Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Uniform Pricing vs Pay as Bid in 100%-Renewables Electricity Markets: A Game-theoretical Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.12309 v1 pith:OL7PKDFF submitted 2023-05-21 eess.SY cs.GTcs.SYecon.TH

classification eess.SYcs.GTcs.SYecon.TH
keywords marketpricingpricebiddingequilibriumpricesprofitsrenewables
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper evaluates market equilibrium under different pricing mechanisms in a two-settlement 100%-renewables electricity market. Given general probability distributions of renewable energy, we establish game-theoretical models to analyze equilibrium bidding strategies, market prices, and profits under uniform pricing (UP) and pay-as-bid pricing (PAB). We prove that UP can incentivize suppliers to withhold bidding quantities and lead to price spikes. PAB can reduce the market price, but it may lead to a mixed-strategy price equilibrium. Then, we present a regulated uniform pricing scheme (RUP) based on suppliers' marginal costs that include penalty costs for real-time deviations. We show that RUP can achieve lower yet positive prices and profits compared with PAB in a duopoly market, which approximates the least-cost system outcome. Simulations with synthetic and real data find that under PAB and RUP, higher uncertainty of renewables and real-time shortage penalty prices can increase the market price by encouraging lower bidding quantities, thereby increasing suppliers' profits.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools