A Day-ahead Market Energy Auction for Distribution
System Operation
M. Nazif Faqiry, A. Khaled Zarabie, Fatehullah Nassery, Hongyu Wu, Sanjoy Das

Published in: IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT), 2017
DOI: 0.1109/EIT.2017.8053352

Publication Date: 2017

Citation (APA)
M.N. Faqiry, A.K.Zarabie, F.Nassery, Hongyu Wu, Sanjoy Das (2017). A Day-ahead Market Energy Auction for
Distribution System Operation. Electro Information Technology (EIT), 2017 IEEE International Conference on,
0.1109/EIT.2017.8053352

© © 2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in
any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes,
creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this
work in other works.

A Day-ahead Market Energy Auction for
Distribution System Operation
M.N. Faqiry, A.K.Zarabie, F.Nassery, Hongyu Wu, Sanjoy Das
Electrical & Computer Engineering, Kansas State University
Corresponding Author (mnfaqiry@ksu.edu)

Abstract—In this paper, we study a Day-ahead Market(DAM)
double energy auction in a distribution system involving
dispatchable generation units, renewable generation units
supported by battery storage systems(BSSs), fixed loads, price
responsive loads, and supply from the Wholesale Market(WSM)
at Locational Marginal Price (LMP). The auction is implemented
within a Distribution System Operator (DSO) premises using
Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP). The proposed
auction is cleared at the Distribution LMP (DLMP) and is
observed to be weakly budget balanced if no penalty is applied for
DSO’s deviation from its original commitment with the WSM.
Furthermore, the dynamics of DLMP versus LMP, and their effect
on distribution market participants scheduled quantities as well as
the WSM supply to the distribution system is investigated.
Keywords—distribution system operation; auction; budget
balance; bid; social welfare

NOMENCLATURE
Indices:
𝑚
𝑔
𝑏
𝑙
𝑞
𝑟
𝑡

Distribution bus index
Generation unit index
BSS unit index
Load index
Generation segments index
Load segments index
Timeslot index

Sets:
ℳ
𝒢
ℬ
ℒ
𝒯

Set of distribution buses
Set of generation units
Set of BSS units
Set of price responsive loads
Set of time slots

Functions:
𝑓
𝜙

Objective function indicating social welfare
Deviation from commitment penalty function

Variables:
px Segment generation
p
Generation unit output
e
BSS unit energy output
s
Supply from WSM
dx Segment load
d
Total demand of load
c
BSS unit state of charge

Binary and Integer Variables:
𝑖
𝑗
𝑦
𝑧
𝑠𝑑
𝑠𝑢
𝑢
𝑣
𝑐𝑐
𝑑𝑐

Commitment state of generation unit
Commitment state of BSS unit
Startup indicator of generation unit
Shut down indicator of generation unit
Shut down counter for generation unit
Start up counter for generation unit
BSS unit charging indicator
BSS unit discharging indicator
Charging counter for BSS unit
Discharging counter for BSS unit

Parameters:
S
PX max
P min
P max
CB
CG
CL
STC
SDC
RU
RD
MDTG
MUTG
MDTB
MCTB
E min
E max
C min
C max

Total fixed supply allocated by the ISO to DSO
Maximum segment generation in each segment
Minimum generation of a generation unit
Maximum generation of a generation unit
Selling cost of BSS unit energy
Selling cost of generation unit energy
Buying cost of load
Start-up cost of a generation unit
Shut down cost of a generation unit
Rump up rate of a generation unit
Rump down rate a generation unit
Minimum down time of a generation unit
Minimum up time of a generation unit
Minimum discharge time of a BSS unit
Minimum charge time of a BSS unit
Minimum BSS unit energy withdraw amount
Maximum BSS unit energy withdraw amount
Minimum state of charge of BSS unit
Maximum state of charge of BSS unit
I. INTRODUCTION

The study of market design for distribution system operator
(DSO) has recently gained a considerable research momentum
due to inclusion of different market participants such as
Renewable Energy Resource (RES) owners, Battery Storage
System (BSS) owners, and load aggregators in the smart grid.
As an intermediate market operator, the DSO may use
forecasted and (or) historical load and system distributed
generation (DG) data to bid in the WSM. The independent
system operator (ISO) clears WSM and announces the DSO’s
LMP and scheduled amount. In such a situation, the DSO may
implement a DAM auction in its own service territory to seek

further efficient resource allocation and maximize social
welfare. The service area under the control of the DSO can be
comprised of various loads and generation units. The
generation units in the network can be of dispatchable and nondispatchable kind. Non-dispatchable units that are mainly
renewable energy resource such as wind and solar are
intermittent and causes uncertainty while weakening the
classical demand price correlation [1], [2]. However, these
restrictions can be alleviated by channeling their output power
through BSSs [3], [4].
While distinctive models for DSO are proposed by various
researchers in the electricity market [5] − [8], a broader model
that can handle involvement of all kinds of market participants
has not yet been developed. Distribution market clearing and
payment mechanisms are still open questions that are yet to be
answered with viable and sound assumptions.
Seen hierarchically, the distribution system service territory
starts at the bus where the utility company can bid in the WSM
through a DSO. In many cases, a sub-transmission network then
distributes the power to different distribution buses (D-buses),
i.e. substations [5]. Each D-bus serves smaller substations at
medium voltage that may cover a small geographic area or a
community of houses at low voltage. In the low voltage
distribution system, different aggregator models have been
proposed in the literature that may be incentivized to aggregate
classical fixed as well as price responsive loads and bid in the
distribution market [9] − [12].
This paper proposes a DAM model for DSO given the LMP
and its commitment post-WSM or based on forecasted or
historical data. The goal of the DSO is to implement a double
auction in order to maximize the social welfare of the market
participants such as distribution level generation units, BSS
units, and price responsive loads through aggregators.

Equipped with the aforementioned considerations, the DSO
runs the auction and clears the market by providing power to
the successful biding parties at the DLMP. The concept of
DLMP has been proposed by many researchers for distribution
system congestion management, market clearing, and loss
minimization [2], [6], [13] − [15], [18], as it shows the true
marginal cost of supplying the next increment of load.
Although in this study the distribution line congestion has not
been taken into account, the true value of a unit of energy at the
D-buses are different from that of the DSO bus. This is because
bids of the market participants at each D-bus is different,
resulting to different DLMPs. The DLMPs are attained by the
Lagrange multiplier of the supply-demand balance constraint of
each D-bus. The current model can be easily extended to
include line congestion constraints using shift factors or Power
Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) using DC power flow, a
viable approximation at the sub-transmission level of the
distribution system. Furthermore, one can also use the
simplified DistFlow equations [19], [20] to model line
congestion as well as D-bus voltage limit constraints.
Fig. 1 depicts a sample distribution system architecture with
four D-buses fed by sub-transmission lines from the main DSO
bus in a radial configuration. Each D-bus is considered to
include dispatchable generation units (denoted by G), BSS units
charged by renewable resources (denoted by B) and several
aggregated loads (denoted by L). After WSM clearing of DAM,
or by means of forecasting or historical data, the DSO knows
the committed supply S𝑡 and LMP of the WSM and runs a
day−ahead auction to determine its own unit commitment and
supply distribution while maximizing the overall system social
welfare.
The social welfare maximization of the system can be
modeled as in Eqn. (1) subject to system constraints in Eqns.
(2) − (30).

II. MODEL
In the proposed model when the DSO receives its committed
energy information at LMP from the ISO, it asks for bids from
generation units, BSSs, and load aggregators in the distribution
system. Generation units are assumed to submit a three-segment
bid and amount as well as their ramp up/down rates and
startup/shut down costs. Load aggregators are assumed capable
of dividing their aggregated load to a fixed load segment
amount that needs to be served at all times and a two-segment
price responsive bid and amount. The fixed segment of the
loads are served at the market-clearing price and do not
accompany any monetary bid amount. This is because not all
loads are price responsive, i.e. a high portion of the load is price
inelastic and needs to be served at all times. It is assumed that
renewable energy resources at the distribution level are coupled
with BSS units for a smooth participation in the auction, and
declare their selling price as well as their unit characteristics to
the DSO for optimal operation. BSS units have the potential to
help integrate deeper penetrations of renewable energy into
electricity grids and deliver efficient, low-cost, fundamental
electricity-grid services [3]. It is considered in this paper that
the BSS units are backed up and charged only by its own
renewable energy resource(s). The proposed model can be
easily extended for idle BSS units that can also be charged or
discharged by the grid.

Fig. 1. System architecture with four distribution buses

Maximize 𝑓:
𝑓 = ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ CL𝑚𝑙𝑟𝑡 dx𝑚𝑙𝑟𝑡 − ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ CG𝑚𝑔𝑞 px𝑚𝑔𝑞𝑡
𝑡

𝑚

𝑙 𝑟>1

𝑡

𝑚

𝑔

𝑞

− ∑ ∑ ∑ STC𝑚𝑔 𝑦𝑚𝑔𝑡 − ∑ ∑ ∑ SDC𝑚𝑔 𝑧𝑚𝑔𝑡
𝑡

𝑚

𝑔

𝑡

𝑚

𝑔

(1)

− ∑ ∑ ∑ CB𝑚𝑏 e𝑚𝑏𝑡 − ∑ ∑ LMP𝑡 smt
𝑡

𝑚

𝑏

𝑡

𝑚

subject to the following constraints ∀ 𝑚𝜖ℳ, ∀ 𝑔𝜖𝒢,
∀ 𝑏𝜖ℬ, ∀ 𝑙𝜖ℒ, ∀ 𝑡𝜖𝒯 :
∑𝑚 s𝑚𝑡 ≤ S𝑡
∑𝑔 p𝑚𝑔𝑡 + ∑𝑏 e𝑚𝑏𝑡 + s𝑚𝑡 = ∑𝑙 d𝑚𝑙𝑡

max
0 ≤ dx𝑚𝑙𝑟𝑡 ≤ DX𝑚𝑙𝑟
max
Dmin
𝑚𝑙 ≤ d𝑚𝑙𝑡 ≤ D𝑚𝑙
p𝑚𝑔𝑡 = ∑𝑞 p𝑚𝑔𝑞𝑡

0 ≤ p𝑚𝑔𝑞𝑡 ≤

max
PX𝑚𝑔𝑞

min
max
P𝑚𝑔
𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ p𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ P𝑚𝑔
𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡
≤1
∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(15)

𝑠𝑑𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≥ MDTG𝑚𝑔 𝑦𝑚𝑔,𝑡+1

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(17)

𝑡−1

(16)

∀𝑡

(2)

𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡 − 𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡−1 = 𝑦𝑚𝑔𝑡 − 𝑧𝑚𝑔𝑡

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(18)

∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(3)

𝑦𝑚𝑔𝑡 + 𝑧𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ 1

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(19)

The first term in the RHS of Eqn. (1) pertains to the price
responsive loads and allocates to loads with highest bids. Note
that, as the loads are assumed to submit their fixed load segment
without and two price responsive segments with monetary bids,
the fixed segment is excluded from the first term, i.e. 𝑟 > 1. The
second, third, and fourth terms relate to generation units and
allocates to those that have bid the least and incur smaller start
up and shut down costs. The fifth term is modeled to pick BSS
units with lowest bids and the sixth term decides the optimum
amount of supply to each D-bus. The objective function in Eqn.
(1) picks energy sellers with least marginal cost and energy
buyers with highest valuation in order to maximize surplus and
result an efficient allocation [10].
Eqn. (2) indicates that the sum of supplies channeled through
the DSO into each D-bus shall not exceed the committed
schedule to the ISO. Similarly, Eqn. (3) ensures that the demand
of each individual D-bus is supplied by the allocated portion of
supply from WSM, and the supply of the generation and BSS
units in that bus.
d𝑚𝑙𝑡 = ∑𝑟 dx𝑚𝑙𝑟𝑡

0 ≤ 𝑠𝑑𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ |𝒯| (1 − 𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡 )
1 − (|𝒯| + 1)𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ 𝑠𝑑𝑚𝑔𝑡 − 𝑠𝑑𝑚𝑔,

∀𝑙, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(4)

∀𝑟, ∀𝑙, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(5)

∀𝑙, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(6)

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(7)

∀𝑞, ∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(8)

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(9)

Eqn. (4) shows that the total demand of a load is equal to the
demand of the fixed segment ( 𝑟 = 1 ) plus the demand of its
responsive segments ( 𝑟 > 1 ). Eqn. (5) and (6) indicates the
segment limits and total demand limits of each load. Eqn. (7),
signifies that power generated by a generation unit is equal to
the aggregated segment generation of that unit. Eqn. (8) assures
that the power generated at each segment by a generation unit
does not violate the predefined lower and upper limits of
generation in that segment. If committed, the total power
generated by a dispatchable unit shall lie within its lower and
upper generation limits, as indicated by Eqn. (9).
p𝑚𝑔𝑡 − p𝑚𝑔(𝑡−1) ≤ RU𝑚𝑔

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(10)

p𝑚𝑔(𝑡−1) − p𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ RD𝑚𝑔

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(11)

0 ≤ 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≤ |𝒯| 𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(12)

(|𝒯| + 1)𝑖𝑚𝑔𝑡 − |𝒯| ≤ 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑔𝑡 − 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑔, 𝑡−1
≤ 1 ∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(13)

𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑔𝑡 ≥ MUTG𝑚𝑔 𝑧𝑚𝑔,𝑡+1

(14)

∀𝑔, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

The ramp up/down constraints of each individual generation
unit is ensured by Eqns. (10) and (11). In the same way, Eqns.
(12) – (19) shows the MILP formulation for minimum uptime
and minimum down time constraints of the generation units.
E min 𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ e𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ E max 𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(20)

C min ≤ c𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ C max

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(21)

c𝑚𝑏𝑡 = c𝑚𝑏(𝑡−1) − e𝑚𝑏𝑡

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(22)

0 ≤ 𝑑𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ |𝒯| 𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(23)

(|𝒯| + 1)𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡 − |𝒯| ≤ 𝑑𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 − 𝑑𝑐𝑚𝑏,𝑡−1 ≤ 1
∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡
𝑑𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≥ MDT𝐵𝑚𝑏 𝑢𝑚𝑏,𝑡+1
∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(24)
(25)

0 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ |𝒯| (1 − 𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡 )

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(26)

1 − (|𝒯| + 1)𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 − 𝑐𝑐𝑚𝑏,𝑡−1 ≤ 1
∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(27)

𝑐𝑐𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≥ MDT𝐵𝑚𝑏 𝑣𝑚𝑏,𝑡+1

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(28)

𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡 − 𝑗𝑚𝑏𝑡−1 = 𝑣𝑚𝑏𝑡 − 𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑡

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(29)

𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑡 + 𝑣𝑚𝑏𝑡 ≤ 1

∀𝑏, ∀𝑚, ∀𝑡

(30)

In order to increase the life expectancy of the BSS units,
minimum and maximum amount of energy withdrawal from
these units are bounded by the given limits in Eqn. (20).
Likewise, Eqn. (21) keeps the BSS safe from overcharging and
deep discharging. Eqn. (22) indicates the BSS units’ charging
state update. Consecutive minimum discharging and charging
hours’ constraints of BSS units are represented by Eqns. (23) (30).
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
The tabulated data in this section pertains to market
participants bidding information and serves as basis for the
simulation reported. Table I. shows each BSS units’ bidding
information submitted to the DSO. The bidding information for
each generation unit is summarized in Table II and the hourly
WSM supply and LMP is shown in Table III. Loads’ bidding
information are not included due to space limitations as load
bids were assumed to vary over timeslots.
The MILP model presented in Eqns. (1) - (30) is coded in
GAMS and solved using CPLEX solver for 24-hour horizon.
The simulation results reported corroborate the validity of the
proposed model. Several sets of analysis were conducted to see
the effect of LMP on the auction outcome. Simulation results
indicates that loads, generation and BSS units are very
responsive to changes in LMP at the DSO bus at a given amount
of supply by the WSM. At low LMPs, more from the WSM is

allocated to loads due to high local generation bids. As the LMP
increases, more internal generation at each D-bus is scheduled.
A similar effect is observed on serving the price responsive
loads.
TABLE I. Bidding information of each BSS unit at each D-bus
Bus

Unit

(C min ,
C max )
(MWh)

(E min ,
E max ]
(MWh/ hr)

(MDTB,
MCTB)
(hr)

CB
($/MWh)

1
2
2
4

BSS1
BSS1
BSS2
BSS1

(1 – 10)
(1 – 8)
(1 – 10)
(1 – 8)

(0.4 – 2)
(0.4 – 2)
(0.4 – 2)
(0.4 – 2)

(3 – 6)
(3 – 6)
(3 – 6)
(2 – 6)

35
33
36.5
34

Fig. 2. Hourly DSO supply to each D-bus vs. LMP

TABLE II. Segment generation and unit price for each D-bus
(Bus,
Unit)

(PX1max ,
CX1)
(MW,$)

(PX2max ,
CX2 )
(MW,$)

(1,G1)
(1,G2)
(2,G1)
(2,G2)
(2,G3)
(3,G1)
(3,G2)
(3,G3)
(3,G4)
(4,G1)

(1.5, 36.7)
(1.6, 34.8)
(1.5, 30)
(1.4, 36.9)
(1, 34.5)
(1.2, 29.4)
(1.8, 32.1)
(0.8, 35.7)
(0.95, 36.3)
(1.9, 37.5)

(2.5, 39.3)
(2, 37.8)
(1.7, 33)
(1.8,39.6)
(1.5, 36)
(1.8, 30.6)
(1.45, 32.6)
(1.7, 37.5)
(1.1, 37.5)
(1.7, 41.4)

(PX3max ,
CX3 )
(MW,$)

(RU,
RD)
(MW/h)

(STC,
SDC
($)

(1, 42)
(1.4, 40.5)
(1.8, 39)
(1.8,43.8)
(0.5, 39.6)
(2, 34.5)
(1.75, 34.5)
(0.5, 40.5)
(0.95, 40.5)
(1.4, 44.5)

(2.5, 2.5)
(2.5, 2.5)
(2.5, 2.5)
(2.5, 2.5)
(3, 3)
(2.5, 2.5)
(2.5, 2.5)
(3, 3)
(3, 3)
(2.5, 2.5)

(75, 60)
(60, 60)
(45, 54)
(51, 45)
(84, 45)
(0, 0)
(45, 51)
(60, 48)
(0 ,0)
(10, 10)

Fig. 3. Hourly D-bus generation vs. LMP

TABLE III. Supply at the DSO bus from the ISO at the LMP
LMP and ISO supply in 24hr scheduling horizon
t
LMP
𝐒𝒕
t
LMP
𝐒𝒕
t
LMP
𝐒𝒕
t
LMP
𝐒𝒕

1
22.07
29.04
7
26.21
34.485
13
27.59
36.3
19
31.73
41.475

2
24.83
32.67
8
27.59
36.3
14
26.21
34.485
20
34.49
45.375

3
24.83
32.67
9
28.97
38.115
15
26.48
34.848
21
31.73
41.745

4
23.45
30.855
10
30.35
39.93
16
25.38
33.396
22
28.97
38.115

5
24.83
32.67
11
33.11
43.56
17
27.04
35.574
23
26.21
34.485

6
24.83
32.67
12
30.35
39.93
18
30.35
39.93
24
23.45
30.855

Fig. 2 depicts LMP versus DSO’s supply allocation to each Dbus as a portion of the total committed schedule that it receives
from WSM during 24h scheduling horizon. Notice that supply
to each D-bus is very responsive to the changes in LMP. When
LMP is low, more power is allocated to flow from the WSM.
However, during high LMP hours the power flow from DSO
drops significantly, to the extent that D-bus number three feeds
power back into the distribution network, i.e. to other D-buses.
This is because D-bus 3 has more cheap generation and loads
in other D-buses are ready to purchase at higher price than that
of its own local loads.
Fig. 3 shows LMP versus each D-bus’s internal generation.
The internal generation at each D-bus increases with increase
in LMP. Fig. 4 shows total power demand equals the total
supply, which consists of supply from the WSM, internal
generation, and supply from BSS units. Notice that the BSS
units are scheduled only during peak LMP hours for at least
three consecutive hours due to their minimum discharging time
constraints.

Fig. 4. Total demand and supply by the DSO, BSSs and generators

Fig. 5. Supply from BSSs as DLMP changes

Fig. 6. Supply from BSS units at two different DLMPs

Fig. 7. LMP versus DLMP for 24-hour horizon

Fig. 9. Deviation from ISO supply vs penalty for three different LMPs,
with LMP1(t) < LMP 2(t) < LMP 3(t)

Fig. 8. Average LMP vs DLMP and total supply to DSO

Fig. 5 depicts the LMP values versus BSS units’ commitment
considering its charging/discharging limits. All BSS units are
set to 6 hours of minimum charging and three minimum
discharging hours except the minimum discharge time of BSS
at D-bus 4, which is set to 2 hours. Note that this plot meets all
the requirements set in the constraints in Eqns. (20) – (30). BSS
units are scheduled during high price hours with more power
scheduled at peak LMPs than its neighboring hours. In addition,
the sum of assigned energy during scheduling horizon does not
exceed each BSS unit’s capacity. The plot in Fig.6 shows
scheduled behavior of the second BSS unit at D-bus 2 for two
different DLMPs along with its declared selling price depicted
with the horizontal line. As seen, the BSS is only scheduled
when DLMP is higher than its bid. Furthermore, the scheduled
amount of power withdrawal from this BSS is higher where the
difference between its bid and the DLMP is higher. A similar
observation was made when generation units’ schedules were
investigated.
In order to study the dynamics of DLMP versus LMP, Figs.
7 and 8 were plotted. Fig.7 shows the change in DLMP during
the scheduling horizon for two different sets of LMPs. When
LMP is low compared to the bids of loads, generation, and BSS
units, DLMP deviates significantly and becomes higher than
LMP. In the case when LMP increases, the DLMP also
increases and overlaps with LMP in most hours. Note that
further increase in LMP causes DLMP to equal LMP in all
hours. This is because at LMPs higher than the generation units’
bids, all generation units are scheduled to serve the fixed and or
price responsive loads, and serving any extra MWhr incurs a
cost equal to LMP. Fig.8 illustrates this concept further by
showing the 24-h LMP average for 10 scenarios while
increasing LMP by a fixed percentage at each scenario. As
expected, at low LMPs the entire committed supply of the
WSM is injected into the D-buses, whereas lower amounts are
drawn when LMP increases.

Fig. 10. Payments and reimbursements

The simulation results reported here assumes that no penalty
is incurred for any deviation from what is committed to ISO.
The DSO’s objective function in Eqn. (1) can be modified by
adding a linear penalty function 𝜙(𝛾) to account for penalty
incurred due to any deviation from original commitment.
𝜙(𝛾) = −𝛾 (∑ St − ∑ ∑ smt )
𝑡

𝑡

(31)

𝑚

To show the effect of applying penalty, the total deviation over
the scheduling horizon from original commitment was plotted
as a function of 𝛾 in Fig.9 for three different LMPs. Notice that
for higher LMPs, a higher penalty is required to make the
deviation zero. This means that if LMP is high, more internal
generation and BSS units are scheduled, and it takes a higher
penalty to force power injection from the WSM in order to
make the deviation zero.
Fig. 10 depicts the budget dynamics of the 10 increasing
LMP scenarios for a fixed commitment S𝑡 from WSM when no
penalty for deviation is applied, i.e. 𝛾 = 0. At lower LMPs,
during scenarios one to five, the DSO makes money. It sells
energy at higher DLMP while buying it at lower LMP. As the
LMP is increased further, less power is purchased from the
WSM and DLMP approaches LMP. As a result, the DSO’s
revenue drops down to zero after the fifth scenario. Note that,
if DSO is penalized for deviation, it loses a monetary amount
equal to 𝜙(𝛾) given by Eqn. (31). This is because deviation
occurs at higher LMPs, i.e. after scenario five, when DSO’s
revenue is zero with no penalty(𝛾 = 0). In such scenarios, the
DSO has to bear the deviation cost 𝜙(𝛾).

IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the distribution system operator’s DAM auction
in the presence of distribution level generation units, renewable
energy resources coupled with BSS units, and loads with fixed
and price responsive segments has been modeled and studied.
The DSO is considered to have the knowledge of its supply
amount at LMP from the WSM. The DSO uses MILP to
optimally schedule its available resources and maximize the
social welfare. By clearing the auction at DLMP, the dynamics
of DLMP versus LMP and their effect on the outcome of the
auction as well as the resulting payments were studied.
Simulation results show that, if DSO is not penalized for
deviating from its committed schedule with the WSM, the
auction is always weakly budget balanced. The DSO only
makes money when LMP is cheaper at a given fixed supply
from the WSM.
Future studies can be carried out to model the auction in an
iterative and distributed manner [16], [17]. The authors are
working on establishing DLMPs locally using a lower level
auction at each D-bus by achieving general market equilibrium
conditions. Inclusion of distribution system physical constraints
such as bus voltages, lines flow, and transformers capacity
constraints in a distributed manner within a decentralized
version of the proposed auction framework can be another
interesting line of research.
REFERENCES
Verzijlbergh, R. A., Z. Lukszo, and M. D. Ilić. "Comparing different EV
charging strategies in liberalized power systems." In 9th International
Conference on the European Energy Market, pp. 1-8, 2012.
[2] Verzijlbergh, Remco A., Laurens J. De Vries, and Zofia Lukszo.
"Renewable energy sources and responsive demand. Do we need
congestion management in the distribution grid?" IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2119-2128, 2014.
[3] Fitzgerald, Garrett, James Mandel, Jesse Morris, and Hervé Touati.
“The Economics of Battery Energy Storage”, Rocky Mountain
Institute, September 2015.
[4] Mitra, Joydeep, and Mallikarjuna R. Vallem. "Determination of storage
required to meet reliability guarantees on island-capable microgrids with
intermittent sources." IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no.
4, pp.2360-2367, 2012.
[5] Rahimi, F., and S. Mokhtari. "From ISO to DSO: imagining new
construct--an independent system operator for the distribution network."
Public Util. Fortn, vol.152, no. 6, pp. 42-50, 2014.
[6] Parhizi, Sina, and Amin Khodaei. "Market-based microgrid optimal
scheduling." IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid
Communications (SmartGridComm), pp. 55-60, 2015.
[7] Kristov, L., and P. De Martini. "21st century electric distribution system
operations." pp. 1-11, May 2014.
[8] Khodaei, Amin. "Microgrid optimal scheduling with multi-period
islanding constraints." IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.29, no.
3, pp. 1383-1392, 2014.
[9] Gkatzikis, Lazaros, Iordanis Koutsopoulos, and Theodoros Salonidis.
"The role of aggregators in smart grid demand response markets." IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol.31, no. 7, pp.12471257, 2013.
[10] Majumder, Bodhisattwa P., M. Nazif Faqiry, Sanjoy Das, and Anil
Pahwa. "An efficient iterative double auction for energy trading in
microgrids." IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence
Applications in Smart Grid (CIASG), pp. 1-7, 2014.
[11] Sbordone, Danilo Antonio, Enrico Maria Carlini, Biagio Di Pietra, and
Michael Devetsikiotis. "The future interaction between virtual
aggregator-TSO-DSO to increase DG penetration." International
Conference on Smart Grid and Clean Energy Technologies (ICSGCE),
pp. 201-205, 2015.
[1]

[12] Faqiry, M. Nazif, and Sanjoy Das. "Double-Sided Energy Auction in
Microgrid: Equilibrium under Price Anticipation." IEEE Access, vol.4,
pp.3794-3805, 2016.
[13] Li, Ruoyang, Qiuwei Wu, and Shmuel S. Oren. "Distribution locational
marginal pricing for optimal electric vehicle charging management."
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 203-211, 2014.
[14] Huang, Shaojun, Qiuwei Wu, Shmuel S. Oren, Ruoyang Li, and Zhaoxi
Liu. "Distribution locational marginal pricing through quadratic
programming for congestion management in distribution networks." IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol.30, no. 4, pp. 2170-2178, 2015.
[15] O’Connell, Niamh, Qiuwei Wu, Jacob Østergaard, Arne Hejde Nielsen,
Seung Tae Cha, and Yi Ding. "Day-ahead tariffs for the alleviation of
distribution grid congestion from electric vehicles." Electric Power
Systems Research, vol.92, pp. 106-114, 2012.
[16] Faqiry, M. Nazif, and Sanjoy Das. "Transactive Energy Auction with
Hidden User Information in Microgrid." arXiv preprint arXiv:
1608.03649, 2016.
[17] Miyamoto, Toshiyuki, Kazuyuki Mori, Shoichi Kitamura, and Yoshio
Izui. "Solving Distributed Unit Commitment Problem With Walrasian
Auction." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems
vol. 46, no. 8, 2016.
[18] Sotkiewicz, Paul M., and Jesus M. Vignolo. "Nodal pricing for
distribution networks: efficient pricing for efficiency enhancing DG."
IEEE transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1013, 2006.
[19] Baran, M. E., and Felix F. Wu. "Optimal sizing of capacitors placed on a
radial distribution system." IEEE Transactions on power Delivery, vol.4,
no.1, pp. 735-743, 1989.
[20] Wang, Zhaoyu, Bokan Chen, and Jianhui Wang. "Decentralized energy
management system for networked microgrids in grid-connected and
islanded modes." IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.7, no.2, pp.10971105, 2016.

