operator sets time-varying network export prices subject to cost recovery and network constraints, and prosumers respond by optimizing their solar and battery operation to minimize spending. The framework preserves customer prerogative and privacy—the DSO never controls behind-the-meter devices—and can still use dynamic operating envelopes as a backup. If it works, it turns hosting-capacity management into a tariff-design problem, and the same price schedule applies to all customers regardless of location.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bilevel (Stackelberg) optimization program. The upper level is the DSO's revenue-maximization problem over a dynamic export tariff, constrained by an annual cost-recovery cap and by branch-flow network constraints (voltage, current, apparent power); the lower level is each prosumer's expenditure-minimization problem over PV curtailment, battery charge and discharge, and grid import and export. The two levels are joined by replacing the lower level with its necessary and sufficient KKT conditions, yielding a single-level mathematical program with equilibrium constraints solved by branch-and-bound for the bilinear price-times-export terms. The dynamic network price it

What would settle it

Run a controlled pilot in which a feeder uses the bilevel-computed dynamic tariff for a season; if measured aggregate export, voltage, and line-utilization profiles violate the limits the model promised to hold (e.g., voltage outside 0.9–1.1 p.u. or line loading above rated capacity) while prosumers are acting on the same prices, the central claim fails. A simpler computational falsifier is to perturb the lower-level model and show that the price computed from the nominal model breaches network limits under the perturbed response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the bilevel formulation—DSO revenue maximization at the upper level nested over prosumer expenditure minimization at the lower level—yields a coherent, computationally tractable dynamic network export tariff. The lower level is replaced by its KKT conditions to form a single-level MPEC, and the resulting price signal tracks local network conditions: it rises when PV exports would stress the feeder, prompting batteries to charge instead of export, and falls at other times to encourage export. Simulation on a 25-prosumer radial low-voltage network shows voltages within 0.9–1.1 per unit, line utilization below 80 percent, and BESS-equipped households

Load-bearing premise

The DSO is assumed to have a correct, complete model of how prosumers respond to prices: the lower-level expenditure-minimization is taken as the true behavior, and if real prosumers deviate, the prices will not enforce network constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Dynamic network prices can substitute for static export limits: when the tariff is high during peak solar hours, prosumers shift to battery charging, reducing export peaks.
All prosumers receive the same location-independent price signal, addressing fairness concerns that plague nodal pricing.
The framework separates DSO and prosumer roles, respecting privacy and customer prerogative; dynamic operating envelopes remain available as a guardrail.
BESS-equipped households gain an economic advantage, which the paper suggests incentivizes home battery adoption and helps flatten net demand.
The formulation is extensible to different horizons, DER penetration levels, and wholesale price scenarios without changing the methodology.

Reading between the lines

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

The success of the price signal depends on the fidelity of the lower-level prosumer model: if real households respond differently from the optimizer, the same tariffs may fail to keep the network within limits, making the DOE guardrail load-bearing rather than optional.
A natural test is to deploy the computed tariff in a field trial and compare realized aggregate exports and voltages against the model's prediction; deviations quantify the value of a robust, uncertainty-aware lower level.
The rolling-horizon implementation opens the door to a real-time control loop in which tariffs are re-solved as forecasts update, effectively merging price-based control with dynamic operating envelopes.
The same bilevel structure could be applied to design import prices, reactive-power prices, or community-level tariffs, where cost recovery and network constraints bind differently.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

What to know: this paper does exactly what it says—a bilevel tariff design where the DSO sets export prices subject to network constraints and prosumers respond by optimizing their DERs. The formulation is standard but assembled for a specific, practically motivated purpose, and the authors are transparent about what they didn't include. The main concern is that the SOCP relaxation of the power flow equations is admitted to be occasionally inexact, and the paper waves this off as negligible without showing numbers.

The strongest part is the problem framing. The authors properly separate the DSO's and the prosumers' roles, use a realistic LV feeder and Australian load data, and include a cost-recovery cap and uniform prices, which makes the tariff design relevant to actual regulatory discussions. They also avoid the common trap of assuming the DSO controls behind-the-meter devices. The rolling-horizon setup and the Monte Carlo allocations of batteries are reasonable choices, and the paper is clearly written.

The weaknesses are proportionate. First, the relaxation gap. Section IV says that with upper-bounded loads the conic relaxation can produce 'fictitious demand' and simultaneous charging/discharging, but the residual impact is just asserted to be negligible. No gap metric, no AC feasibility check. Since the paper's core claim is that the prices strictly enforce voltage and current limits, this omission matters. I am not saying the approach is wrong; I am saying the numerical demonstration doesn't prove the claim. The fix is easy: report the maximum violation in a power-flow check or a bound on the gap.

Second, the behavioral assumption—the DSO knows exactly how prosumers will respond—is acknowledged in the text and left for future work. For a benchmark design paper that is acceptable, but it means the results are an upper bound on what price signals can do in practice. That is not a flaw, just a limit.

Third, there is no comparison to simpler alternatives like fixed export limits or DOE-only schemes. A few baseline simulations would have made the value-added much clearer.

Overall, I agree with the conditional verdict. The model is sound enough, the authors are careful, and the paper deserves a serious referee. The revision request should require either quantifying the relaxation gap or adding an AC feasibility verification, and ideally a simple baseline comparison. I would not desk-reject this; it is a legitimate contribution to the tariff-design literature.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bilevel optimization framework to design dynamic, spatially uniform network export tariffs for LV distribution networks. The upper level represents the DSO, which sets time-varying export prices to maximize revenue subject to a cost-recovery cap and to network constraints expressed with a branch-flow model (active/reactive balances, Ohm's law, conic relaxation, voltage/current/apparent-power limits). The lower level models prosumers minimizing electricity expenditure through PV curtailment and battery scheduling. The lower-level problem is convex and is replaced by its KKT conditions to form an MPEC, solved with Gurobi's NonConvex=2. A nine-day rolling-horizon case study on a 25-prosumer radial LV network is presented, with illustrative results for two buses, network voltage/line utilization, and prosumer expenditure. The paper explicitly positions the framework as a benchmark model rather than an online control implementation and notes that the SOCP relaxation can be inexact in their setting.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the framework is a useful contribution: it provides a principled, non-discriminatory price-based alternative to fixed export limits, while preserving prosumer autonomy. Strengths include the use of a convex lower-level problem, the KKT-based MPEC reformulation with BilevelJuMP, the explicit battery convex-hull model, and the use of realistic Australian load data. However, the paper's headline claim of 'strictly enforcing network constraints' depends critically on exactness of the SOCP relaxation, which the authors admit can fail. Since no relaxation gap or AC-feasibility check is reported, the numerical demonstration does not yet establish that the computed prices yield physically realizable, constraint-satisfying operating points. The paper is technically sound in its modeling methodology, but this load-bearing gap must be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)

The paper states that the SOCP relaxation 'can occasionally be inexact' because loads are upper-bounded, producing 'fictitious demand' and simultaneous battery charging/discharging, yet it then asserts the residual impact is 'negligible' without reporting any quantitative evidence. Constraints (6)-(8) are enforced on the relaxed branch-flow variables; if (5) is not tight at the solution, the computed voltages, currents, and apparent-power flows may not correspond to any physical AC power-flow solution, so actual network limits could be violated even under the model's behavioral assumptions. Please report the relaxation gap for every (or a representative sample of) optimization windows, run an AC-feasibility check on the resulting operating points, and quantify fictitious demand. If the gap is nonzero, either modify the formulation to enforce exactness (e.g., penalty or post-processing) o
The text says 'We perform Monte Carlo analyses with random allocation of home batteries across the test system to validate the approach and to provide a general picture of the resulting price curves,' but the reported results are single deterministic traces for Bus 4 and Bus 12, plus aggregate voltage/line-utilization plots. No Monte Carlo statistics, distribution of price curves, or battery-allocation sensitivity are shown. If the Monte Carlo exercise is meant to support the generality of the conclusions, the results should be presented; otherwise the claim should be removed or explicitly deferred.

minor comments (4)

The cost-recovery requirement is modeled as an upper bound (revenue cap), not as a lower bound or equality. The DSO maximizes revenue, so the cap may or may not be binding depending on prosumer response. The paper does not report whether the collected revenue reaches the cap in the simulations. Please clarify the intended cost-recovery interpretation and report the revenue in the case study.
The statement that the relaxation is 'exact for radial networks, provided that no upper bounds are imposed on loads' is confusing: the formulation treats loads as fixed forecasts, not as variable upper bounds. This is also in tension with the later discussion in Section IV. Please clarify the exactness condition relative to the present model.
The symbol p_{t,g} / q_{t,g} is used for apparent 'generator' variables that are not defined in the model description, while p^g_{t,i} is used for the prosumer grid exchange. The distinction between these variables and the roles of 'generator' versus 'prosumer' should be stated explicitly.
Several parameters that affect results are not listed: the battery end-value coefficient M_b, the battery initial SOC (stated as 50% in text but not in the table), and the revenue cap value. These are needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the price-design problem is a Stackelberg optimization whose lower-level response is explicitly assumed, not fitted and re-predicted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: no output quantity is secretly fed back as an input and then re-reported as a prediction. Section II-A explicitly states, 'this modelling approach assumes that the DSO has a model of customer response,' and the lower level is an expenditure-minimization problem (Eq. 9) solved through KKT conditions; the resulting prosumer behavior is the mathematical consequence of that assumed model, not an independently measured quantity that the paper claims to predict. The only user-chosen parameter, the revenue cap Pi in Eq. (2), is set from a reference Australian tariff rather than fitted to the outcome variables, so no 'fitted input called prediction' pattern appears. Network constraints (Eqs. 3a-8) are enforced at the upper level by construction, and the paper openly acknowledges in Section IV that the SOCP relaxation (5) may be inexact under upper-bounded loads, leaving a correctness caveat (the 'negligible' residual claim is unquantified) but not circularity. The self-citations [17] and [18] provide auxiliary battery and converter modeling constraints; they do not carry the central price-design claim or forbid alternatives. Thus no load-bearing reduction to the paper's own inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or hidden forces. Its free parameters are domain-specific values chosen for the case study, and its axioms are standard optimization/economic assumptions plus the behavioral assumption that prosumers respond as modeled. The central framework rests on the correctness of the KKT equivalence and the fidelity of the prosumer model, both of which are acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (4)

Revenue cap Π = 1 AUD per customer per day
Chosen as a reference value 'generally in line with typical fixed network tariffs in the Australian context'; this caps the upper-level revenue and directly shapes the price curve.
Battery SOC bounds = 20%-80%
Imposed to preserve headroom for other services; these bounds affect battery availability and hence exports.
Battery end-value coefficient M_b = not given
The quadratic end-value function C_e^b(e_T,b) has a marginal-value parameter M_b that is not specified in the paper; it is an ad-hoc term to prevent battery depletion at the end of the horizon and influences the final state-of-charge.
Battery initial SOC = 50%
Assumed initial state; the first day is discarded to avoid its effect, but it still affects the first retained windows.

assumptions (5)

standard math KKT conditions are necessary and sufficient for the lower-level problem
The lower-level problem is convex, so replacing it with KKT conditions is standard and rigorous.
standard math Branch flow model conic relaxation is exact when no upper bounds on loads
The paper cites [15] for this, but admits upper-bounded loads make the relaxation potentially inexact; this is used in the upper-level network constraints.
domain assumption Prosumers are price-taking and optimize perfectly
The lower level models prosumers as rational expenditure-minimizers with full information; this is the core behavioral assumption the paper flags in Section II-A.
domain assumption Retailer passes the dynamic network price through in full
The paper states this in Section I-D: 'the retailer passes the network price on to the customers in full to enable the mechanism to function effectively.'
domain assumption Prosumers can participate in the wholesale market at wholesale rates
The lower-level objective uses wholesale prices for both imports and exports, following the Amber Electric model, which is not universally available to residential customers.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Network Prices for Prosumer-aware Hosting Capacity Management." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4FCPCFB

@misc{pith2026260212573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Network Prices for Prosumer-aware Hosting Capacity Management},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4FCPCFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12573}
}

read the original abstract

The fast uptake of distributed energy resources (DERs) presents increasing challenges for managing hosting capacity in distribution networks. Existing solutions include direct load control, operating envelopes, and price-based control through dynamic energy prices. Despite their effectiveness, these methods often rely on assumed prosumer behavioural patterns and overlook prosumers' desire to retain control over their devices. Additionally, current fixed or Time-of-Use (ToU) prices are based on spatial and temporal averages, having limited impact on network conditions and DER operation. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a bilevel optimisation framework that explicitly models prosumer decision-making in the design of dynamic network prices. The upper level represents the distribution system operator (DSO), setting network prices under cost-recovery and network constraints, while the lower level models prosumers optimising DER operation in response. The proposed framework preserves customer prerogative, enhances DER flexibility, and offers actionable insights for network hosting capacity management and the evolution of network tariff structures under high DER penetration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12573 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Example of energy and network tariffs used in Australia. [13] is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Overview of the proposed bilevel framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Topology of the distribution network test system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Schematic of the rolling horizon optimization framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Simulation results for prosumer at Bus 4. From top to bottom are the illustration of demand composition, battery operation, power export with prices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Simulation results for prosumer at Bus 12. From top to bottom are the illustration of demand composition, battery operation, power export with prices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The left panel presents voltage variation and line capacity utilisation over time. The right panel shows scatter plot for prosumer expenditure and net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Hosting capacity of photovoltaic systems in low voltage distribution systems: A benchmark of deterministic and stochastic approaches,

A. Koirala, T. Van Acker, R. D’hulst, and D. Van Hertem, “Hosting capacity of photovoltaic systems in low voltage distribution systems: A benchmark of deterministic and stochastic approaches,”Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., vol. 155, p. 111899, 2022

2022
[2]

National Consumer Energy Resources Roadmap,

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, “National Consumer Energy Resources Roadmap,” 2024

2024
[3]

State-of- the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,

S. Ismael, S. Abdel Aleem, A. Abdelaziz, and A. Zobaa, “State-of- the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,”Renew. Energy, vol. 130, pp. 1002–1020, 01 2019

2019
[4]

Review of Dynamic Operating Envelope Adoption by DNSPs,

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), “Review of Dynamic Operating Envelope Adoption by DNSPs,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arena.gov.au/assets/2022/07/review-of- dynamic-operating-envelopes-from-dnsps.pdf

2022
[5]

Project Edith Overview Report,

Enea Consulting, “Project Edith Overview Report,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/Documents/ Reports-and-Research/Project-Edith/Project-Edith-2022.pdf

2022
[6]

Analysis of distribution locational marginal prices,

A. Papavasiliou, “Analysis of distribution locational marginal prices,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4872–4882, 2018. 24th Power Systems Computation Conference PSCC 2026 Limassol, Cyprus — June 8-12, 2026

2018
[7]

Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) for Congestion Management and V oltage Support,

L. Bai, J. Wang, C. Wang, C. Chen, and F. Li, “Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) for Congestion Management and V oltage Support,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 4061–4073, 2018

2018
[8]

Electricity prices and tariffs to keep everyone happy: A framework for fixed and nodal prices coexistence in distribu- tion grids with optimal tariffs for investment cost recovery,

I. Savelli and T. Morstyn, “Electricity prices and tariffs to keep everyone happy: A framework for fixed and nodal prices coexistence in distribu- tion grids with optimal tariffs for investment cost recovery,”Omega, vol. 103, p. 102450, 2021

2021

Show all 21 references

[9]

Replacing flat rate feed-in tariffs for rooftop photovoltaic systems with a dynamic one to consider technical, environmental, social, and geographical factors,

M. A. Hayat, F. Shahnia, and G. Shafiullah, “Replacing flat rate feed-in tariffs for rooftop photovoltaic systems with a dynamic one to consider technical, environmental, social, and geographical factors,”IEEE Trans. Indust. Informatics, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 3831–3844, 2019

2019
[10]

A decentralized market mechanism for energy communities under operating envelopes,

A. S. Alahmed, G. Cavraro, A. Bernstein, and L. Tong, “A decentralized market mechanism for energy communities under operating envelopes,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 313–324, 2025

2025
[11]

Social welfare maximization in unbalanced distribution networks under dy- namic pricing and power exchange limits,

A. Najafi-Ghalelou, M. Khorasany, M. Azim, and R. Razzaghi, “Social welfare maximization in unbalanced distribution networks under dy- namic pricing and power exchange limits,”Sust. Energy Grids Networks, vol. 44, p. 101923, 2025

2025
[12]

Inquiry into the National Electricity Market,

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, “Inquiry into the National Electricity Market,” 2024

2024
[13]

Understanding your electricity bill

Acacia Energy. Understanding your electricity bill. [Online]. Available: https://www.acaciaenergy.com.au/blog/understanding-your- electricity-bill/
[14]

Powercor tariff summary 2025-26,

Powercor Australia, “Powercor tariff summary 2025-26,” 2025

2025
[15]

Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification - Part I,

M. Farivar and S. H. Low, “Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification - Part I,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2554–2564, 2013

2013
[16]

[Online]

Amber Electric. [Online]. Available: https://www.amber.com.au/
[17]

Non- linear charge-based battery storage optimization model with bi-variate cubic spline constraints,

P. Aaslid, F. Geth, M. Korp ˚as, M. M. Belsnes, and O. B. Fosso, “Non- linear charge-based battery storage optimization model with bi-variate cubic spline constraints,”J. Energy Storage, vol. 32, p. 101979, 2020

2020
[18]

A flexible storage model for power network optimization,

F. Geth, C. Coffrin, and D. Fobes, “A flexible storage model for power network optimization,” inProceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems, ser. e-Energy ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020

2020
[19]

Convex hull formulations for linear modeling of energy storage systems,

D. Pozo, “Convex hull formulations for linear modeling of energy storage systems,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5934– 5936, 2023

2023
[20]

BilevelJuMP.jl: Modeling and solving bilevel optimization in Julia,

J. D. Garcia, G. Bodin, and A. Street, “BilevelJuMP.jl: Modeling and solving bilevel optimization in Julia,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02307

2022 arXiv
[21]

[Online]

Solar Analytics. [Online]. Available: https://www.solaranalytics.com.au/ 24th Power Systems Computation Conference PSCC 2026 Limassol, Cyprus — June 8-12, 2026

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hosting capacity of photovoltaic systems in low voltage distribution systems: A benchmark of deterministic and stochastic approaches,

A. Koirala, T. Van Acker, R. D’hulst, and D. Van Hertem, “Hosting capacity of photovoltaic systems in low voltage distribution systems: A benchmark of deterministic and stochastic approaches,”Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., vol. 155, p. 111899, 2022

2022

[2] [2]

National Consumer Energy Resources Roadmap,

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, “National Consumer Energy Resources Roadmap,” 2024

2024

[3] [3]

State-of- the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,

S. Ismael, S. Abdel Aleem, A. Abdelaziz, and A. Zobaa, “State-of- the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation,”Renew. Energy, vol. 130, pp. 1002–1020, 01 2019

2019

[4] [4]

Review of Dynamic Operating Envelope Adoption by DNSPs,

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), “Review of Dynamic Operating Envelope Adoption by DNSPs,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arena.gov.au/assets/2022/07/review-of- dynamic-operating-envelopes-from-dnsps.pdf

2022

[5] [5]

Project Edith Overview Report,

Enea Consulting, “Project Edith Overview Report,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/Documents/ Reports-and-Research/Project-Edith/Project-Edith-2022.pdf

2022

[6] [6]

Analysis of distribution locational marginal prices,

A. Papavasiliou, “Analysis of distribution locational marginal prices,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4872–4882, 2018. 24th Power Systems Computation Conference PSCC 2026 Limassol, Cyprus — June 8-12, 2026

2018

[7] [7]

Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) for Congestion Management and V oltage Support,

L. Bai, J. Wang, C. Wang, C. Chen, and F. Li, “Distribution Locational Marginal Pricing (DLMP) for Congestion Management and V oltage Support,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 4061–4073, 2018

2018

[8] [8]

Electricity prices and tariffs to keep everyone happy: A framework for fixed and nodal prices coexistence in distribu- tion grids with optimal tariffs for investment cost recovery,

I. Savelli and T. Morstyn, “Electricity prices and tariffs to keep everyone happy: A framework for fixed and nodal prices coexistence in distribu- tion grids with optimal tariffs for investment cost recovery,”Omega, vol. 103, p. 102450, 2021

2021