1

Joint Investment and Operation of Microgrid

arXiv:1511.01984v1 [] 6 Nov 2015

Hao Wang, Student Member, IEEE, and Jianwei Huang, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework
for the joint optimization of investment and operation of a
microgrid, taking the impact of energy storage, renewable energy
integration, and demand response into consideration. We first
study the renewable energy generations in Hong kong, and
identify the potential benefit of mixed deployment of solar and
wind energy generations. Then we model the joint investment and
operation as a two-period stochastic programming program. In
period-1, the microgrid operator makes the optimal investment
decisions on the capacities of solar power generation, wind
power generation, and energy storage. In period-2, the operator
coordinates the power supply and demand in the microgrid to
minimize the operating cost. We design a decentralized algorithm
for computing the optimal pricing and power consumption
in period-2, based on which we solve the optimal investment
problem in period-1. We also study the impact of prediction error
of renewable energy generation on the portfolio investment using
robust optimization framework. Using realistic meteorological
data obtained from the Hong Kong observatory, we numerically
characterize the optimal portfolio investment decisions, optimal
day-ahead pricing and power scheduling, and demonstrate the
advantage of using mixed renewable energy and demand response
in terms of reducing investment cost.
Index Terms—Smart grid, microgrid, renewable energy, solar,
wind, energy storage, demand response, investment, pricing.

N OMENCLATURE
Acronyms
P1
P2
Pui
EP1
RP1
RP2
Sets
N
H
T
Ω

Period-1 problem for investment
Period-2 problem for operation
User i’s cost minimizing problem
Equivalent problem of P1
Period-1 problem for robust optimization
Period-2 problem for robust optimization

Set of users
Investment horizon
Operational horizon
Set of scenarios

Indices
i
Index of users
t Index of hours
ω Index of scenarios
This work is supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, under Theme-based
Research Scheme through Project No. T23-407/13-N. Part of the results have
appeared in IEEE SmartGridComm 2014 [1].
H. Wang and J. Huang (corresponding author) are with the Network
Communications and Economics Lab (NCEL), Department of Information
Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR,
China, e-mails: {haowang, jwhuang}@ie.cuhk.edu.hk.

Parameters
N
T
D
cs
cw
ce
B
βo
βi
bt
Di
dti
t
di
yit
ω,t
rmax
ηsω,t
ω,t
ηw
max
rc
rdmax
ηc
ηd
SOCmin
SOCmax
DODmax
eω,t
s,min
eω,t
s,max
eω,t
w,min
eω,t
w,max
Variables
αs
αw
αe
xω,t
i
rω,t
q ω,t
SOC ω,t
rcω,t
rdω,t
Qω,t
pω,t
eω,t
s
eω,t
w
η̂sω,t
ω,t
η̂w

Number of electricity users
Number of hours in the operational horizon
Number of days in the investment horizon
Investment cost of solar power
Investment cost of wind power
Investment cost of energy storage
Investment budget
Coefficient of the operator’s cost
Coefficient of user i’s discomfort cost
Aggregate inelastic load in time slot t
Total elastic load of user i
Minimum power load of user i in time slot t
Maximum power load of user i in time slot t
Preferred power load of user i in time slot t
Maximum renewable power in t and ω
Solar power supply per unit capacity in t and ω
Wind power supply per unit capacity in t and ω
Maximum charging amount per unit capacity
Maximum discharging amount per unit capacity
Conversion efficiency of charging
Conversion efficiency of discharging
Minimum state-of-charge
Maximum state-of-charge
Maximum depth-of-discharge
Minimum solar power prediction error in t and ω
Maximum solar power prediction error in t and ω
Minimum wind power prediction error in t and ω
Maximum wind power prediction error in t and ω

Generation capacity of solar power
Generation capacity of wind power
Capacity of energy storage
User i’s elastic load in t and ω
Renewable power supply in t and ω
Grid power procurement in t and ω
State-of-charge of battery in t and ω
Charging amount in t and ω
Discharging amount in t and ω
Aggregate power supply in t and ω
Day-ahead price in t and ω
Solar power prediction error in t and ω
Wind power prediction error in t and ω
Actual solar power generation in t and ω
Actual wind power generation in t and ω
I. I NTRODUCTION

Aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the power grid reliability, many countries are building

2

new power infrastructures known as the smart grid [2]. The
major features of the smart grid include more distributed power
generations (especially from renewable energy sources), smart
charging/discharging of energy storage, two-way communications between the utility company and consumers for a better
demand side management, and decentralized operations of
power grid in the form of microgrids [2]. It’s essential to
understand the impact of these new features, and how to make
optimal economic and technology decisions on the planning
and operation of the smart grid.
Recently, there are many studies on power grid planning
(e.g. [3], [4]), integration of renewable energy and energy
storage (e.g. [5]–[8]), and demand response (e.g. [10]–[12]).
However, the existing literature did not consider these important issues in a holistic fashion. For example, in [3]–[8],
microgrid planning is studied without considering flexible load
and microgrid operation. While in [9]–[12], only microgrid
operation is studied under given microgrid facilities. However,
all those new features including renewable energy, storage, and
demand response affect the optimal planning and operation of
the microgrid, and have to be taken into account at various
different time scales. In this paper, we will jointly consider
the optimal investment and operation of renewable generation,
energy storage, and demand response optimization in the smart
grid.
In particular, this paper will focus on the mixed investment
in renewable energy (both solar energy and wind energy) and
energy storage. The optimal mix of solar and wind energy
investment will depend on the stochastic nature of these two
sources, which is highly location dependent. Hence we will
rely on the meteorological data in Hong Kong to validate
the practical relevance of our study. Energy storage provides
flexibility in terms of coordinating supply and demand in the
microgrid. Through smart charging and discharging of the
energy storage, the microgrid operator is able to better utilize
the renewable energy generation and reduce dependency on
the main grid. The key question we want to answer is the
following: What is the optimal investment portfolio?
In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework that
captures the economic impact of renewable energy, storage,
and demand response in the smart grid, and derive the optimal
investment strategy and optimal demand response scheme
based on realistic data. The main contributions of this paper
are as follows.
• Correlation and scenarios of renewable energy: Based
on the meteorological data acquired from the Hong
Kong Observatory, we study the correlation between solar
power and wind power at certain locations of Hong Kong,
and suggest mixed renewable energy investment.
• Framework development: We develop a theoretical framework that enables us to derive the optimal investment of
mixed enewable generation and energy storage, and the
optimal operation in a demand-responsive microgrid. The
problem is challenging due to the coupling of decisions
of investment and operation at different time scales.
• Modeling and solution methods: We formulate the
joint investment and operation problem as a two-period
stochastic program. We design a distributed algorithm

to attain the optimal power scheduling in period-2, and
derive a single-level optimization formulation to solve the
optimal investment portfolio in period-1.
• Impact of uncertainty in renewable energy: We analyze
the impact of the prediction error of renewable energy
generation by the worst-case scenario analysis.
• Case studies in Hong Kong: Numerical studies based on
realistic meteorological data illustrate the optimal portfolio investment decisions, and demonstrate the benefits
of mixed renewable investment and demand response in
terms of saving investment.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We
review the related work in Section II. Then we analyze the
renewable power generation of Hong Kong in Section III,
and formulate the system model as a two-period stochastic
optimization problem in Section IV. We present the detailed
models for period-1 and period-2 in Section V and VI,
respectively. We propose the solution method in Section VII.
In Section VIII, we analyze the impact of the prediction
error of renewable energy generations on the energy portfolio
investment. Numerical results are presented in Section IX. This
paper is concluded in Section X.
II. R ELATED WORK
There are several related recent studies on power grid
planning, integration of renewable energy, and demand response. Specifically, studies in [3] and [4] examined investment strategies on renewable energy generation through
empirical (or numerical) approaches, without considering the
power scheduling operation. Studies in [5] and [6] formulated cost minimization problems to determine the optimal
investment of solar-storage system and wind-storage system,
respectively. Wang et al. in [7] considered the optimal planning
problem for mixed solar-wind energy in microgrids using
robust optimization. Yang and Nehorai in [8] formulated a
cost optimization problem to decide the optimal capacities for
renewable energy generation and energy storage, and solved
the problem in a distributed fashion. However, none of these
studies took the proactive operation (such as demand response)
into consideration. Optimal demand response for residential
consumers and energy storage have been studied to derive the
proper incentive schemes through either game theoretic models
[9], [10] or optimization models [11], [12]. The key idea of
these studies is to design incentive mechanisms such that costaware users schedule their elastic demands as responses to
price changes.
The existing literature focused on either renewable energy
and energy storage investment at a large time scale (years),
or power scheduling and demand response optimization under
given energy capacity at a small time scale (hours and days).
However, the decisions at these two different time scales are
actually tightly coupled. The portfolio investment determines
the time-varying power supply availability and power scheduling flexibility, and thus affects operator’s power dispatch and
users’ demand response at a smaller time scale. Meanwhile,
demand response can try to match the demand with the time
varying renewable energy supply, and hence can maximize

3

TMT
New Territories

TPK
SKG
SHA

SKG
Kowloon TC
KP
Lantau Island

Hong Kong
Island

WGL

Meteorological station measuring solar radiation and wind speed
Meteorological station measuring wind speed

Fig. 1: Locations of meteorological stations
the benefit of renewable energy and even reduce unnecessary
investment expenditure at a large time scale. Therefore, the
investment and operation at various time scales should be
jointly optimized.
Recently, joint optimization of investment and operation has
been considered in [13]–[15] to study the wind power investment and network expansion at a transmission-level. Different
from [13]–[15], our work aims to study the energy portfolio
investment in microgrids at a distribution-level. Specifically,
we consider a holistic configuration of the microgrid to incorporate the latest technologies of smart grid, which includes
not only renewable energy but also energy storage and demand
response. Moreover, we construct an investment portfolio that
consists of different technologies (e.g., solar power, wind
power, and storage), and provide a systematic framework to
jointly determine the optimal portfolio investment strategy and
optimal pricing scheme for demand response.
III. S OLAR POWER AND WIND POWER IN H ONG KONG
Aiming at studying the renewable power patterns in Hong
Kong, we acquire meteorological data from the Hong Kong
Observatory. The data include the hourly solar radiation in
King’s Park (KP) of Hong Kong, and hourly wind speed at
seven different locations (KP, TMT, TPK, SHA, SKG, TC,
WGL) of Hong Kong, as shown in Fig. 1. Based on the data,
we analyze the correlations of solar power and wind power
generations across different locations of Hong Kong, which
motivate us to study the mixed renewable energy investment
in microgrids.
A. Correlation between solar power and wind power
Both solar power and wind power are intermittent power
sources, and their stochastic features could be highly
locational-dependent. Since Hong Kong is relatively small,
we assume that the solar radiation is the same across Hong
Kong and is represented by the data measured in KP. The
wind power, however, has clearly different patterns at different
locations.
In this paper, we will focus on one year of meteorological
data (from Sep. 1 2012 to Aug. 31 2013) to study the solar

power and wind power productions. Based on the solar power
model [16] and wind power model [17], we calculate the
hourly solar and wind power productions in 365 days based on
the measurement of data of solar radiation and wind speed.1
To study the statistical correlation between the hourly solar
and wind power productions over one year, we calculate the
sample correlation coefficient [18] as


P
Y (k) − Ȳ
k X(k) − X̄
ρX,Y = qP
2 qP
2 ,
X(k)
−
X̄
Y
(k)
−
Ȳ
k
k
where X and Y are data series with k = 1, ..., K terms, X̄
and Ȳ are the mean values of X and Y , respectively, and
ρX,Y measures the correlation coefficient between X and Y .
We substitute the one-year hourly solar power production into
X, and the one-year hourly wind power production of each
location into Y , and calculate their correlations. We find that
the wind powers in four locations (KP, TPK, SHA, SKG) of
Hong Kong have positive correlations with solar power, while
the correlation is negative in two locations (TC, WGL), and
the correlation is close to zero in location TMT.
Motivated by the Markowitz portfolio selection theory in
Finance [19], we will study the mixed investment strategy of
solar power and wind power in the following two locations:
TC and SKG. Specifically, TC and SKG are two representative
examples for negative and positive correlations (with correlation coefficient −0.22 and 0.15) between solar and wind power
generations, respectively.
B. Scenario generation of solar power and wind power
To study the mixed investment of solar power and wind
power, we need to model the solar power and wind power
generations. Usually, the renewable energy investment is made
for years of operation. Therefore, we use one-year historical data to empirically model the distributions of solar and
wind power generations, similar as [13], and assume that the
future renewable generations in each year follow the same
distribution of the one-year historical data. Each daily power
production realization (solar power production in KP, wind
power productions in TC and SKG) is called a scenario,
and thus we obtain 365 scenarios for solar power and wind
power respectively. As a large number of scenarios will reduce
the computational tractability of the investment optimization
problem, it is useful to choose a smaller subset of scenarios
that can well approximate the original entire scenario set. Such
technique has been widely used in economics and engineering
research [20], [21] for the purpose of modeling stochastic
processes.
We applied the forward scenario reduction algorithm [21] to
find a best scenario subset, and assign new probabilities to the
smaller number scenarios. The key idea is to select a subset
of scenarios to preserve, such that the corresponding reduced
probability measure is the closest to the original measure. We
set the number of preserved scenarios as 10,2 and generate
1 The technical parameters of the solar power model and wind power model
are shown in the online technical report [31].
2 The persevered number of scenarios depends on the tradeoff between
performance and computational complexity in practice.

1

0.5

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1

5

10

15

20

24

Wind Power (kW)

1

Wind Power (kW)

Solar Power (kW)

4

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1

5

Time (Hour)

10

15

20

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

24

5

Time (Hour)

Fig. 2: Solar power scenarios in KP
(per 1kW capacity)

Fig. 3: Wind power scenarios in TC
(per 1kW capacity)

selected scenarios for the solar power production in KP (which
we assume is the same as in TC and SKG since Hong Kong is
relatively small geographically) and wind power productions
in TC and SKG, shown in Fig. 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, we have
a set of 10 scenarios denoted as Ω for the renewable energy
generation, and each renewable generation scenario ω ∈ Ω
consists of solar power and wind power productions in TC
and SKG.3 Comparing Fig. 3 and 4 with Fig. 2, we can see
that the solar power has a peak at noontime, while wind power
productions show dramatic locational differences. Wind power
in TC is often adequate during night time, while wind power in
SKG reaches a higher output level during day time. Therefore,
solar power and wind power have high locational dependence,
which motivates us to study the optimal mixed investment of
both cases. The data we use can be found at [32].
IV. S YSTEM OVERVIEW
In this section, we present the system model for the joint
investment and operation problem. Fig. 5 illustrates a typical
microgrid, which connects to the main power grid, and consists
of different local power supplies and responsive demand.
Solar Power Wind Power

Microgrid
Energy Storage

10

15

20

24

Time (Hour)

Fig. 4: Wind power scenarios in SKG
(per 1kW capacity)

energy storage device is also implemented in the microgrid
to charge and discharge power properly to reduce the system
operating cost. The demand side consists of a set of electricity
users N = {1, ..., N }, and each user i ∈ N is equipped with a
smart meter and energy scheduling module. The operator runs
the microgrid, determines the investment in renewable energy
and energy storage capacities at a large time scale (years), as
well as energy prices at a small time scale (hours in one day).
The users determine their energy consumptions based on the
prices set by the operator (as the demand response).
From the operator’s perspective, it needs to decide the
optimal capacity investment and power scheduling. Fig. 6
depicts the investment and operation horizons. An investment
horizon usually corresponds to several years. The operation
horizon is one day, which includes T = {1, ..., T } of T
time slots (say 24 hours). To model both investment and
operation, we propose a two-period stochastic program that
jointly optimizes capacity investment and power scheduling
in the microgrid. Specifically, the period-1 problem is a longterm capacity investment problem, with the objective of minimizing the expected overall cost over an investment horizon
H = {1, ..., D} of D days, subject to a budget constraint. The
period-2 problem is a power scheduling problem, with the
objective of minimizing the operating costs of both operator
and users under a specific realization of renewable power
generation within a smaller time window.
Investment horizon

Main Power Grid
Operator

1

2
1

v

s

Smart
Meters
Demand
Response
Power

Communications

Fig. 5: System model
Within the microgrid, there is a local generation system,
consisting of solar and wind renewable power generation. An
3 For the detailed scenario generation and reduction, please refer to the
technical report [31].

D
2

Operation horizon

T

Days
Hours

Fig. 6: Investment and operation horizons
Note that the investment and operation problems are closely
coupled, as the investment decision affects the operational cost,
and the expected recurring operational cost affects the investment decision. Fig. 7 shows the connection between period1 investment problem and period-2 operational problem. In
period-2, the optimal power scheduling is affected by both
power supply and demand, and in particular the renewable
power supply depends on the capacity investment decision
made in period-1. On the other hand, the overall cost in
period-1 includes both the one-time investment cost and the

5

Renewable generation capacity
Period 1 (years):
Investment

price time slots to low price time slots. The corresponding
discomfort (or inconvenience) [22] is
X ω,t
2
Ci (xω
xi − yit ,
(3)
i ) = βi

Period 2 (daily):
Operation

t∈T

Capital Investment + Operating Cost

where βi is the coefficient of discomfort cost, which indicates
the sensitivity of user i towards its deviation from the preferred
power consumption.

Total cost minimization over investment horizon
(incorporating operational decisions)

Fig. 7: Two-periods optimization problem
B. Operator’s model
recurring operating cost of all D days in period-2. Hence the
decisions in two periods are coupled. In the following, we will
first formulate the operation problem in period-2, and then
formulate the investment problem in period-1.
V. P ERIOD -2 PROBLEM FOR MICROGRID OPERATIONS
In this section, we first present the models of users and
the operator, and then formulate the operator’s operating cost
minimization problem.
A. User’s model
We classify each user’s load into two types: the elastic load
and the inelastic load. The elastic load corresponds to the
energy usage of those appliances such as electric vehicles,
washing machines, and HVAC (heating, ventilation and air
Conditioning) systems, as a user may shift the flexible load
over time. The inelastic load corresponds to the energy usage
of appliances such as lighting, refrigerators, and such load
cannot be easily shifted over time. The demand response can
only control the elastic load. We denote the corresponding
ω,t
ω,t
decisions as xω
is user i’s
i = {xi , ∀t ∈ T }, where xi
elastic energy consumption in time slot t ∈ T under renewable
energy generation scenario ω.
The elastic load scheduling for all users needs to satisfy the
following two constraints:
t

dti ≤ xω,t
≤ di , ∀t ∈ T , i ∈ N ,
i
X ω,t
xi = Di , i ∈ N .

(1)
(2)

t∈T

Constraint (1) provides a minimum power consumption dti and
t
a maximum power consumption di for the user i in each time
slot t.4 Constraint (2) corresponds to the total elastic energy
demand Di for user i in the entire operation horizon.
We further introduce a discomfort cost Ci (·), which meaω,t
sures user i’s experience under xω
i = {xi , ∀t ∈ T }
which deviates from his preferred power consumption y i =
{yit , ∀t ∈ T } under a time-independent flat price environment.
We assume that the operator can control the demand to
minimize the operating cost. Later in Section VII, we will
discuss how such control can be realized through a properly
designed pricing mechanism. If the operator sets time-varying
prices, energy users will schedule their elastic loads to minimize users’ costs, i.e. shifting power consumption from high
4 Constraint (1) is general and can model the staring time and ending time
of an elastic load by setting proper parameters.

We assume that the operator can predict the renewable
energy production scenario ω accurately at the beginning
of an operation horizon (a day).5 In scenario ω and each
time slot t, the operator determines the renewable power
supply, conventional power procurement, and energy storage
charging and discharging to meet the total users’ demand,
which consists of the elastic power consumption xω
i from each
user i ∈ N and the aggregate inelastic load {bt , t ∈ T } of
all the users.
1) Power supply: The renewable power supply r ω =
ω,t
{r , ∀t ∈ T } and conventional power procurement q ω =
{q ω,t , ∀t ∈ T } should satisfy the following constraints:
ω,t
0 ≤ rω,t ≤ rmax
, ∀t ∈ T ,

(4)

q ω,t ≥ 0, ∀t ∈ T ,

(5)

ω,t
in constraint (4) depends on the invested capacities
where rmax
of solar power αs and wind power αw , which are the operator’s
decision variables in period-1. For each unit of invested
solar capacity and wind capacity, the corresponding solar
power and wind power in scenario ω and time t will be
ω,t
ω
ω,t
ηω
s = {ηs , ∀t ∈ T } and η w = {ηw , ∀t ∈ T }, respectively.
ω,t
ω,t
ω,t
Hence we have rmax = ηs αs +ηw αw . Constraint (5) means
that the operator can only purchase power from the main grid,
but cannot sell power to the main grid, assuming that the
main grid does not accommodate distributed generations in
the microgrid. We assume that the main grid has adequate
power to meet the demand of the microgrid, hence there is no
upper-bound of q ω,t in (5). Different from the conventional
power generation, the renewable power generation does not
consume fuel sources, so we assume zero cost of generating
renewable power [5]. Therefore, the operator will try to use
as much renewable power as possible to meet the demand.
2) Energy storage: It’s well-known that energy storage
(such as batteries) can smooth out the intermittent renewable power generation, match demand and supply by smart
charge/discharge, and exploit time-varying energy generation
costs for arbitrage. In our paper, energy storage is regarded
as an energy asset in the investment portfolio, as it can complement time-varying renewable energy generation to provide
relatively stable power supply, and can also work in parallel
with demand response programs to help balance demand and
5 The short-run (day-ahead) renewable energy forecast can be quite accurate
in practice [23], [24]. We will also consider the impact of prediction error
in Section VIII. In addition, this paper focuses on the microgrid energy
management instead of the transient dynamics and stability of the sysetem.
Therefore, we assume that the microgrid operator is able to manage the
intermittency of renewable generations, such that the stability of the microgrid
system can always be guaranteed.

6

supply. We assume that the microgrid operator has decided in
period-1 to install energy storage devices with a total capacity
αe , and let SOC ω,t , rcω,t , and rdω,t denote the state-of-charge
of the storage, charging amount, discharging amount in time
slot t and scenario ω, respectively.
First, the energy charging and discharging amounts are
bounded, and satisfy the following constraints:
0 ≤ rcω,t ≤ αe rcmax , ∀t ∈ T ,
0≤

rdω,t

≤

αe rdmax ,

∀t ∈ T ,

(6)
(7)

where rcmax > 0 and rdmax > 0 denote the maximum charging and discharging amount per unit capacity of the energy
storage, respectively. Hence, αe rcmax and αe rdmax indicate the
maximum charging and discharging amount after the operator
decides to deploy energy storage facilities with the capacity
of αe .
Second, there are power losses when electricity is charged
into and discharged from the battery. We denote ηc ∈ [0, 1]
and ηd ∈ [0, 1] as the conversion efficiencies of charging and
discharging. Therefore, we obtain the energy storage dynamics
of the microgrid i in time slot t as
rω,t
ηc rcω,t
− d ∀t ∈ T ,
αe
ηd αe
≤ SOCmax , ∀t ∈ T ,

SOC ω,t = SOC ω,t−1 +

(8)

SOCmin ≤ SOC ω,t

(9)

SOC

ω,0

= SOC

ω,T

,

(10)

where SOC ω,t evolves with charging and discharging of the
battery according to (8). It is shown in (9) that SOC ω,t is
bounded between SOCmin and SOCmax , which are lower and
upper bounds [25] for the level of energy storage in percentage, respectively. For example, we can set SOCmax as 100%,
which means the battery can be charged to reach its full capacity. We can set SOCmin = 1 − DODmax , where DODmax is
the maximum depth-of-discharge (DOD) allowed.6 Moreover,
we set the terminal state-of-charge SOC ω,T at the end of each
day to be equal to its initial value SOC ω,0 at the beginning of
each day, such that the battery can be operated independently
across days.
3) Operator’s cost: The power supply and demand should
satisfy the following power balance constraint in time slot t.
X ω,t
rω,t + q ω,t + rdω,t = rcω,t + bt +
xi , ∀t ∈ T , (11)
i∈N
ω

ω,t

We let Q = {Q
i.e.,

, t ∈ T } denote the aggregate supply,

Qω,t = rω,t + q ω,t ≥ 0, ∀t ∈ T ,

(12)

and we can rewrite the power balance constraint (11) as
follows:
X ω,t
Qω,t = bt +
xi + rcω,t − rdω,t , ∀t ∈ T .
(13)
i∈N
6 DOD is defined as the ratio of maximum discharge to the battery capacity
[26]. Usually, the lifetime of a battery can be measured by the number of
charge-discharge cycles it can sustain at a given DoDmax . High DODmax
causes fast depreciation of battery storage. Therefore, we set a low DODmax
(thus a high SOCmin ) for the battery operation to reduce the impact of battery
degradation, so as to make sure that the lifetime of battery is no shorter than
the investment horizon.

If the operator has enough renewable generation to meet
ω,t
the aggregate demand, i.e. rmax
≥ Qω,t , then there is no need
to purchase any conventional power, i.e. q ω,t = 0. On the
ω,t
other hand, if rmax
< Qω,t , the operator will first use all the
ω,t
ω,t
renewable power r = rmax
, and then purchase conventional
ω,t
ω,t
ω,t
power q
= Q − rmax to meet the power deficit. The
production cost of conventional power has a quadratic form
[27], and thus we define the operator’s cost as
Xh
+ i 2
ω,t
Co (Qω ) = βo
Qω,t − ηsω,t αs − ηw
αw
, (14)
t∈T

where (z)+ = max{z, 0} for any value z, and βo is the
coefficient of the operator’s cost.
C. The period-2 problem
Next we state the period-2 problem, where the operator
coordinates aggregate power supply Qω and schedules users’
power consumptions xω
i to minimize the operating cost, which
consists of the operator’s cost Co (Qω ) and all the users’ costs
Ci (xω
i ) as follows.
P2: Operating cost minimization in period-2
X
ω
min
C
(Q
)
+
Ci (xω
o
i )
ω
ω
Q ,xi

subject to

i∈N

Constraints (1), (2), (6)-(10), (13).

Problem P2 is convex, and can be solved efficiently if
a centralized optimization is possible. However, this may
not be feasible in practice, as the operator cannot directly
control users’ power consumptions {xω
i , ∀i ∈ N }. We will
discuss the design of a pricing scheme to derive the optimal
power consumptions of users and the implementation of a
decentralized algorithm in Section VII.
VI. P ERIOD -1 PROBLEM FOR PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT
In the period-1 investment problem, the operator needs
to determine the capacities of the solar power, wind power,
and energy storage facilities (αs , αw , and αe ) for the entire
investment horizon, subject to a budget constraint B.7 These
capacity decisions will determine the renewable power production and energy storage flexibility in each day of period-2,
and consequently affect the power scheduling and operating
cost. The operator wants to make optimal investment decisions to minimize the overall cost, including both the capital
investment and the expected operating cost in period-2.
The capital investment cost can be represented as
CI (αs , αw , αe ) = cs αs + cw αw + ce αe ,

(15)

where cs , cw and ce denote the investment costs of solar
power, wind power and energy storage per kW , respectively.
The investment cost covers all expenditures, e.g., deployment,
installation and maintenance of photovoltaic panel for solar
energy, turbine for wind energy, inverters, controllers, and
cables.
7 we assume that the microgrid operator makes direct investment for the
next long period of operation.

7

The daily expected operating cost Eω [f (·)] is a function of
the invested capacities αs , αw and αe ,
X
Eω∈Ω [f (αs , αw , αe , ω)] =
πω f (αs , αw , αe , ω), (16)
ω∈Ω

where ω ∈ Ω denotes the renewable power scenario with a
realization probability πω , which is obtained by the scenario
reduction algorithm in Section II. Specifically, the operating
cost function in scenario ω is the optimized objective value
(i.e. minimized operating cost) of the period-2 problem in
scenario ω:
X
ω
f (αs , αw , αe , ω) = min
[C
(Q
)
+
Ci (xω
(17)
o
i )],
ω
ω
Q ,xi

i∈N

where the cost depends on the renewable power supply in
scenario ω and users’ demand responses in period-2.
The period-1 optimization problem is subject to a budget
constraint and capacity constraints as follows:
(18)

min
ω

ω
Ce (xω
i ) + Ci (xi )

αs ≥ 0, αw ≥ 0, αe ≥ 0,

(19)

subject to

Constraints (1) and (2),

P1: Joint investment and operation in period-1
CI (αs , αw , αe ) + D · Eω∈Ω [f (αs , αw , αe , ω)]

min

subject to

Pui : User i’s cost minimization problem

cs αs + cw αw + ce αe ≤ B,

where (18) indicates that the total investment expense cannot
be greater than the budget B, and the capacity investment must
be non-negative.
To summarize, the period-1 problem is as follows.

αs ,αw ,αe

In particular, the operator can set day-ahead prices pω =
{pω,t , t ∈ T } for the users in scenario ω, and let users
choose the proper power scheduling accordingly to minimize
their own costs. In the following, we first present a user’s
total cost minimization problem given the prices. Then we
discuss the operator’s optimal choices of prices so that the
users’ power scheduling decisions coincide with the optimal
solution of Problem P2.
1) User’s problem: In scenario ω, user i receives the
price signals pω and schedules the power consumption xω
i
to minimize the total cost. Specifically, user i’s total cost
consists of two parts: energy cost Ce and discomfort cost
Ci . The energy cost8 of user i depends on the price and
user i’s power
which can be represented as
P consumption,
ω,t ω,t
xi . Therefore, we have the following
Ce (xω
i ) =
t∈T p
total cost minimization problem for user i in scenario ω.

Constraints (18) and (19),

where the objective function consists of capital investment cost
CI and expected operating cost D·Eω [f (·)] under all scenarios
ω ∈ Ω over a total D days of operation in the entire investment
horizon.

xi

where each user solves its optimal power consumption as a
response to the price signal set by the microgrid operator.
2) Optimal pricing and decentralized algorithm: We denote
pω∗ = {pω,t∗ , ∀t ∈ T } as the optimal pricing that induces
the socially optimal power consumption {xω∗
i , ∀i ∈ N } in
scenario ω (i.e. the optimal solution of Problem P2). We have
the following theorem.
Theorem 1. In each scenario ω, the optimal pricing scheme
pω∗ that induces the socially optimal power consumptions xω∗
i
for each user i satisfies the following relationship,

ω
)
ω,t
 ∂Co (Q
,
, when Qω,t∗ > rmax
∂Qω,t
ω,t∗
Qω,t =Qω,t∗
(20)
p
=
0,
when Qω,t∗ ≤ rω,t .
max

VII. S OLUTION M ETHOD
To solve the above two-period stochastic programming
problem, we start with solving the period-2 problem P2 using
a distributed algorithm. Then we solve the period-1 problem
P1 to obtain the optimal portfolio investment.
A. Period-2: Optimal power scheduling
As mentioned in Section V, it is not practical for the
operator to solve Problem P2 centrally and control users’
power consumptions directly. Instead, the operator and users
compute the price and power consumption in an iterative
fashion, as shown in Fig. 8.
Operator determines the optimal day-ahead prices
Pricing
Power consumption
Consumers decide the optimal power scheduling

Fig. 8: Iterative pricing and scheduling

Theorem 1 motivates us to design a decentralized algorithm
in Algorithm 1, where the operator sets the day-ahead prices
and users respond to the prices by determining their power
consumptions. At the beginning of each day, the operator
and each user’s smart meter compute the hourly electricity
prices and the corresponding hourly power consumptions
iteratively for the whole-day operation. In Algorithm 1, we
consider a sequence of diminishing stepsizes, γk ’s, which
satisfy the
P following conditions: limk→∞ γ(k) = 0 and
limk→∞ k γ(k) = ∞.9
We can see that the decentralized Algorithm 1 requires
minimum information exchange between the operator and
users. The users only report their power consumptions to the
operator, and the operator broadcasts the prices to all users
based on the aggregate power load. There is no need for the
users to directly coordinate with each other or to reveal their
private information (such as cost function and consumption
8 The user cannot change the energy cost related to inelastic load, hence we
do not consider that in user’s optimization problem.
9 Problem P2 is convex, and the corresponding decentralized algorithm
that is executed once a day can coverage fast in the microgrid context with
thousands of electricity users.

8

Algorithm 1 Decentralized algorithm in the microgrid
Initialization: iteration index k = 0, error tolerance  > 0,
t
stepsize γ(k) > 0, predicted scenario ω, and xω,t
i (0) = yi .
2: repeat
3:
Operator: At the k-th iteration, the operator collects
each user’s consumption and computes the aggregate
supply Qω , and sets the prices pω,t (k) according to (20).
4:
Users: Each user i solves Problem Pui by updating
the power consumption xω,t
i (k + 1) based on the price
pω,t (k):


∂Ci (xi ω (k))
ω,t
ω,t
ω,t
+ p (k) .
x̂i (k + 1) = xi (k) − γ(k)
∂xω,t
i (k)
1:

5:

Project the power consumption on the feasible set by
solving the following problem:
min

xω
i (k+1)

subject to
6:
7:
8:

ω
k xω
i (k + 1) − x̂i (k + 1) k

Constraints (1) and (2).

k = k + 1;
until k pω (k) − pω (k − 1) k≤ .
end

constraints). The prices set by the operator are the same for
all users, and reflect the total power load without disclosing
individual user’s power consumption. Induced by the optimal
pricing scheme set by the microgrid operator, the optimal
power consumption of each individual user is the socially
optimal power consumption, which minimizes the social cost.
Theorem 2. Algorithm 1 is a sub-gradient projection algorithm for solving Problem P2, and (with a diminishing
stepsize) it converges to the socially optimal price and power
consumption {pω∗ , xω∗ } for each ω.
B. Period-1: Optimal energy portfolio investment
After solving the period-2 problem P2, we solve the period1 problem P1 as follows.
Theorem 3. The operator’s investment problem P1 is equivalent to the following optimization problem EP1:
min

(cs αs + cw αw + ce αe )
h
i
X
+ D · Eω Co (Qω ) +
Ci (xω
)
i

subject to

Constraints (1), (2), (6)-(10), (13), (18), (19),

i∈N

Varaibles: αs , αw , αe , Qω , xω ,
in which we assume that the operator can estimate the information about user’s power consumption behaviors through
a survey or daily operations, and the parameters in (1) and
(2) are known to the operator. Then the operator solves
the equivalent problem EP1 for the optimal investment in
a centralized manner. Note that EP1 is a convex quadratic
program and can be solved efficiently using a standard interiorpoint method [28].
For the proofs of Theorems, please refer to the online
technical report [31].

VIII. U NCERTAINTY IN R ENEWABLE G ENERATION
In the previous sections, we have assumed that the operator
can predict the solar power generation and wind power generation accurately. Nevertheless, the actual renewable energy
generation may deviate from the predicted values due to
uncertain weather conditions and different prediction methodologies. Therefore, it is necessary to study the impact of
such prediction errors on the optimal operation and investment
decisions. In this section, we use the worst-case uncertainty
approach [29] to analyze such an issue, by assuming that the
uncertain variables are assumed to be bounded in a given
uncertainty set. Our aim is to maximize the performance by
considering the worst case in the uncertainty set. Note that
the robust optimization problem is formulated in period-2
to incorporate the impact of prediction errors of renewable
power generations. The period-1 problem, on the other hand,
minimizes the overall cost of investment and operation. The
detailed formulation is presented in the following.
We define the prediction errors for solar power generation
and eω,t
and wind power generation as eω,t
w in time slot t
s
and each scenario ω. Then we can represent the actual solar
ω,t
as the
power generation η̂sω,t and wind power generation η̂w
summation of predicted generations and corresponding errors:
η̂sω,t = ηsω,t + eω,t
s ,
ω,t
ω,t
η̂w
= ηw
+ eω,t
w .

We assume that the prediction errors are bounded in the
following uncertainty sets in scenario ω:
n
o
ω,t
ω,t
Esω = eω,t
,
(21)
s,min ≤ es ≤ es,max , t ∈ T
n
o
ω,t
ω,t
Ewω = eω,t
,
(22)
w,min ≤ ew ≤ ew,max , t ∈ T
ω,t
where eω,t
s,min and es,max denote the lower bound and upper
bound of the solar power prediction error in time slot t and
ω,t
scenario ω, respectively; eω,t
w,min and ew,max denote the lower
bound and upper bound of the wind power prediction error in
time slot t and scenario ω, respectively.
ω,t
ω
ω,t
Firstly, we let eω
s = {es , t ∈ T } and ew = {ew , t ∈ T }
denote the prediction error vectors in scenario ω for the solar
power generation and wind power generation, respectively. We
define the actual operating cost of the microgrid operator in
period-2 as
Xh
+ i 2
ω
ω,t
Ĉo (Qω , eω
Qω,t − η̂sω,t αs − η̂w
αw
.
s , e w ) = βo
t∈T

(23)
Then, we aim to maximize the worst-case performance of
the microgird operation, under all possible prediction errors Esω
and Ewω , using robust optimization techniques [29]. Since the
investment cost does not explicitly contain prediction errors,
we will focus on the worst operating cost minimizing problem.
Based on (23), we formulate the operating cost minimization
problem in period-2 as a robust optimization problem denoted
as RP2:

9

A. Optimal investment

ω,∗
We substitute the worst-case prediction errors {eω,∗
s , ew }
into RP2, and denote the minimized actual operating cost as
X
ω,∗
fˆ(αs , αw , αe , ω) = min
[Ĉo (Qω , eω,∗
Ci (xω
s , ew ) +
i )].
ω
ω
Q ,xi

i∈N

(25)
Based on the minimized actual operating cost (25) in period2, we write the worst-case overall cost minimizing problem in
period-1 as

Invested Capacity

First, we study the optimal investment strategies of solar
RP2: Robust optimization for operating cost minimization
power,
wind power, and energy storage in TC and SKG under
"
#
X
different
budget constraints, as shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10,
ω
min
max
Ĉo (Qω , eω
Ci (xω
s , ew ) +
i )
respectively.
When the budget is tight (e.g., below 3 million
ω
ω
ω
ω
Q ,xi es ,ew
i∈N
HKD), the investment priority at location TC is wind power as
subject to
Constraints (1), (2), (6)-(10), (13), (21), (22). it’s more economical. While the budget increases, investments
To solve RP2, we first solve the inner maximization prob- in solar power and energy storage capacities also increase,
lem of RP2, which aims to maximize the actual operating but wind power still dominates the energy portfolio. This is
because the wind power output is higher than solar power
ω
cost with respect to prediction errors eω
s and ew . Observing
the objective function of RP2, we see that users’ total cost at location TC, and the demand response scheme as well as
P
energy storage can help better utilize the wind power. The
ω
i∈N Ci (xi ) is independent of prediction errors. Therefore,
we focus on the first term which is the operator’s cost. Given optimal investment expense is 4.6 million HKD at TC, and
the operator’s actual power scheduling Qω , we denote the even given more budget (e.g., greater than 5 million HKD), the
optimal capacity investment remains the same. From Fig. 10,
worst-case prediction errors as
we see that the optimal investment strategy at location SKG is
ω
ω,∗
ω
ω
different, with the main difference that more investment is put
{eω,∗
,
e
}
=
arg
max
Ĉ
(Q
,
e
,
e
).
(24)
o
s
w
s
w
ω
ω
ω
eω
s ∈Es , ew ∈Ew
into solar power generation. This is because the wind power
ω
ω
ω
Since the operator’s actual cost Ĉo (Q , es , ew ) in (23) is a output at SKG is not as adequate as that at TC and solar
ω
ω
power fits the daily demand better at SKG. As a result, wind
convex function of eω
s and ew (under a given Q ), the optimal
ω
solution must hit the boundary of the uncertainty sets Es and power generation becomes less competitive at SKG. When
Ewω . Moreover, we observe that the actual cost of the operator the budget is less than 4 million HKD, all the investment goes
ω
to solar power, and when the budget further increases, the
Ĉo (Qω , eω
s , ew ) is a non-increasing function with respect to
ω
ω
investments in wind power and energy storage increase. The
es and ew . Thus we have the following theorem:
optimal investment expense is 5.1 million HKD at SKG.
Theorem 4. The optimal solutions of (24) hit the lower
ω,∗
= {eω,t
=
bounds, i.e. eω,∗
s
s,min , ∀t ∈ T } and ew
800
ω,t
{ew,min , ∀t ∈ T }.
Solar power (kW)

400

200

0
1

RP1: Robust optimization for overall cost minimization
h
i
min
CI (αs , αw , αe ) + D · Eω∈Ω fˆ(αs , αw , αe , ω)

Wind power (kW)
Energy storage (kWh)

600

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Investment Budget (Million HKD)

Fig. 9: Capacity investment at TC

αs ,αw ,αe

Constraints (18) and (19),

which solves the optimal capacity investment under the worstcase prediction of renewable energy scenarios. Note that RP1
shares the same structure as Problem P1, and thus can be
solved by the same methodology presented in Section VII.
IX. S IMULATION R ESULTS
We assume that the investment horizon includes D = 3650
days (10 years). We use the load curve in [30] as the preferred
power consumption, and set βo = 0.005 and βi = 0.5 for
i ∈ N . The investment costs of solar energy, wind energy
and energy storage are set as cs = 12, 480 HKD per kW,
cw = 7, 800 HKD per kW and ce = 1, 950 HKD per kWh.
We obtain renewable power scenarios as discussed in Section
II, with details described in the online technical report [31].

500

Invested Capacity

subject to

Solar power (kW)
Wind power (kW)
Energy storage (kWh)

400
300
200
100
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Investment Budget (Million HKD)

Fig. 10: Capacity investment at SKG

10

B. Benefit of demand response

8
Solar power
Wind power

6

C. Optimal power scheduling and pricing
Next we focus on the numerical studies of the power
scheduling in period-2. First, we plot the energy supply and
power load at location TC of a typical day in Fig. 13 and
Fig. 14, respectively. Note that we treat the aggregate supply
from both solar power and wind power as renewable power in
period-2. Fig. 13 shows that the renewable energy generation
provides high energy supply, especially at night time during
hour 7PM-5AM. Renewable energy generation drops drastically during hour 9AM-5PM, because location TC is mainly
supplied by wind power and wind power produces less at day
time. During this time period, the microgrid operator needs to
compensate the loss of renewable energy generation through
discharging the energy storage and purchasing energy from
the main grid, as we can see that the energy storage level
decreases. From Fig. 14, we see that the users respond to the
day-ahead prices by optimizing the power load (demand), so
that to shift the original peak power load during hour 9AM5PM to other time slots when there is more renewable energy
available.

Energy storage

300

Total investment

4

2

0

Without incentive

With incentive

Fig. 11: Energy portfolio investment at TC

Energy scheduling (kWh)

Optimal Investment (Million HKD)

We study the benefit of adopting demand response schemes,
and depict the results in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 for locations TC
and SKG, respectively. The investment budget in period-1 is
set as 6 million HKD. At location TC, without incentives (in
which case we keep the prices low and the same for 24 hours),
a user i will choose the power consumption according to the
preferred power consumption y i . In that case, it is optimal for
the operator to use 5.1 million HKD budget for investment
in period-1. With price incentives, the operator sets time
dependent day-ahead prices so that to steer the users’ power
consumptions to the socially optimal values. Comparing with
the case without incentives, optimal demand response under
incentives enables the operator to invest more wind power,
which has a lower investment cost than solar power. Energy
storage investment also decreases with incentives, because
the elastic demand can be shifted proactively, which reduces
the dependence on the energy storage. The total optimal
investment expenditure reduces by 9.4% to 4.6 million HKD,
which implies that the demand response may significantly
reduce the system cost and avoid over-investment.

The total optimal investment expenditure reduces by 6.1%
to 5.1 million HKD, demonstrating the benefit of demand
response.

Renewable energy supply
Main grid energy supply
Battery energy level

250
200
150
100
50
0
1

5

10

15

20

24

Fig. 13: Energy supply and storage at TC

8
Solar power
Wind power
Energy storage
Total investment

6

4

2

0

300

Power load (kW)

Optimal Investment (Million HKD)

Time (Hour)

250
200
150
100
50

Without incentive

With incentive

Fig. 12: Energy portfolio investment at SKG
At location SKG, Fig. 12 shows that it is optimal to use
5.4 million HKD budget for investment in period-1 without
incentives. However, with price incentives, optimal demand
response under incentives enables the operator to invest more
solar power but less energy storage, because the solar power
fits the demand better compared with the wind power at SKG.

0
1

Original power load
Optimized power load

5

10

15

20

24

Time (Hour)

Fig. 14: Power load at TC
We also study the energy supply and power load of a
typical day at location SKG, shown in Fig. 15 and Fig.
16, respectively. Fig. 15 shows that the renewable energy
generation provides high supply during day-time, especially

11

Pricing in SKG

1.5

1

0.5

5

10
15
Time (Hour)

20

24

Fig. 17: Day-ahead prices at TC and SKG

200
150

D. Impact of prediction errors

100

We take location TC as an example to study the impact of
prediction errors on the optimal investment, as shown in Fig.
18. When there is zero prediction error of renewable generations, the optimal investment is 4.6 million HKD. With the
increase of prediction errors, the optimal investment expense
increases, as the operator over-invests to hedge the risk of
renewable generation shortage caused by prediction errors. For
example, when the error is 10%, the operator invests 4.1% over
the 4.6 million HKD benchmark. This shows the importance
of accurate predication for achieving an optimal investment
decisions.

50
0
1

5

10

15

20

24

Time (Hour)

Fig. 15: Energy supply and storage at SKG
300

Power load (kW)

Pricing in TC

0
1

Renewable energy supply
Main grid energy supply
Battery energy level

250

2

250
200
150
100
Original power load
Optimized power load

50
0
1

5

10

15

20

24

Time (Hour)

Fig. 16: Power load at SKG
Fig. 17 shows the internal day-ahead prices at TC and
SKG. The prices indicate the marginal operating cost of the
microgrid. We see that the microgrid operator does not charge
the users when the demand can be satisfied by local renewable
energy generation (e.g., hour 1AM-3AM at TC). At location
TC, the operator charges high prices during day time, but
low prices at night time. The reason is that the renewable
portfolio consists of more wind power at TC, which has higher
power output at night than that during day time. The operator
needs to import more main grid power during hour 9AM6PM, which incurs operating cost. At location SKG, the price
trend is opposite to the price at TC. Because more solar power
is invested at SKG, which produces more renewable power
during day time. However, during night time, when there is
no solar power supply, the operator relies on main grid power,
and thus charges relatively high prices at night. The day-ahead
prices set by the operator provide efficiently incentivize users
to shift their flexible loads. In Fig. 14 and Fig. 16, we see that
users’ flexible loads deviate from the original patterns and are

Optimal Investment (Million HKD)

Energy scheduling (kWh)

300

shifted from high-price time slots to other low-price time slots
at both TC and SKG.
Day−ahead price (HKD/kWh)

during hour 10AM-4PM. During other time slots, the microgrid operator needs to make sure all the demand can be
satisfied, and thus purchases energy from the main grid. The
microgrid operator also charges energy storage during high
renewable supply periods (11AM-1PM), and discharges the
energy storage afterwards as we can see that the energy storage
level decreases after hour 7PM. Since location SKG has a large
portion of solar power, and there is a power supply peak during
day-time, we see from Fig. 16 that the original load during
evening-time after hour 6PM is shifted to day-time when there
is more renewable energy available.

6
11.1%
5.9% 7.5%
2.1% 4.1%

5
4
3
2
1
0

0

5
10 15 20
Prediction error (%)

25

Fig. 18: Impact of prediction errors
E. Comparison with existing studies
We add new simulations to compare our proposed method
with existing studies in the simulation. Specifically, we consider four benchmark methods, which are motivated by [5],
[6], [7] and [8], respectively. We first compute the optimal
capacity investment for all the benchmark methods, and then
calculate the corresponding investment cost and the actual
operational cost using one-year renewable energy data. The
simulation results (including the optimal capacity investment,
investment cost, operational cost, and overall cost) are summarized in Table I.
Benchmark 1 method focuses on the solar-storage investment, and benchmark 2 method focuses on the wind-storage

12

TABLE I: Performance comparison
Methods
Benchmark 1
Benchmark 2
Benchmark 3
Benchmark 4
Our method

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

Demand
response
N
N
N
N
Y

Solar power
(kW)
304.4
N
77.8
71.8
42.4

Wind power
(kW)
N
536.9
494.6
481.4
503.5

Energy storage
(kWh)
473.1
298.4
N
233.1
86.5

investment. We see that benchmark 2 achieves a much lower
overall cost than benchmark 1 (7.6 vs. 18.9 Million HKD),
because wind power is more abundant than solar power,
and the investment cost of wind power per unit capacity is
also lower than that of the solar power. Benchmark 3 and
benchmark 4 show the mixed renewable energy investment
with and without energy storage, respectively. We see that
benchmark 4 achieves a lower overall cost than benchmark
3 (7.6 vs. 8.4 Million HKD), because the energy storage
can help deal with the stochastic nature of renewable energy
by proper charging and discharging. Our proposed method
considers a comprehensive configuration of microgrids (solar
power, wind power, and energy storage), and also optimizes
demand response. Hence our proposed method has the minimum investment cost and operational cost, and achieves the
minimum overall cost compared with all other benchmark
methods. The simulation results in Table I demonstrate the
advantage of our proposed method over the existing literature.
X. C ONCLUSION
We proposed a theoretical framework to study the joint
investment and operation problem in the microgrid. The
two-period stochastic program models the renewable energy
uncertainty, and captures the coupled nature of investment
and operation. With realistic meteorological data, our model
provides the optimal investment decisions on renewable energy
and energy storage capacities, and the optimal demand response scheme (pricing and power scheduling) in a microgrid.
The simulation studies demonstrate the economic benefit of
demand response and the impact of prediction accuracy.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Wang and J. Huang, “Hybrid renewable energy investment in microgrid,” in Proc. of IEEE SmartGridComm, Venice, Italy, 2014.
[2] X. Fang, S. Misra, G. Xue, and D. Yang, “Smart grid-the new and
improved power grid: a survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials, 14: 944-980, 2012.
[3] H. Xu, U. Topcu, S.H. Low, C.R. Clarke, and K.M. Chandy, “Loadshedding probabilities with hybrid renewable power generation and energy storage,” in Proc. of Allerton Conference, 2010.
[4] Q. Fu et al., “Microgrid generation capacity design with renewables and
energy storage addressing power quality and surety,” IEEE Trans. on
Smart Grid, 3(4): 2019-2027, 2012.
[5] Y. Ru, J. Kleissl, and S. Martinez, “Storage size determination for gridconnected photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Trans. on Sustainable Energy,
4(1): 68-81, 2013.
[6] M. Dicorato, G. Forte, M. Pisani, and M. Trovato, “Planning and
operating combined wind-storage system in electricity market,” IEEE
Trans. on Sustainable Energy, 3(2): 209-217, 2012.
[7] Z. Wang, B. Chen, J. Wang, J. Kim, and M.M. Begovic, “Robust
optimization based optimal DG placement in microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
on Smart Grid, 5(5): 2173-2182, 2014.
[8] P. Yang and A. Nehorai, “Joint optimization of hybrid energy storage and
generation capacity with renewable energy,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid,
5(4): 1566-1574, 2014.

Investment cost
(Million HKD)
4.7
4.8
4.8
5.1
4.6

Operational cost
(Million HKD)
14.2
2.8
3.6
2.5
2.0

Overall
cost
(Million HKD)
18.9
7.6
8.4
7.6
6.6

[9] Y. Wang, W. Saad, Z. Han, H.V. Poor and T. Başar, “A game-theoretic
approach to energy trading in the smart grid,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid,
5(3): 1439-1450, 2014.
[10] A.H. Mohsenian-Rad, V.W.S. Wong, J. Jatskevich, R. Schober, and A.
Leon-Garcia, “Autonomous demand-side management based on gametheoretic energy consumption scheduling for the future smart grid,” IEEE
Trans. on Smart Grid, 1(3): 320-331, 2010.
[11] N. Li, L. Chen, and S.H. Low, “Optimal demand response based on
utility maximization in power networks,” in Proc. of IEEE PES General
Meeting, 2011.
[12] L. Qian, Y. Zhang, J. Huang, and Y. Wu, “Demand response management
via real-time electricity price control in smart grids,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, 31(7): 1268-1280, 2013.
[13] L. Baringo and A.J. Conejo, “Risk-constrained multi-stage wind power
investment,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 28(1): 401-411, 2013.
[14] L. Baringo and A.J. Conejo, “Strategic wind power investment,” IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, 29(3): 1250-1260, 2014.
[15] Y. Cao, M. He, Z. Wang, T. Jiang, and J. Zhang, “Multiple resource
expansion planning in smart grids with high penetration of renewable
generation,” in Proc. of IEEE SmartGridComm, 2012.
[16] F.O. Hocaoglu, O.N. Gerek, and M. Kurban, “A novel hybrid (windphotovoltaic) system sizing procedure,” Solar Energy, 83: 2019-2028,
2009.
[17] Y. Li, V.G. Agelidis, and Y. Shrivastava, “Wind-solar resource complementarity and its combined correlation with electricity load demand,” in
Proc. of IEEE ICIEA, 2009.
[18] J. Widén, “Correlations between large-scale solar and wind power in a
future scenario for Sweden,” IEEE Trans. on Sustainable Energy, 2(2):
177-184, 2011.
[19] D.G. Luenberger, “Investment science (2nd edition),” Oxford University
Press, 2013.
[20] A. Möller, W. Römisch, and K. Weber, “A new approach to O & D
revenue management based on scenario trees,” Journal of Revenue and
Pricing Management, 3(3): 265-276, 2004.
[21] N. Gröwe-Kuska, H. Heitsch, and W. Römisch, “Scenario reduction and
scenario tree construction for power management problems,” in Proc.
IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, 2003.
[22] L. Jiang and S.H. Low, “Multi-period Optimal Energy Procurement and
Demand Response in Smart Grid with Uncertain Supply,” in Proc. of
IEEE CDC, 2011.
[23] R.H. Inman, H.T.C. Pedro, and C.F.M. Coimbra, “Solar forecasting
methods for renewable energy integration,” Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, 39(6): 535-576, 2013.
[24] A.M. Foley, P.G. Leahy, A. Marvuglia, and E.J. McKeogh, “Current
methods and advances in forecasting of wind power generation,” Renewable Energy, 37(1): 1-8, 2012.
[25] A. Mishra et al., “Integrating energy storage in electricity distribution
networks,” in Proc. of ACM e-Energy, 2015.
[26] X. Ke, N. Lu, and C. Jin, “Control and size energy storage systems
for managing energy imbalance of variable generation resources,” IEEE
Trans. on Sustainable Energy, 6(1): 70-78, 2015.
[27] D. Kirschen and G. Strbac, “Fundamentals of power system economics,”
Wiley, 2004.
[28] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, “Convex Optimization,” Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2004.
[29] A. Ben-tal and A. Nemirovski, “Selected topics in robust convex
optimization,” Mathematical Programming, 112(1): 125-158, 2008.
[30] G. Carpinelli et al., “Optimal integration of distributed energy storage
devices in smart grids,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, 4(2): 985-995, 2013.
[31] H. Wang and J. Huang, Technical Report.[Online]
http://jianwei.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/MicrogridInvestment.pdf
[32] Summary of Wind and Solar Meteorological Data in Hong Kong, http:
//jianwei.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/energy.html

