Market-based Microgrid Optimal Scheduling
Sina Parhizi, Amin Khodaei
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Denver
Denver, CO, USA
sina.parhizi@du.edu, amin.khodaei@du.edu
Abstract— This paper presents an optimal scheduling model
for a microgrid participating in the electricity distribution
market in interaction with the Distribution Market Operator
(DMO). The DMO is a concept proposed here, which administers
the established electricity market in the distribution level, i.e.,
similar to the role of Independent System Operator (ISO) in the
wholesale electricity market, sets electricity prices, determines
the amounts of the power exchange between market
participators, and interacts with the ISO. Considering a
predetermined main grid power transfer to the microgrid, the
microgrid scheduling problem will aim at balancing the power
supply and demand while taking financial objectives into
account. A stochastic programming method is employed to model
prevailing uncertainties in the microgrid grid-connected and
islanded operations. Numerical simulations exhibit the
application and the effectiveness of the proposed market-based
microgrid scheduling model.

NOMENCLATURE
Sets and Indices:
ch
Superscript for energy storage charging mode.
Index for loads.
d
dch
Superscript for energy storage discharging mode.
D
Set of adjustable loads.
G
Set of dispatchable units.
i
Index for DERs.
s
Index for scenarios.
S
Set of energy storage systems.
t
Index for hours.

Index for sub-periods.
Parameters:
c
Penalty for scheduled power violation.
DR
Ramp down rate.
DT
Minimum down time.
F
Operation cost function of dispatchable unit.
MC
Minimum charging time.
MD
Minimum discharging time.
MU
Minimum operating time.
pr
Probability of scenarios.
P sch

U
UR

Main grid power transfer assigned to the
microgrid from the DMO.
Islanding binary indicator (1 when gridconnected, 0 when islanded).
Ramp up rate.

UT
,
Variables:
C
D
I
LS
P
PM

PM
PM
T ch
T dch
T on
T off
v

u
z





Minimum up time.
Specified start and end times of adjustable loads.
Energy storage available (stored) energy.
Load demand.
Commitment state of dispatchable unit (1 when
committed, 0 otherwise).
Load curtailment.
DER output power.
Main grid power transfer determined via optimal
scheduling.
Main grid power transfer mismatch with respect
to the assigned value.
Positive main grid power transfer mismatch.
Number of successive charging hours.
Number of successive discharging hours.
Number of successive ON hours.
Number of successive OFF hours.
Energy storage charging state (1 when charging, 0
otherwise).
Energy storage discharging state (1 when
discharging, 0 otherwise).
Adjustable load state (1 when operating, 0
otherwise)
Power transfer violation indicator (1 when
violated, 0 otherwise).
Value of lost load.
I. INTRODUCTION

Microgrids provide significant opportunities and new
functionalities to the smart electric grid by facilitating the
integration of distributed energy resources (DERs) to
distribution grids and further increasing system reliability and
resiliency. Providing local intelligence to the system,
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing the need
for expanding transmission and distribution facilities as a
result of generation-load proximity are among other value
propositions of microgrids [1]. In addition, the microgrid
capability to be operated as a single controllable entity enables
an active participation in variety of demand response
programs as well as sell back of electricity to the utility grid at
high price hours [2]–[9]. Majority of current microgrid

installations has been undertaken in North America [10], but it
is expected that by 2020 microgrid deployments be more
uniformly distributed around the world [11]. The microgrid
market in the U.S. is projected to be an annual $2 billion by
2015. The total installed microgrid capacity is expected to
grow from 1.1 GW in 2012 to 4.7 GW with a market
opportunity of U.S. $17.3 billion in 2017 [12]. Microgrid
deployments are also federally supported in the U.S. The U.S.
Department of Energy is planning microgrid developments
capable of reducing outage times by more than 98%, reducing
emissions by more than 20%, and improving system energy
efficiency by more than 20% by 2020 [13].
The microgrid control, one of the most imperative aspects
when deploying microgrids, is commonly performed in three
hierarchical levels, including primary, secondary, and tertiary
[14]. The first two control levels deal with droop control and
frequency/voltage adjustment and restoration when there is a
change in the amount of microgrid load and/or generation as
well as islanding transitions. The third level, however,
schedules microgrid components to obtain an economic
dispatch of available resources while taking main grid
interactions into account. Microgrid scheduling problem aims
to minimize the operational costs of local DERs, as well as the
energy exchange with the main grid, to supply forecasted load
demand in a certain period of time (typically one day). There
are two common designs for the control architecture of the
microgrid controller: centralized and decentralized. In the
decentralized architecture, each component acts as an agent
with ability of decision making and communication with other
agents [15]. The decentralized architecture makes it easier to
expand the scale of the microgrid and is more immune to
failures of its components. In the centralized architecture, on
the other hand, scheduling will be performed centrally in a
central computing unit, which is able to access microgrid-wide
generation and load information and dispatch generation
according to total load demand and individual generator's cost
curves [16]. There are benefits and disadvantages associated
with both architectures as discussed in [17]. This paper adopts
a centralized architecture for microgrid scheduling as it does
not require new investment to build the communication
infrastructure and facilitates application of optimization
methods for ensuring solution optimality.
A variety of approaches are proposed in the literature to
solve the microgrid optimal scheduling problem, including
deterministic, heuristic, and stochastic methods. Mixed integer
programming (MIP), is widely used to formulate microgrid
scheduling problems. Several studies also consider prevailing
uncertainties in the microgrid optimal scheduling process,
using stochastic programming [18]–[20], chance-constrained
programming [21], and robust optimization [15].
Increasing demand-side elasticity and active participation
of loads in the power system in response to electricity price
variations is highly stressed to operate the system more
efficiently and to avoid high price spikes caused by inelastic
loads [22]. Microgrids allow an efficient integration and
control of large penetration responsive loads which would
further increase the demand-side elasticity. Moreover,

distributed generators and energy storage enable a highly fast
and controllable load. Currently, however, these resources are
scheduled based on a price-based scheme; i.e. the microgrid
controller determines the least-cost schedule of available
DERs and loads, as well as the main grid power transfer,
based on the day-ahead market price (which is forecasted by
the microgrid or the electric utility). Under this scheme, the
utility forecasts an estimate of the microgrids’ loads in its
service territory and submits to the wholesale market via
available mechanisms. Once the electricity price is
determined, through the wholesale market, the utility sends the
actual prices to microgrids. Although it might seem efficient,
this approach has the potential to cause several drawbacks
when the microgrid penetration in distribution network is
high, including shifting the peak hours. This approach is prone
to cause new peaks as there is a high probability that
microgrids follow a different schedule as the one forecasted
by the utility once actual prices are received, as the demand in
responsive loads is inversely proportional to electricity prices.
The increase in the number of entities with responsive loads
operated by price-based methods would intensify this issue. In
other words, setting the price centrally by the utility and
sending it to microgrids, so they can accordingly schedule
their resources, can potentially result in significant uncertainty
in system load profile.
The aforementioned drawback, combined with the
enhanced complexity in managing a large number of
microgrids in a foreseeable future, make the case for a new
approach to the system operation and utility ratemaking in
presence of microgrids. In this paper, a market-based
microgrid optimal scheduling model is proposed to address the
aforementioned problem and increase microgrid-integrated
distribution system efficiency. The proposed model is based
on a Distribution Market Operator (DMO) model. DMO is an
entity which is hosted in the distribution network to manage
microgrids interaction with the main grid. Similar concepts as
DMO can be found in [23][24], where the transformation of
existing utility operations to integrate high penetration
microgrids are discussed by introducing Distributed System
Platform Provider (DSPP) and in [25] where a price-based
simultaneous operation of microgrids and the Distribution
Network Operator (DNO) is proposed. In this paper, the
microgrid operation under a distribution market is
investigated. A microgrid scheduling model is proposed that
seeks to optimally schedule the microgrid components while
complying with main grid power transfer schedule imposed by
the market. Future work will discuss the process by which the
DMO schedules the power transfers and operates the
distribution market.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
outlines the model for retail market in the distribution
network, Section III presents the formulation for the marketbased microgrid optimal scheduling problem, Section IV
presents the numerical results and discussions, and Section V
concludes the paper.

II. DISTRIBUTION NETWORK MARKET MODEL

GENCOs

Power

ISO Level

Bid

TRANSCOs

Independent System Operator
(ISO)

Load serving Entity
(LSE)
Power

Utility Level

Transmission info

Award

Load forecast

Customer Level

A Distribution Market Operator (DMO) is proposed to
cooperate with the Independent System Operator (ISO) in the
wholesale electricity market and facilitate establishing a
competitive electricity market in the distribution network level
to exchange energy and grid services. DMO is a smart
platform that enables market activities and grid operations,
coordinates with the utility to improve the investment
planning, and interacts with the ISO to negotiate awarded
demand bids or power purchases for ensuring an efficient
system operation. DMO would further facilitate a rapid and
widespread integration of microgrids from a system operator’s
perspective by addressing prevailing integration challenges.
In order to address the problems of price-based microgrid
scheduling, a market-based solution to the microgrid
scheduling problem is proposed where the microgrid demand
is set by the DMO and known with certainty on a day-ahead
basis. This will lead to lower peak demands in the system and
increased reliability and efficiency of its operation.
Establishment of DMO would also be beneficial to the ISO as
it allows a significant reduction in the need to invest and
expand the communication infrastructure among microgrids
and the ISO. DMO can be formed as a new entity or be part of
the currently existing electric utilities. An independent DMO
would be able to set up a universal market environment
instead of one for each utility. It would also be less suspected
of exercising market power. On the other hand, a utilityaffiliated DMO would be able to perform several
functionalities currently possessed by electric utilities without
necessitating additional investments.
The microgrid can exchange power with the main grid and
act as a player in the electricity market. DMO would serve as
an interface between the ISO and microgrids that facilitates
microgrids market participation and coordinates the
microgrids with the main grid to minimize the risks posed by
microgrid operational uncertainties. DMO will receive
demand bids from the microgrids, combine them, and offer an
aggregated bid to the ISO. ISO will receive aggregated
demand bids from DMOs and generation bids from generation
companies (GENCOs) to determine the market price with the
objective of maximizing the system social welfare. Fig. 1
depicts the interactions of DMO with different players in the
market. ISO performs the market clearing process and
determines the schedule of each directly connected player.
DMO will receive the day-ahead schedule from the ISO and
subsequently determine microgrids shares from the awarded
power. The microgrid power could be positive (representing
the microgrid as a load), or negative (representing the
microgrid as a generation). The main grid power transfer to
the microgrid would be the amount of power announced to the
microgrid by the DMO, hence it would be known to the
system operator and therefore eliminate the uncertainties
caused by microgrid price-responsiveness. Note that this paper
only focuses on modeling the microgrid behavior under
distribution market environment, while the detailed DMO will
be performed in a future work. The ISO model with
responsive loads can be found in [26].

Bid

Award

Distribution
Market
Operator (DMO)
Bid

Award

Microgrids

Fig.1 Proposed microgrid market participation through distribution market
operator

Implementation of DMO would fix the aforementioned
problems that utilities face when they integrate microgrids, but
in order for the proposed system to reliably work it is
necessary that the microgrid controller schedules its resources
based on the scheduled main grid power transfer. Moreover,
microgrid controller requires to take microgrid economy into
account and find the least-cost schedule while conforming to
the scheduled main grid power. This problem is discussed in
this paper while considering microgrid uncertainties
associated with nondispatchable generation and loads. Several
methods, such as robust optimization and stochastic
optimization, are used to solve optimization problems with
data uncertainty. Robust optimization is a rather conservative
approach applied to cases where the solution is desired to be
immune against the worst possible uncertain outcome, and/or
the information about the probability distribution for the
uncertainty is not available. Stochastic optimization is used to
handle the optimization problems with random uncertainties
where the distribution of uncertainties is known or can be
assumed with acceptable accuracy. In a stochastic
optimization model, the objective function and constraints
depend on not only the optimization variables but random
variables with known distribution. The optimization would
seek to minimize the expected value of the objective function
while satisfying all the constraints for each generated scenario.
In this work a stochastic optimization approach is employed to
incorporate uncertainties in the scheduling model as the
distribution of uncertainties, which are the forecasts in
generation of renewable energy resources and loads, is subject
to some known distributions obtained from historical data. A
large number of scenarios for uncertain parameters is
generated and further reduced using available reduction
techniques to ensure the computational efficiency of the
proposed model.

A 24-h scheduling horizon is considered with sub-periods
of 10 minutes for accurately considering nondispatchable
generation and load variations. Dispatchable units, energy
storage, and adjustable loads are committed hourly but their
associated dispatch is performed on a sub-hourly basis. The
microgrid submits its demand bid to the DMO one day ahead
and the DMO determines the market clearing price and the
accepted demand for the entire scheduling horizon. Based on
the accepted and known day-ahead demand profile, the
microgrid master controller will solve the optimal scheduling
problem. It will be assumed that violations from the scheduled
value will be penalized based on a pre-established price
(which could be simply considered equal to the market
clearing price at the microgrid point of common coupling).
The penalty, however, will be applied when the violation is
positive, i.e., the main grid power transfer is larger than the
scheduled power by the DMO, or in other words, when the
microgrid appears as a larger load and requests a larger supply
of power from the main grid. Negative violation will not be
penalized as the microgrid helps with generation in the
distribution network by reducing its load.
III. MARKET-BASED SCHEDULING PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Objective
The objective of this problem is to determine the least-cost
day-ahead schedule of loads, dispatchable generation units,
and energy storage in the microgrid (1) when the profile of the
main grid power transfer over the scheduling horizon is
known (i.e., determined and announced by the DMO). In order
to take the associated uncertainties into consideration, a
stochastic scenario-based optimization model is employed as
proposed in [27]. Each scenario simulates an outcome with a
uniformly distributed random nondispatchable unit generation
and load.




min  
prs
Fi ( Pits , I it )  LSts  cPM ,ts  (1)


 s
t
  iG

The objective includes three terms of operation cost of
dispatchable units (which includes generation cost, and
startup/shut down costs), the load curtailment cost (defined as
the value of lost load times the amount of load curtailment)
and the penalty for deviation from the scheduled main grid
power transfer. The objective is weighted, using probability,
and summed over all scenarios.
B. Operational Constraints
The objective is subject to the following operational
constraints:
Pits  PM ,ts  LSts 
Ddts t ,  , s
(2)

  


i


d

Pi min I it  Pits  Pi max I it
Pits  Pit ( 1) s  URi

i  G, t ,  , s
i  G , t ,  , s

(3)
(4)

Pit ( 1) s  Pits  DRi

i  G , t ,  , s

(5)

Titon  UTi ( I it  I i (t 1) )

i  G, t

(6)

Titoff  DTi ( I i (t 1)  I it )

i  G, t

(7)

Pits  Pidch ,maxuit  Pich ,min vit

i  S, t ,  , s

(8)

i  S, t ,  , s

Pits  Pi

dch ,min

uit  Pi

ch ,max

uit  vit  1
Cits  Cit ( 1) s  Pits 

i  S, t
i  S, t ,  , s

(9)
(10)
(11)

0  Cits  Cimax

i  S, t ,  , s

(12)

Titch

 MCi (uit  ui (t 1) )

i  S, t

(13)

Titdch  MDi (vit  vi (t 1) )

i  S, t

(14)

Ddmin zdt

d  D, t ,  , s

(15)

d  D,  , s

(16)

i  D, t

(17)

 Ddts 

D 

dt s

vit

Ddmax zdt

 Ed

t[ d ,  d ]

Tdton  MU d ( zdt  zd (t 1) )

The power balance constraint is considered in (2) to make
sure that the sum of the main grid power transfer plus the
locally generated microgrid power matches the total load,
while load curtailment variable is added to ensure that this
balance is satisfied at all times. The nondispatchable
generation and fixed load values are forecasted in this
constraint while they will change in each scenario.
Dispatchable
unit
constraints
include
generation
minimum/maximum limits (3), ramp up/down limits (4)-(5),
and minimum up/down time limits (6)-(7). Energy storage
constraints include maximum charging and discharging
constraints (8)-(9), charging/discharging mode (10), available
stored energy limits (11)-(12), and minimum charge/discharge
time (13)-(14). Adjustable loads constraints include rated
power limit (15), required energy consumption in a certain
period specified by [αd, βd] (16), and minimum operating time
(17). In the case of inter-temporal constraints, such as
minimum up/down times, it must be ensured that at the first
period τ of each hour t, the constraint holds with respect to the
last period of the previous hour.
C. Main Grid Power Transfer Deviation Modeling
The main grid power transfer for each microgrid is scheduled
and assigned by the DMO. However, microgrid can deviate
from the scheduled power transfer and pay a penalty as
proposed in (1).
 PMmaxU ts  PM ,ts  PMmaxU ts
t ,  , s
(18)
PM ,ts  PM ,ts  PMsch,t
PM ,ts



PMmax ts



PMmax (1   ts )







PMmax ts

PM ,ts  PM ,ts

t ,  , s

(19)

t ,  , s

(20)



PMmax (1   ts )

t ,  , s

(21)
To model the islanded operation, binary variable Utτs is
generated in each scenario to model islanding incidents by
zeroing out the main grid power transfer (18). The main grid
power transfer mismatch from the amount scheduled by the
DMO is set by (19). If the main grid power transfer mismatch
is positive, the objective is penalized, where δ=1 and ΔP+=ΔP
using (20) and (21).

IV. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
A microgrid with four dispatchable generation units, a
nondispatchable unit, five adjustable loads and one energy
storage is considered for simulating the proposed marketbased microgrid scheduling model. The microgrid
characteristics, as well as forecasted values for fixed load and
nondispatchable generation, are borrowed from [6]. Table I
shows the scheduled main grid power transfer, with a
mismatch penalty of $150/MWh.
TABLE I
MAIN GRID POWER TRANSFER SCHEDULED BY THE DMO
Time (h)
1
2
3
4
5
Power(MW)
0.70
5.60
4.90
5.60
6.30
Time (h)
7
8
9
10
11
Power (MW)
4.90
5.60
6.30
4.90
5.60
Time (h)
13
14
15
16
17
Power (MW)
6.30
5.60
6.30
7.00
8.40
Time (h)
19
20
21
22
23
Power (MW)
11.20
10.50
9.80
7.70
6.30

6
5.60
12
5.60
18
9.80
24
5.60

A total of 100 scenarios are generated to simulate errors in
the forecasted subhourly (10-minute) nondispatchable
generation and islanding from the main grid. The optimal
commitment of the dispatchable units for all scenarios and the
schedules of energy storage, loads, and generation dispatch for
each scenario are also obtained. The operating cost is obtained
as $39,566. The resulting commitment schedule is given in
Table II where bold numbers show the change compared to
the case without islanding. During peak times 14-21 all units
are committed to supply local loads and also ensure
availability of sufficient generation during transition to
islanding. The energy storage is also discharged at its
maximum power during islanding periods to contribute to the
load balance.

Unit
G1
G2
G3
G4

1
1
1
0

1
1
1
0

TABLE II
DER SCHEDULE CONSIDERING 1-HOUR ISLANDING
Hours (1-24)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
0

happens at these hours, since there are fewer units committed
and available to generate, there might be more load
curtailment. When the power transfer is relatively low, the
number of units that turn off is relatively few and even if they
turn off at some hours the overall reduction in the generation
cost outweighs the increase in load curtailment cost at some
scenarios with islanding at those hours. For example, when the
power transfer is increased from 0.35 times of values in Table
I to 0.5, G3 is turned off at hour 7, load curtailment cost
increases from $992 to $1,814 and generation cost reduces
from $66,560 to $60,362.

1
1
0
0

Fig. 2 Microgrid operation cost as a function of number of islanding hours

Fig. 3 Microgrid operation cost as a function of main grid power transfer

1
1
0
0

The problem is further solved for a variety of islanding
hours to show the impact of the number of islanding hours on
the microgrid scheduling results. The operation cost for all
cases is shown in Fig. 2. The load curtailment is added to the
objective as a penalty term with a cost of $10,000/MWh. As
the duration of islanding increases, a larger portion of loads
needs to be curtailed. This factor together with increasing need
for generation of dispatchable units increases the total
operation cost.
Sensitivity to the scheduled main grid power transfer is
analyzed by considering a reduced 100 scenarios. Fig. 3 shows
the operation cost when the main grid power transfer is a
fraction of values in Table I. Increasing main grid power
transfer would lessen the need to microgrid generation and
may accordingly cause some dispatchable units that were
already committed to be turned off at some hours, thus it
would decrease the operation cost. In case an islanding

Fig. 4 Generation of different dispatchable units at a scenario with islanding
between hours 12-14

Fig. 5 Microgrid operation cost with different penalties for excess main grid
power transfer.

As the power transfer increases, however, previously
committed units are turned off at more hours and therefore
load curtailment cost for scenarios with islanding could
increase. When the main grid power transfer is increased from
1.25 times values in Table I to 1.4, some units are turned off at
high load hours 19-21 and 23 leading to load curtailment cost
increasing from $4,131 to $11,069 while generation cost
reduces from $37,029 to $32,235. With a smaller main grid
power transfer, dispatchable units are committed at more
hours but generate at the minimum power in the normal
operation. Fig. 4 shows the generation of different
dispatchable units for a scenario where islanding occurs
between hours 12 and 14.
Up to this point, all simulations were conducted for the
microgrid with an infinite power transfer mismatch penalty.
Enabling the microgrid with the capability to increase its main
grid power transfer beyond the amount assigned to it by the
DMO and instead paying a penalty would eliminate the load
curtailment that otherwise might have been needed. This
feature reduces the operation cost significantly. Fig. 5 depicts
the increase in operation cost as this penalty increases. It is
seen that with lower penalties for transferring additional
amounts of main grid power than scheduled, the total
operation cost of the microgrid drops.

[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]
[16]

V. CONCLUSION
A market-based microgrid optimal scheduling model was
proposed in this paper. Subhourly dispatch was employed to
achieve the most economical schedule of microgrid DERs and
loads while taking nondispatchable generation variations into
account and making sure that the main grid power transfer
scheduled by the DMO is achieved. Stochastic optimization
was used to account for uncertainties due to islanding and
variations in loads and nondispatchable generation.
Simulations were performed using CPLEX and the obtained
results were studied to show how microgrid can be optimally
scheduled while taking distribution market decisions into
consideration.

[17]
[18]

[19]
[20]

[21]

VI. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]

S. Parhizi, H. Lotfi, A. Khodaei, and S. Bahramirad, “State of the
Art in Research on Microgrids: A Review,” IEEE Access, vol. 3,
2015.
M. Shahidehpour, “Role of smart microgrid in a perfect power
system,” in IEEE PES General Meeting, 2010, pp. 1–1.
A. Flueck and Z. Li, “Destination: Perfection,” IEEE Power Energy
Mag., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 36–47, 2008.
S. Bahramirad, W. Reder, and A. Khodaei, “Reliability-Constrained
Optimal Sizing of Energy Storage System in a Microgrid,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2056–2062, Dec. 2012.
N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay,
“Microgrids, An Overview of Ongoing Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects,” IEEE power energy Mag., vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 78 – 94, 2007.
A. Khodaei, “Microgrid Optimal Scheduling With Multi-Period
Islanding Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 3, pp.
1383–1392, May 2014.
A. Khodaei, “Resiliency-Oriented Microgrid Optimal Scheduling,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1584–1591, Jul. 2014.

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

[26]

[27]

A. Khodaei, “Provisional Microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2014.
S. Bahramirad, A. Khodaei, J. Svachula, and J. R. Aguero,
“Building Resilient Integrated Grids: One neighborhood at a time.,”
IEEE Electrif. Mag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 48–55, Mar. 2015.
D. Schnitzer, D. S. Lounsbury, J. P. Carvallo, R. Deshmukh, J. Apt,
and D. M. Kammen, Microgrids for Rural Electrification: A
Critical Review of Best Practices Based on Seven Case Studies.
United Nations Foundation, 2014.
Zpryme Research & Consulting, Power systems of the future: The
case for energy storage, distributed generation, and microgrids, no.
November. IEEE smart grid, 2012.
S. Suryanarayanan and E. Kyriakides, “Microgrids: An Emerging
Technology to Enhance Power System Reliability,” IEEE Smart
Grid
Newsletter,
2012.
[Online].
Available:
http://smartgrid.ieee.org/march-2012/527-microgrids-an-emergingtechnology-to-enhance-power-system-reliability. [Accessed: 13Nov-2014].
Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, “Summary Report : 2012 DOE Microgrid Workshop,”
2012. [Online]. Available: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2012
Microgrid Workshop Report 09102012.pdf. [Accessed: 13-Nov2014].
M. Shahidehpour and M. Khodayar, “Cutting Campus Energy Costs
with Hierarchical Control: The Economical and Reliable Operation
of a Microgrid,” IEEE Electrif. Mag., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Sep.
2013.
Y. Zhang, N. Gatsis, and G. B. Giannakis, “Robust Energy
Management for Microgrids With High-Penetration Renewables,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 944–953, Oct. 2013.
C. A. Hernandez-Aramburo, T. C. Green, and N. Mugniot, “Fuel
Consumption Minimization of a Microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 673–681, May 2005.
D. E. Olivares, C. A. Canizares, and M. Kazerani, “A centralized
optimal energy management system for microgrids,” in 2011 IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–6.
G. Cardoso, M. Stadler, A. Siddiqui, C. Marnay, N. DeForest, A.
Barbosa-Póvoa, and P. Ferrão, “Microgrid reliability modeling and
battery scheduling using stochastic linear programming,” Electr.
Power Syst. Res., vol. 103, pp. 61–69, 2013.
W. Su, J. Wang, and J. Roh, “Stochastic Energy Scheduling in
Microgrids With Intermittent Renewable Energy Resources,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1876–1883, Jul. 2014.
M. Mazidi, A. Zakariazadeh, S. Jadid, and P. Siano, “Integrated
scheduling of renewable generation and demand response programs
in a microgrid,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 86, pp. 1118–1127,
Oct. 2014.
Z. Wu, W. Gu, R. Wang, X. Yuan, and W. Liu, “Economic optimal
schedule of CHP microgrid system using chance constrained
programming and particle swarm optimization,” in 2011 IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–11.
M. H. Albadi and E. F. El-Saadany, “A summary of demand
response in electricity markets,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78,
no. 11, pp. 1989–1996, Nov. 2008.
New York State Department of Public Service, “Developing the
REV Market in New York: DPS Staff Straw Proposal on Track One
Issues,” 2014.
F. Rahimi 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.
Z. Wang, B. Chen, J. Wang, M. M. Begovic, and C. Chen,
“Coordinated Energy Management of Networked Microgrids in
Distribution Systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.
45–53, Jan. 2015.
A. Khodaei, M. Shahidehpour, and S. Bahramirad, “SCUC With
Hourly Demand Response Considering Intertemporal Load
Characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 564–
571, Sep. 2011.
L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and T. Li, “Stochastic SecurityConstrained Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 800–811, May 2007.

