A Game-Theoretic Framework for Resilient and
Distributed Generation Control of Renewable
Energies in Microgrids

Index Terms—Microgrids, Renewable energy, resilient, distributed control, non-cooperative game, power flow, smart grid.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Renewable energies, such as solar, wind energy, geothermal
and biomass, play an important role in reducing the emission
of greenhouse gases and thus are able to mitigate the climate
change. Their gradual replacements of the conventional power
plants, which generate air polluting by-products including SO2
and NOx , are beneficial to reduce the health risks to the human
society [1]. According to the energy report Annual Energy
Outlook 2015, the total renewable share of all electricity
generation increases from 13% in 2013 to 18% in 2040
[2]. Therefore, it is critical to motivate more participants to
generate renewable energies, and thus transform the traditional
power grid to a cleaner and more efficient system.
A microgrid is a green system that relies on the renewable
distributed resources such as wind turbines, photovoltaics and
fuel cells, and it is able to operate independently from the main
power grid in an autonomous manner [3], [4]. Currently, more
and more microgrids are integrated with the main power grid
for system dependability and resiliency [5], [6]. For example,
when a generator in the main grid is out of service, microgrids
This paper has been accepted to publish in IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid.
This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under
Grants EFMA-1441140, ECCS-1550000 and SES-1541164.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, NY,
11201 USA. E-mail: {juntao.chen, quanyan.zhu}@nyu.edu.

Generators

Communication
tower

Power transfer

Abstract—The integration of microgrids that depend on the
renewable distributed energy resources with the current power
systems is a critical issue in the smart grid. In this paper, we
propose a non-cooperative game-theoretic framework to study
the strategic behavior of distributed microgrids that generate
renewable energies and characterize the power generation solutions by using the Nash equilibrium concept. Our framework not
only incorporates economic factors but also takes into account
the stability and efficiency of the microgrids, including the power
flow constraints and voltage angle regulations. We develop two
decentralized update schemes for microgrids and show their
convergence to a unique Nash equilibrium. Also, we propose a
novel fully distributed PMU-enabled algorithm which only needs
the information of voltage angle at the bus. To show the resiliency
of the distributed algorithm, we introduce two failure models of
the smart grid. Case studies based on the IEEE 14-bus system
are used to corroborate the effectiveness and resiliency of the
proposed algorithms.

Information exchange

arXiv:1601.04583v2 [cs.SY] 27 Sep 2016

Juntao Chen, Student Member, IEEE, and Quanyan Zhu, Member, IEEE

Microgrids

Power transmission line

Communication link

Fig. 1. Smart grid hierarchy model including the generators, microgrids
and communications. Generators in the upper layer determine their amount
of power generations and the electricity price and send them to the bottom
layer. A microgrid can generate renewable energies and make decisions by
responding to the strategies of generators and other microgrids.

can generate extra power, and inject it into the grid to meet the
demand and regulate voltage. Hence, they can play the role of
maintaining the stability and reliability of the power system.
In this paper, we consider the distributed energy management of microgrids when they are integrated with the
power grid. With deregulation, future microgrids can enter
the electricity market to sell renewable energies at a cheaper
price. Reversely, they can also buy electricity from other
agents. Each microgrid is making a decision on the amount
of power generation to optimize their payoffs. In addition,
their strategies are based on the physical and economic factors
including the power flow in the system, renewable energy
production limit, electricity market price and generation cost
[7], [8], [9]. The participation of microgrids into the power
market, therefore, introduces a competing mechanism between
different microgrid entities. Fig. 1 depicts a two-layer system
model of the smart grid. Specifically, the upper layer containing conventional generators forms a generator network, and
the distributed renewable energy generators in the bottom layer
constitutes the microgrid network. The information exchange,
such as the electricity market price and the amount of power
generation, between two layers are through the communication
network lay in the middle. On one hand, generators generate
power supplied to the loads in the grid, and we assume that
their amount is determined ahead of time and thus fixed. On
the other hand, microgrids are capable of energy generation
to meet their own needs or sell the extra power to the energy
market to make a profit.
A natural framework to capture the competition and decentralized decision making of microgrids is game theory [10],

[11]. We use a non-cooperative game-theoretic framework to
study the strategic behavior of microgrids in the power grid
from a cross-layer perspective. Thus, microgrids are players
in this renewable energy game. Different from the centralized
control of power systems which is based on the optimal power
flow, we adopt Nash equilibrium as our solution concept
to characterize the control actions of microgrids. To design
an automated energy management system, we develop two
update schemes including the iterative update algorithm and
random update algorithm which enable the independent decision making of microgrids. However, they need the support
from the communication network as depicted in Fig. 1 for
the information exchange. To make the control system more
intelligent and efficient, we also propose a PMU-enabled
distributed algorithm that only depends on the smart device,
phasor measurement unit (PMU) [12], to measure the voltage
angles at the buses. By using this scheme, each microgrid does
not need to know the specific amount of generation of other
players, nor the power supplied by the generators, but can
randomly update its strategy only based on the phasor angle
at its bus, which preserves high privacy.
The distributed iterative algorithm developed in this work
enhances the resilience of the grid by enabling the real-time
response to system changes. Power systems tend to fail, such
as generator breakdown and trigger of the power transmission
lines, due to natural disasters, man-made mistakes and cyber
attacks [13], [14], [15]. Therefore, by investigating the twolayer smart grid framework under these faulty scenarios,
we can assess the resiliency of the proposed PMU-enabled
algorithm.
The contributions of this paper are summarized as follow.
1) We establish a non-cooperative game-theoretic framework to model the renewable energy generation planning
of microgrids in the smart grid, especially by considering
the physical and economic constraints.
2) We propose two iterative and random update algorithms
for the decision making of microgrids and derive sufficient conditions to ensure their convergence to a unique
Nash equilibrium.
3) We develop a resilient and fully distributed PMUenabled update algorithm for microgrids, and design
its implementation control framework. Moreover, two
major fault models of the smart grid are introduced to
validate the resiliency of the distributed algorithm.

dispatch and generations, and physical constraints, e.g., power
flow equations [14], [22], are not part of their model. Our work
is focused on the interactions in the lower layer, and it can be
naturally extended to the two-level framework by regarding
the generators as active players.

A. Related Work
Game-theoretic methods have been used for generation
planning and control of the distributed energy resources in
smart grid [11], [16], [17], [18]. Zhu et al. [9] have proposed a
non-cooperative game framework for distributed generation in
power systems, and considered economic and AC power flow
constraints. Our work extends their model and algorithms to a
distributed and resilient fashion. A two-level game-theoretic
approach has been used to model the demand response in
the cross-layer smart grid framework shown in Fig. 1 which
includes both user and utility side [19], [20], [21]. They also
developed distributed algorithms to find the equilibrium solution. However, their main focuses have been on the economic

for i, j = 1, 2, ..., N , where Gij and Bij are the real and
imaginary part of the element (i, j) in the admittance matrix
Y ∈ CN ×N of the power grid. Note that Vr and θr are both
known, and specifically, θr = 0.
Let Pig and Pil be the power generation and power load at
bus i, respectively. Then, the active power injection at bus i
satisfies
Pi = Pig − Pil , ∀i ∈ N .
(3)

B. Organization of the Paper
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, we formulate the problem and present a game-theoretic
framework to model the generation control in microgrids.
We analyze the game in Section III and propose three update schemes to find the equilibrium solution in Section IV.
Implementation framework of the PMU-enabled distributed
algorithm is developed in Section V. Case studies are given
in Section VI, and Section VII concludes the paper.
C. Notations and Conventions
Notations and conventions adopted in this paper are summarized as follows: P := [P1 , P2 , ..., PN ]0 ∈ RN , θ :=
[θ1 , θ2 , ..., θN ]0 ∈ RN ; Pd := [P1 , P2 , ..., PNd ]0 ∈ RNd , Pgd :=
[P1g , P2g , ..., PNg d ]0 ∈ RNd ; q := [q1 , q2 , ..., qNd ]0 ∈ RNd ; Superscripts o and ∗ indicate the parameter achieving the optimal
and equilibrium, respectively; Use of (n) in the superscript
indicates the nth iteration. In addition, microgrid and player
refer to the same entity, and they are used interchangeably.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
In this section, we first review some power flow basics, and
then formulate the problem.
A. Power Flow Preliminaries
In a power grid, let N := {r, 1, 2, ..., N } be a set of
N + 1 buses, where r denotes the slack bus. Denote Pi , Qi ,
Vi and θi as the amount of active power injection, reactive
power injection, voltage magnitude and voltage angle at bus
i, respectively. Then, the power flow equations of the system
with reference to the slack bus r are
X
Pi =
Vi Vj [Gij cos(θi − θj ) + Bij sin(θi − θj )], (1)
j∈N

Qi =

X

Vi Vj [Gij sin(θi − θj ) − Bij cos(θi − θj )],

(2)

j∈N

Moreover,
byPconsidering the balance of the grid, we have
P
g
l
P
=
i∈N i
i∈N Pi .
DC approximation is usually used for fast calculations of the
power flow [14]. Assume that the reactance is much smaller
than the resistance on transmission lines; the voltage angles

θi , i ∈ N , are small, and the voltages Vi , i ∈ N , are equal
to 1. Then, Qi = 0, i ∈ N , and sin(θi − θj ) ≈ θi − θj ,
cos(θi − θj ) ≈ 1. Therefore, power flow equations
can be
P
represented by a set of linear equations as Pi = j6=i Bij (θi −
θj ), ∀i, j ∈ N , which can be written in a matrix form as
P = −Bθ.

(4)

Remark 1: Matrix B includes the imaginary components
of Y except the slack bus’s row and column. Since −B is a
symmetric reduced Laplacian matrix, then, B is invertible by
the Kirchhoff’s matrix-tree theorem [23].
B. Game-Theoretic Framework
Consider the smart grid is composed of load buses and
generator buses. We denote Nd := {1, 2, ..., Nd } ⊆ N as the
set of Nd buses that can generate renewable energies such as
the wind and solar power. Therefore, buses in the set Nd are
able to generate power for self-efficiency. In addition, denote
Ng := {Nd + 1, Nd + 2, ..., N } = N \ Nd as a set of Ng buses
that are either PQ-loads or generators, where set N excludes
the slack bus r for notation clarity. For load bus i ∈ N , it
has specified load Pil , and for generator bus j ∈ N , it has
predetermined generation Pjg .
Furthermore, for buses in the set of Nd , they are connected
with the microgrids that are able to generate renewable energies. Their loads to be serviced are specified ahead of time, and
their generations of renewable energy need to be determined.
Note that each microgrid has a maximum generation, i.e.,
g
g
0 ≤ Pig ≤ Pi,max
, i ∈ Nd . Pi,max
depends on the available
stored power of the microgrid, and it is dynamically changing
due to the intermittent nature of renewable generations. For
g
convenience, the framework is studied for a given Pi,max
in
g
this paper, and it can be generalized to dynamic Pi,max if the
state-of-charge of storage devices is considered. In addition,
for buses in Ng , we set the power generation of PQ-load bus
to 0, and the power load of generator bus to 0 without loss of
generality,.
Before formulating the game-theoretic framework for this
power generation game, we make several assumptions as
follows. First, the topology of the whole power system is
known to all microgrids. This is justifiable since the parameters
of power transmission lines, such as resistance and reactance,
are often known. Second, the constraints of each microgrid
are common information, and each microgrid is aware of
the physical constraints when making decisions [24], [25].
This indicates that every microgrid should take the power
flow constraints (4) into account. Third, power generations
are given for all generators, and microgrids take actions by
responding to the generator network. This is reasonable since
microgrids can regulate itself more quickly than the generators,
and they can be viewed as followers who respond to the
generators [9], [19], [20]. We also assume that PMU can
be employed to measure the voltage angle at the bus for all
microgrids which is already a mature technology in the smart
grid [12]. 
Let G := Nd , {PiG , Θi }i∈Nd , {Ui }i∈Nd , P be a strategic
game with a set Nd of Nd players. {PiG , Θi } is the action set

g
},
of player i, where PiG := {Pig ∈ R+ | 0 ≤ Pig ≤ Pi,max
and P is the feasible set of active power injection defined
G
, Θ−i } by the
by constraint (4). For convenience, denote {P−i
Cartesian product of all players’ action sets except i’th one. In
addition, denote P G by the feasible set of power generation of
all buses in the grid, which can be obtained by using P through
(3). Then, the feasible renewable generation
set of game G can

be defined by PFG := ⊗i∈Nd PiG ∩ P G . In addition, based on
the set PFG , we can obtain the feasible voltage angle profile of
all players ΘF through (4). Thus, the feasible action set of all
players {Pig , θi }i∈Nd can be defined as F := PFG × ΘF . Note
that game G is coupled through the power flow equations.
The cost function Ui : PiG × [0, π] → R for player i is given
by

1
Ui (Pig , θi ) = ψi Pig + ζ(Pil − Pig ) + ηi2 θi2 , i ∈ Nd , (5)
2
where ψi is the unit cost of generated power for player i, ζ
is the unit price of renewable energy for sale defined by the
power market, and ηi is a weighting parameter that indicates
the importance of regulations of voltage angle at bus i. Note
that in (5), player i prefers a small voltage angle ηi which
satisfies a condition of using DC approximated power flow.
Then, the optimization problem for player i is
OPi :

min

Pig ,θi

Ui (Pig , θi )

s.t. P = −Bθ,
g
0 ≤Pig ≤ Pi,max
, i ∈ Nd .
The renewable generation game G is a constrained game. A
g∗
∗
Nash equilibrium (NE) solution pair (Pg∗
d , θ d ), where Pd =
g∗
∗
∗
[Pi ]i∈Nd , θ d = [θi ]i∈Nd , is a point where no player can
benefit from deviating from it through changing his strategy.
The formal definition of NE of game G is as follows.
Definition 1 (Nash Equilibrium of Game G with Coupled
∗
Constraints): The solution pair (Pg∗
d , θ d ) constitutes a Nash
equilibrium point for the microgrids in the non-cooperative
game G if, for ∀i ∈ Nd ,
g∗ ∗
Ui (Pig∗ , θi∗ ) ≤ Ui (Pig , θi ), ∀(Pig , θi ) ∈ Φi (P−i
, θ−i ),
g∗ ∗
where Φi (P−i
, θ−i ) is a projected constraint set defined by
g∗ ∗
g∗ ∗
Φi (P−i , θ−i ) := {(Pig , θi ) : (Pig , θi ; P−i
, θ−i ) ∈ F}.

C. Team Problem
For comparison, we formulate a team problem (TP) that
captures the global optimality of the smart grid as
X
TP : min
αi Ui (Pig , θi )
g
Pi ,θi

i∈Nd

s.t. P = −Bθ,
g
0 ≤ Pig ≤ Pi,max
, i ∈ Nd ,

where αi P
∈ (0, 1), i ∈ Nd , are the weights on microgrids
Nd
such that i=1
αi = 1. Note that the weighting constant αi
indicates the importance of microgrid i among all players, and
it is chosen or assigned by a system coordinator in the smart
grid.

Denote the optimal solution to the TP as Pgo
=
d
[Pigo ]i∈Nd , θ od = [θio ]i∈Nd . Then, the loss of efficiency (LOE)
due to the decentralized decision making is defined as
P
αi Ui (Pig∗ , θi∗ )
LOE := Pi∈Nd
go o .
i∈Nd αi Ui (Pi , θi )
Remark 2: The value of LOE satisfies 0 < LOE ≤ 1.
III. A NALYSIS OF THE G AME
Before finding the solution to the formulated optimization
problem in Section II, we reformulate and analyze the renewable generation game in this section.
Since B is nonsingular, then, (4) can be rewritten as
θ = SP,

(6)

where S:=[sij ]i,j∈N = −B−1 . The property of elements in
matrix S is summarized in lemma 1.
Lemma 1. S is a symmetric matrix, and sij ≥ 0, ∀ i, j ∈ N ,
and especially sii > 0, ∀ i ∈ N .
Proof: See Appendix A.
Power flow equations (4) and (6) are equivalent, then,
problem OPi for player i can be simplified as follows.
Proposition 1. The optimization problem OPi for player i is
equivalent to the following problem:
OP0i :

Ui (Pig , θi )
X
s.t. θi =
sij Pj ,

min

Pig ,θi

0≤

j∈N
Pig ≤

ei (P g , P g∗ ), ∀P g ∈ P Ge, i ∈ Nd .
ei (P g∗ , P g∗ ) ≤ U
U
i
i
−i
i
−i
i
Note that for a given Pgd , there exists a unique corresponding voltage angle profile θ d . Thus, there is a one-toone correspondence between Pgd and θ d . Therefore, the Nash
∗
equilibrium solution to game G, (Pg∗
d , θ d ), is strategically
e Pg∗ . Then, by
equivalent to the NE solution to game G,
d
using the first-order
optimality condition to (7), we obtain
P
ψi − ζ + ηi2 ( j∈NPsij Pj )sii = 0, i ∈ Nd . By defining
gi := sii Pi , ḡ−i := j6=i∈N sij Pj and since sii 6= 0, i ∈ Nd ,
i
we have gi = ζ−ψ
− ḡ−i , i ∈ Nd , which is equivalent to
η 2 sii
i

1 ζ − ψi
− ḡ−i ), i ∈ Nd .
(8)
(
sii ηi2 sii
For convenience, define a player specific parameter γi for
g
i
ith player as γi := ζ−ψ
, and denote Pimax = Pi,max
− Pil .
ηi2 sii
To find the equilibrium solution, we express the set of fixed
point equations (8) in a matrix form

 

s1Nd  
s12
s13
1
···
P1∗
q1
s11
s11
s11
 s21


s2Nd   ∗ 
s23
 s
  q2 

1
···
s22
s22   P2 
 22



 


..
..
..   ..  =  . 
 ..
..
 .
  .   .. 
.
.
.
.
 



sNd 1
sNd 2
sNd Nd −1
∗
···
1
PNd
qNd
sN N
sN N
sN N
Pi =

d

⇔

g
Pi,max
, i ∈ Nd .

Proof: The decision variables in the objective function (5)Pfor player i are Pig and θi . In addition, equation
θi =
j∈N sij Pj includes all the information related to
the decision variables in the original power flow constraint
P = −Bθ, and thus OPi and OP0i are equivalent for ∀i ∈ Nd .
Next, by plugging constraint θi =
objective function, we obtain

e The set of reDefinition 2 (Nash Equilibrium of Game G):
g∗
newable generation profile Pd constitutes a Nash equilibrium
e if
point for the microgrids in the non-cooperative game G

P

j∈N

sij Pj into the

X
ei (P g , P g ) = ψi P g + ζ(Pil − P g ) + 1 ηi2 (
U
sij Pj )2 , (7)
i
−i
i
i
2
j∈N

ei : P G ×P G → R, and it is strictly convex
for i ∈ Nd , where U
i
−i
g
over Pi . Note that after simplification, the objective function
(7) is only related to the amount of power generation. Then, we

e := Nd , {P Ge}
e
can define a new game G
i i∈Nd , {Ui }i∈Nd , P
which is equivalent to game G. Note that the action set PiG
e
e is the
of player i, i ∈ Nd , and the feasible set PFG of game G
same as the one in game G, respectively. In addition, power
e anymore. Then,
flow equations are not in the constraints of G
e can be categorized to a generalized Nash equilibrium
game G
problem [26], [27]. Instead of directly applying the general
results from [26], [27], we analyze the renewable generation
game by considering its unique characteristics to obtain more
e is as
insights. The definition of Nash equilibrium of game G
follows.

e

d

d

d

d

d

HP∗d = q,

(9)

s
where H := [ sij
]i,j∈Nd , q := [qi ]i∈Nd
ii
P
s
P
]
,
and
P∗d := [Pi∗ ]i∈Nd = [Pig∗
ij
j
i∈N
d
j∈Ng

[ sγiii

−
=
− Pil ]i∈Nd .
On one hand, if the solution to (9) is an inner point that
g
satisfies 0 ≤ Pig ≤ Pi,max
, ∀i ∈ Nd , then it is a feasible
optimal solution. On the other hand, if player i’s payoff attains
its minimum at a generation level out of the feasible interval,
then, the optimal solution will be achieved at the boundary
point. Specifically, Pi has the following form:

l

if γi ≤ ḡ−i − sii Pil ,
 −Pi ,
Pi =
(10)
Pimax ,
if γi ≥ ḡ−i + sii Pimax ,

 1
(γ
−
ḡ
),
otherwise.
i
−i
sii
The above results are summarized in Theorem 1.
e admits
Theorem 1. The renewable energy generation game G
a unique Nash equilibrium, and the net power injection of
player i to the grid is given by (10).
Proof: See Appendix B.
Next, we analyze the connection between the team optimal
solution and Nash equilibrium solution as follows.
Corollary 1. The optimal solution to the team problem is
identical with the game solution, and thus LOE = 1.
o
Proof: Since (Pgo
d , θ d ) is an optimal solution to the team
problem, then, for ∀t ∈ Nd ,
X
X
αi Ui (Pigo , θio ) ≤
αj Uj (Pjgo , θjo ) + αt Ut (Ptg , θt ),
i∈Nd

j6=t∈Nd

where Ptg ∈ PtG , θt ∈ Θt . Therefore, αt Ut (Ptgo , θto ) ≤
αt Ut (Ptg , θt ), and (Ptgo , θto ) is a solution to OPi , ∀t ∈ Nd .
o
Note that (Pgo
d , θ d ) satisfies the power flow constraints, and
thus it is in the projected constraint set in Definition 1. Then,
o
it directly follows that (Pgo
d , θ d ) constitutes a NE of game G.
e Pgo is a NE of game
Since game G is equivalent to game G,
d
g∗
e
G. Based on Theorem 1, we obtain Pgo
d = Pd . Therefore,
g∗
go
o
∗
(Pd , θ d ) = (Pd , θ d ) and LOE = 1.
Remark 3: From Corollary 1, we know that the solution
obtained via the decentralized decision making is as efficient
as that obtained by the centralized control of microgrids.
IV. U PDATE S CHEMES FOR THE G ENERATION G AME
We have analyzed the existence and uniqueness of the
Nash equilibrium of the renewable energy generation game
in Section III. In this section, we first present iterative update
algorithm (IUA) and random update algorithm (RUA) which
are based on the gradient-descent method [28], and then
design a PMU-enabled distributed algorithm to compute the
NE solution of the game. The iterative algorithms enable the
adaptivity and resilience of the grid in response to disruptive
events. We will show their convergence to NE solutions and
study their rates of convergence.
A. Iterative Update Algorithm
The iterative update algorithm is a scheme that each player
updates their amount of power generation simultaneously at
time step n which is given by
(n+1)

Pi

(n)

= Ψi (γi , ḡ−i )



1
(n) 
= min Pimax , max − Pil , (γi − ḡ−i )
sii


max
l
= min Pi , max − Pi ,

X
X
1
(n) 
(γi −
sij Pj −
sij Pj ) .
sii
j∈Ng

j6=i∈Nd

(11)
The IUA  converges to the unique Nash equilibrium

P
Pi∗ = min Pimax , max − Pil , s1ii (γi − j∈Ng sij Pj −

P
∗
s
P
)
, which is equivalent to
ij
j
j6=i∈Nd

X
 1
g
Pig∗ = min Pi,max
, max 0, (γi −
sij Pj
sii
j∈Ng
X

−
sij Pj∗ ) + Pil
j6=i∈Nd

condition holds
max

i,j6=i∈Nd

sij
(Nd − 1) < 1.
sii

(12)

Proof: See Appendix C.
The IUA requires that microgrids update their actions synchronously. In cases where synchronization is not possible,
we develop a generalized mechanism in the next subsection
to capture the asynchronous and random updates.
B. Random Update Algorithm
When no synchronization mechanism exists between players, one more practical update scheme is random update algorithm. More specifically, the players update their generations
of the renewable energy in the discrete time intervals with
a predefined probability 0 < τi < 1, i ∈ Nd . The random
update algorithm is
(
(n)
Ψi (γi , ḡ−i ), with probability τi ,
(n+1)
Pi
=
(n)
Pi ,
with probability 1 − τi ,
(13)
where Ψi is defined in (11).
For the stability and convergence of the random update
algorithm, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3. The random update algorithm is globally stable
and converges to the unique Nash equilibrium almost surely
if the following condition holds
sij
(14)
(Nd − 1) < τ ,
τ̄ · max
i,j6=i∈Nd sii
where τ̄ and τ are the upper bound and lower bound of the
probability τi , respectively, for ∀i ∈ Nd .
Proof: See Appendix D.
Remark 4: When all players have the same probability
of update, i.e., τi = τ, ∀i ∈ Nd , then, (14) is reduced to
s
(Nd − 1) < 1, which is the same as (12).
maxi,j6=i∈Nd sij
ii
In the IUA and RUA, the players compute their optimal
renewable energy generations based on the market electricity
price provided by the generator network, and the specific
generated power of all other players and generators in the
grid. In order to know these information, one possible solution
is that all microgrids and generators send their amount of
generation to a data center, and then the center broadcasts
the received information. Therefore, IUA and RUA actually
highly depend on the communication networks which are
costly and not confidential. These drawbacks motivate us to
design a distributed and convenient update scheme in the
ensuing subsection.

Pig ,

from any feasible initial point of
∀i ∈ Nd . A sufficient
condition that ensures the global stability and convergence
of IUA is summarized in Theorem 2. Note that the IUA
algorithm implicitly handles the local capacity constraints and
the coupled network constraints in OPi . Hence, each iteration
yields a feasible solution of OPi .
Theorem 2. The iterative update algorithm is stable and
converges to the unique Nash equilibrium if the following

C. PMU-enabled Distributed Algorithm
In our proposed PMU-enabled distributed algorithm (PDA),
players do not need to share their private information, e.g.,
active power injection, and do not need to know the power
supplied by the generators. Moreover, PDA does not need the
synchronization mechanism as that in IUA since they update
their strategies at any time interval. Hence, its update fashion

Algorithm 1 PMU-enabled distributed algorithm
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:

(0)

Initialize Pi ← 0, Pil , Pimax , τi , ∀i ∈ Nd , Pj , j ∈ Ng ,
tolerance δ > 0, P (1) ← 2δ, n ← 1
g(n)
g(n−1)
while kPd − Pd
k∞ > δ do
while i ≤ Nd do
Generate a random number k between [0, 1] with
uniform distribution
if k ≤ τi then
(n)
PMU measures voltage angle θi at bus i
(n+1)
Obtain Pi
through (16)
else
(n+1)
(n)
Pi
← Pi
end if
i←i+1
end while
n←n+1
end while
(n)
Pig∗ = Pi + Pil , i ∈ Nd
return Pig∗ , i ∈ Nd

is similar to RUA but requires much less information. Note
that in the smart grid, power flow equation θ = SP leads to
X
X
sij Pj +
sij Pj = θi − sii Pi , ∀i ∈ Nd . (15)
j∈Ng

j6=i∈Nd

Therefore, based on (11) and (15), one way for player i to
update his action at time n is to know the current voltage
(n)
angle θi at his bus which can be measured by PMU, and
his net power injection update scheme is given by


(n+1)
Pi
= min Pimax , max − Pil ,

1
(n)
(n) 
(γi − θi + sii Pi ) . (16)
sii
The only required knowledge for each player in this scheme
are the electricity price and smart grid topology which are
both known. Moreover, this distributed algorithm is stable and
converges to the unique Nash equilibrium almost surely. The
(n)
proof is similar to that of Theorem 3 only by changing ḡ−i
(n)
(n)
to θi − sii Pi and thus omitted here. For clarity, PDA is
summarized in Algorithm 1.
Remark 5: When a microgrid updates its generated renewable energy, it will consequently change the voltage angle
(n)
profile {θi }i∈N in the smart grid. Therefore, θi in (16) will
be changed due to other players’ updates which makes the
distributed algorithm feasible.
D. Convergence Rate Analysis
One method to measure the efficiency of the update algorithm is its convergence rate which can be quantified by
the contraction mapping constant. For the IUA and RUA, the
contraction constants are equal to
sij
(Nd − 1),
c1 = max
i,j6=i∈Nd sii
sij
c2 = τ̄ · max
(Nd − 1) + (1 − τ ).
i,j6=i∈Nd sii

The smaller c1 and c2 are, the faster the algorithms converge
to the Nash equilibrium, and more efficient for the microgrids
to respond to the power generation changes from the generator network. For both IUA and RUA, smaller values of
s
and Nd are desirable. The two parameters
maxi,j6=i∈Nd sij
ii
are related to the smart grid topology and the number of
microgrids, respectively. A smaller Nd can be interpreted as
a smaller number of players, which makes it easier to reach
a consensus. In addition, the values of τ̄ and τ also have
an impact on the convergence speed of RUA. Specifically, a
smaller τ̄ and a larger τ result in faster convergence.
Remark 6: Since τ̄ ≥ τ , then, for a given τ̄ or τ , the best
outcome is achieved at τ̄ = τ , which means that every player
has the same update probability.
V. R ESILIENCY AND I MPLEMENTATION OF THE
D ISTRIBUTED A LGORITHM
The implementation of the fully distributed algorithm proposed in Section IV-C merely requires the information of
market electricity price and smart grid topology. To study the
resiliency of the algorithm, we focus on two fault models of
the power system network. In addition, we develop a control
framework to implement the algorithm in the smart grid.
A. Fault Models of Smart Grid
Without loss of generality, we discuss two major types of
faults in the smart grid: (i) generator breakdown [14], and
(ii) open-circuit of the transmission line [29]. Specifically, the
breakdown of generator i can be captured by Pig = 0, i ∈ Ng .
Note that microgrid can be turned off during the operation,
and this case can be captured by Pig = 0, i ∈ Nd . The opencircle fault of the transmission line between buses i and j
could lead to Bij = 0, Pij = Pji = 0, i 6= j ∈ N , where Pij
denotes the power flow from bus i to bus j. For the balance
and stability of the smart grid, generator or microgrid outage
will increase the power generation of some other entities in
the system. While the trip of a transmission line results in the
re-dispatch of power in the smart grid.
Other failure and attacks models can also be studied using
this framework including data injection attacks [30], [31], unavailability of PMU data [32], and jamming attacks [33], [34].
The fault models chosen here represent the major physical
consequences of the cyber attacks.
B. Implementation Framework
The proposed framework used to implement the PMUenabled distributed algorithm is shown in Fig. 2. On one hand,
renewable energy generators in the microgrids produce power
and store them in the storage devices. On the other hand, the
(n)
PMU measures the voltage angle θi at bus i at time interval
n, and sends it to the controller. Then, the controller generates
a command based on the PMU-enabled distributed algorithm
(n+1)
that informs the storage device to inject Pi
amount of
(n+1)
renewable energy to bus i. Note that negative Pi
indicates
that player i buys power from the grid.
In the framework, the power storage can be seen as
unchanged during the implementation stage if the decision

Load F

Renewable energy
generation

•••

Load

Load G

12

( +1)

Power

••

13

Microgrid 3

14
Load E

Grid
Generation
command

Microgrids

••

10

Load D

8

9
Load C

Bus •

( )

Distributed algorithm
based controller

11

G3

Storage

!

"•

6

Microgrid 2

PMU

7
Load B

1

G1

4

5

Microgrid 1

Fig. 2. The framework to implement the PMU-enabled distributed algorithm.
PMU measures the voltage angle at the bus, and the controller generates a
command regarding the amount of microgrid renewable energy injection from
the local storage to the grid based on the received voltage angle.
TABLE I
N UMERICAL VALUE OF PARAMETERS IN S IMULATION

3

2

G2

Load A

Fig. 3. IEEE 14-Bus power system model. Buses 3, 6 and 14 are connected
to microgrids that generate renewable energies and are three players in the
power generation game.
Renewable energy generations vs. Number of iterations under IUA

Parameter

Value

120$/MWh

P3l

120MW

ψ6

100$/MWh

P4l

100MW

80$/MWh

P6l
P8l
l
P10
l
P12
l
P14

105MW

ψ14
ζ

140$/MWh

P1g

280MW

g
P11

160MW

η

3×

104

0.2
Microgrid 1
Microgrid 2
Microgrid 3

70

ψ3

110MW
90MW
85MW

VI. C ASE S TUDIES
In this section, we validate our proposed algorithms via case
studies based on the IEEE 14-bus system. Fig. 3 shows the
power system model. Buses 3, 6 and 14 are three players in the
power generation game, and they are connected to microgrids
that generate wind, solar, geothermal renewable energies, respectively. Generation bus 2 is selected as the slack bus which
serves as a basis of the power system and also absorbs the
power uncertainties in the grid [14], [35]. Power transmission
line parameters of the 14-bus system can be found in [36].
Without loss of generality, the weighting parameters ηi = η
are the same for ∀i ∈ Nd , and the generation capacity of
g
microgrid i is equal to Pi,max
= 100MW, ∀i ∈ Nd . Other
parameters for the case studies are summarized in Table I. For
convenience, the number in the subscript of each parameter
denotes the bus indexing in Fig. 3.
A. Effectiveness of Algorithms
Based on the grid shown in Fig. 3, we obtain Nd = 3,
and the elements in S corresponding to microgrids constitute

Bus at microgrid 1
Bus at microgrid 2
Bus at microgrid 3

0.18
0.16

60
0.14
50
40
30

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06

20
0.04
10
0

0.02
0

5

10

15

20

25

0

0

5

Iteration

70MW

updates of microgrids are fast comparing with the physical
storage dynamics. Under the condition that the microgrids
make strategies over a period of time, then the storage dynamics need to be considered, and the algorithm is generalized to
the dynamic setting.
Remark 7: The PMU-enabled algorithm is applicable at
buses where PMU is installed. For nodes without PMU sensors, IUA and RUA can be used for the update. Then, the
algorithm can be generalized to a hybrid one.

Voltage angle vs. Number of iterations under IUA

80

Voltage angle (rad)

Value

Power generation (MW)

Parameter

(a)

10

15

20

25

Iteration

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) and (b) shows the results of the renewable energy generations
and the bus voltage angles of the three microgrids by using IUA, respectively.

a submatrix


0.1212 0.0371 0.0349
S0 = 0.0371 0.3850 0.1471 .
0.0349 0.1471 0.3909
s

Then, based on S0 , we obtain maxi,j6=i∈Nd sij
= 0.382.
sii
Therefore, the sufficient condition maxi,j6=i∈Nd sij
(N
d −1) <
ii
1 is satisfied. The results of the iterative update algorithm are
shown in Fig. 4. The algorithm converges to the Nash equilibg∗
rium P3g∗ = 55.1MW, P6g∗ = 34.7MW and P14
= 27.9MW
after 7 iterations.
To test the RUA, we set τ̄ = τ = 0.6 for simplicity,
and it also satisfies the sufficient condition in Theorem 3.
The results of RUA are shown in Fig. 5. We can see that
the algorithm converges to the Nash equilibrium after 14
g∗
at
iterations. Moreover, the values of P3g∗ , P6g∗ and P14
equilibrium are the same as those obtained by using the IUA
which validates the effectiveness of RUA.
B. Resiliency of the Distributed Algorithm
For each update, each player needs to measure the voltage
angle at his bus via PMU. In the following case studies, we
set τ1 = 0.65, τ2 = 0.7 and τ3 = 0.8 for three players,
respectively. Thus, τ̄ = 0.8 and τ = 0.65. We can verify that
the sufficient condition in Theorem 3 is still satisfied. For a
better illustration of the resilience property, we add the failure
to the smart grid when the system is at an equilibrium state.
1) Generator Breakdown: We consider the scenario that
generator G3 connecting with bus 12 is out of service at time

Renewable energy generations vs. Number of iterations under RUA

A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF L EMMA 1

Voltage angle vs. Number of iterations under RUA

80

0.2
Microgrid 1
Microgrid 2
Microgrid 3

70

Bus at microgrid 1
Bus at microgrid 2
Bus at microgrid 3

0.18
0.16
Voltage angle (degree)

Power generation (MW)

60
50
40
30

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06

20
0.04
10
0

0.02
0

5

10

15

20

25

0

0

5

Iteration

10

15

20

25

Iteration

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. (a) and (b) shows the results of the renewable energy generations and
the bus voltage angles of the three microgrids by using RUA, respectively.

step 19. The results are shown in Fig. 6(a). The first equilibrium is the same as that obtained by using IUA and RUA.
After the fault, the PDA re-converges to a new equilibrium
g∗
= 46.7MW
point P3g∗ = 60.3MW, P6g∗ = 47.8MW and P14
in another 10 time steps which reveals the resiliency of the
algorithm.
2) Microgrid Turn-off: When microgrid 3 at bus 14 is
turned off at time step 19, the results are shown in Fig.
6(b). The distributed algorithm can reach a new equilibrium
g∗
P3g∗ = 62.6MW, P6g∗ = 36.5MW and P14
= 0MW only
in 4 steps after the shutdown of microgrid 3. The faster
convergence rate in this case than that of generator breakdown
is due to the number of players is reduced from 3 to 2 which
validates the analysis in Section IV-D.
3) Open-circuit Fault of Transmission Line: We consider
the scenario that the transmission line connecting buses 8
and 14 in the grid is of open-circuit fault at time step 19.
The results for this case are shown in Fig. 6(c). We can
see that PDA is still able to re-converge to an equilibrium
P3g∗ = 57.9MW, P6g∗ = 36.4MW and P7g∗ = 16.4MW in 7
other time steps after the fault occurs, and the new equilibrium
leads to power re-dispatch in the smart grid.

Proof: Remind that −B is a real symmetric reduced
Laplacian
matrix, and −Bij ≤ 0 for ∀i 6= j ∈ N . In addition,
P
j∈N |Bij | ≤ |Bii |, ∀i ∈ N . Thus, −B is diagonally
dominant. Since −B is invertible, and −Bii > 0, ∀i ∈ N ,
−B is positive definite [37]. Together with non-positive offdiagonal elements of −B, we know that −B is an M -matrix.
Let c > 0 be the largest diagonal entry of −B, then, −B can
be expressed as −B = cI−A, where I is an identity matrix; and
A is a non-negative symmetric matrix. By using the PerronFrobenius theorem [38], ρ(A) is a positive eigenvalue of A,
where ρ(·) denotes the spectral radius of a matrix. In addition,
for any eigenvalue λ of A, c − λ is an eigenvalue of −B.
Therefore, c − ρ(A) is an eigenvalue of −B. Since −B is
positive definite, we obtain
c − ρ(A) > 0 ⇐⇒ c/ρ(A) > 1.

(17)

Denote Ã = 1c A, and −B̃ = − 1c B. Then, −B̃ = I − Ã. Note
that ρ(Ã) = 1c ρ(A) < 1 by (17). The summation of infinite
series
−B̃

∞
X

(Ã)n = (I − Ã)

n=0

∞
X

(Ã)n =

n=0

∞
X

(Ã)n −

n=0

∞
X

(Ã)n

n=1

= (Ã)0 = I.
Therefore, we obtain −(B̃)−1 =

P∞

n=0 (Ã)

n

, and

∞
1X
1
(Ã)n .
−B−1 = −(cB̃)−1 = − (B̃)−1 =
c
c n=0

Note that −B−1 = [sij ]i,j∈N is a summation of a series of
non-negative symmetric matrices, and thus −B−1 is symmet0
ric,
P∞and sijn ≥ 0, ∀i, j ∈ N . Furthermore, since (Ã) = I, and
n=1 (Ã) is non-negative, then, sii > 0, ∀ i ∈ N .

VII. C ONCLUSION

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1

In this paper, we have used a game-theoretic framework to
capture the interactions between microgrids in a power system.
In addition, we have proposed a resilient and fully distributed
algorithm for microgrids to update their strategy on the amount
of renewable energy generation. The knowledge that microgrid
requires is only the voltage angle at his bus which can be
measured by PMU. The effectiveness and resiliency of the
algorithm have been validated via case studies based on the
IEEE 14-bus system. One future work would be considering
the generators in the smart grid as leaders, and designing
efficient, resilient and distributed algorithms for microgrids.
The second extension would be incorporating the storage dynamics into the established framework, and obtaining dynamic
optimal power scheduling policies for players. Another future
work would be investigating the security of PMU devices, and
making the algorithm more resilient when PMU measured data
contains errors.

Proof: When the equilibrium solution P∗d is an inner point,
to show its uniqueness, one way is to show that matrix H is
invertible. Since S is of full rank, and base on the Sylvester’s
criterion, the upper left Nd -dimensional square matrix S1 in
S is also invertible. Note
Q that determinant |S1 | 6= 0 and it
satisfies |S1 | = |H| · i∈Nd sii . Because sii > 0, ∀i ∈ Nd ,
e admits a
|H| =
6 0 and thus H is invertible. Therefore, game G
unique Nash equilibrium in this case.
Then, we consider the case that some players achieve the
boundary at the equilibrium and show that the boundary
solution is unique. For convenience, we reorganize the players’
indexing as follows: players {1, 2, ..., M1 }, {M1 + 1, ..., M2 }
and {M2 +1, ..., Nd } are with inner, zero and maximum power
generation at the equilibrium, respectively. When M2 = Nd ,
no player generates the maximum power at the equilibrium,
while M1 = M2 indicates that all players generate power at
the equilibrium. In addition, we delete the rows and columns

Renewable energy generations vs. Number of iterations under TDA

Renewable energy generations vs. Number of iterations under TDA
Microgrid 1
Microgrid 2
Microgrid 3

80
Microgrid 1
Microgrid 2
Microgrid 3

60

Power generation (MW)

60
50
40
30

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

0

5

10

15

20
Iteration

25

30

35

40

50
40
30
20

20
10

Microgrid 1
Microgrid 2
Microgrid 3

70

Power generation (MW)

70

Power generation (MW)

Renewable energy generations vs. Number of iterations under TDA

70

80

10

0

5

10

15

(a)

20
Iteration

25

30

35

0

40

0

5

10

15

(b)

20
Iteration

25

30

35

40

(c)

Fig. 6. All three faults occur at time step 19. (a), (b) and (c) show the renewable energy generations of three microgrids related to the generator G3 turn-off,
microgrid 3 shut down, and open-circuit of the transmission line 8-14 in the smart grid, respectively.

corresponding to the players with the boundary power generation in (9) which yields









1

s12
s11

s13
s11

···

s21
s22

1

s23
s22

···

..
.

..
.

..
.

..

s M1 1
sM1 M1

s M1 2
sM1 M1

···

sM1 (M1 −1)
sM1 M1

.

s1M1
s11
s2M1
s22

..
.
1

(n)

(n)

(1) ḡ−i − sii Pil < γi < ḡ−i + sii Pimax :
(n+1)

∆Pi
P1∗
 ∗ 
  P2 


†


  ..  = qM1
 . 


∗
PM1




(n+1)

= Pi
− Pi∗

1
1
(n) 
∗
=
γi − ḡ−i −
γi − ḡ−i
sii
sii
1 X
(n) 
∗
=
sij Pj − Pj
sii
j6=i∈Nd
1 X
(n)
sij ∆Pj .
=−
sii
j6=i∈Nd

⇔

(n)

HM1 P∗d,M1 = q†M1 ,

(18)

(2) γi ≤ ḡ−i − sii Pil :
(n+1)

q†M1

†
where
:=
[q1† , q2† , ..., qM
]0 , qi†
:=
qi
1
1
max
max
max
sii si(M1 +1) PM1 +1 + si(M1 +2) PM1 +2 + ... + siM2 PM2

−
for
i ∈ {1, 2, ..., M1 }. It directly follows that HM1 is invertible,
and thus the solution P∗d,M1 exists and is unique. The reason
that the boundary solution is an equilibrium is as follows.
The payoff function (7) for player i is quadratic and convex.
For the cases γi ≤ ḡ−i − sii Pil and γi ≥ ḡ−i + sii Pimax ,
g
player i’s optimal response with respect to P−i
is achieved at
g∗
g∗
Pi = 0 and Pi = Pimax , respectively.
Next, we argue that the boundary solution is unique. One
possible case is that player i, i ∈ {1, 2, ..., M1 }, achieves the
boundary power at the equilibrium. This case is ruled out when
we construct (18). Another possible case is that player j, j ∈
{M1 + 1, M1 + 2, ..., Nd }, has the inner power generation.
This cannot be a Nash equilibrium either, since player j can
achieve a better payoff at the boundary. Other possible cases
can be a combination of these two cases and can be easily
eliminated through similar analysis. Therefore, the boundary
Nash equilibrium solution is unique.

∆Pi

= −Pil − Pi∗
(negative)


1
1
(n)
∗
>
γi − ḡ−i −
γi − ḡ−i
sii
sii
1 X
(n)
=−
sij ∆Pj .
sii
j6=i∈Nd

(n)

(3) γi ≥ ḡ−i + sii Pimax :
(n+1)

∆Pi

= Pimax − Pi∗
(positive)

1
1
(n) 
∗
<
γi − ḡ−i −
γi − ḡ−i
sii
sii
1 X
(n)
=−
sij ∆Pj .
sii
j6=i∈Nd

To sum up,

P
<



j6=i∈Nd

(n+1)
|∆Pi
|

P


 =
j6=i∈Nd

A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
(n)

(n)

Proof: First, define ∆Pi
:= Pi − Pi∗ , i ∈ Nd .
max
∗
l
When Pi
> Pi > −Pi , ∀i ∈ Nd , and given all players’
generated renewable energy except ith player’s at time step n,
we have the following:

(n)
sij
sii |∆Pj |, if

(n)

γi ≤ ḡ−i − sii Pil ,
(n)

or γi ≥ ḡ−i + sii Pimax ,
(n)
sij
otherwise.
sii |∆Pj |,

When the generated renewable energy of an arbitrary player
i at the Nash equilibrium point is 0, i.e., Pi∗ = −Pil , then
through similar analysis, we have

 = 0,
if γi ≤ ḡ−i − sii Pil ,
(n+1)
P sij
(n)
|∆Pi
|
otherwise.
 <
sii |∆Pj |,
j6=i∈Nd

In addition, when the generated power of player i at the
g
Nash equilibrium point is Pi,max
, i.e., Pi∗ = Pimax , then,

 = 0,
if γi ≥ ḡ−i + sii Pimax ,
(n+1)
P
(n)
sij
|∆Pi
|
otherwise.
 <
sii |∆Pj |,

where 0 < ξ < 1. Moreover, by using the Markov inequality,
we obtain
∞
X

(n)

Pr |∆Pi

n=1

∞
(n)
 X
E(|∆Pi |)
|> ≤

n=1

j6=i∈Nd

≤

Therefore,
(n+1)

|∆Pi

|≤

1
sii

(n)

X

sij |∆Pj |

(19)

j6=i∈Nd

holds for all three cases at any time step n.
Next, let k∆P k∞ denote the infinity-norm of the vector
(∆P1 , ∆P2 , ..., ∆PNd )T , i.e., k∆P k∞ = maxi∈Nd |∆Pi |.
Then, we have
 1 X
(n)
k∆P (n+1) k∞ ≤ max
sij |∆Pj |
i∈Nd sii
j6=i∈Nd
sij
(Nd − 1)k∆P (n) k∞ .
≤ max
i,j6=i∈Nd sii
s

(Nd − 1) < 1 is a sufficient
Therefore, maxi,j6=i∈Nd sij
ii
condition under which (19) is a contraction mapping that
ensures the global stability and convergence of IUA.
A PPENDIX D
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 3
(n+1)

E(|∆Pi
|)


(n+1)
= E |∆Pi
| Pi updates at time n · τi


(n)
+ E |∆Pi | Pi does not update at time n · (1 − τi )
τi X
(n)
(n)
sij · E(|∆Pi |) + (1 − τi ) · E(|∆Pi |).
≤
sii
j6=i∈Nd

Define k∆P k∞ := maxi∈Nd E(|∆Pi |). Then,
sij
(n+1)
max E(|∆Pi
|) ≤ max τi (Nd − 1)k∆P (n) k∞
i∈Nd
i,j6=i∈Nd
sii
+ max (1 − τi )k∆P (n) k∞ ,
i

which is equivalent to
k∆P (n+1) k∞ ≤


sij
(Nd − 1) + (1 − τ ) k∆P (n) k∞ . (20)
τ̄ · max
i,j6=i∈Nd sii

τ̄ · max

sij
sii (Nd

i,j6=i∈Nd

− 1) + (1 − τ ) < 1 implies

sij
(Nd − 1) < τ
sii

(21)

which is a sufficient condition that leads the right hand side in
(20) to a contraction mapping, and thus ensures the stability
and convergence of the random update algorithm in the infinity
norm. Next, we show a stronger convergence, almost sure
convergence, of the algorithm under (21).
From (20), we have
k∆P (n) k∞ ≤ ξk∆P (n−1) k∞ ≤ ... ≤ ξ n k∆P (0) k∞ ,

(23)

where  > 0 and Pr(·) is the probability measure. Inserting
(22) into (23) yields
∞
X

(n)

Pr |∆Pi

n=1

∞
 1X
ξ n k∆P (0) k∞
|> ≤
 n=1

1 − ξ∞
k∆P (0) k∞
(1 − ξ)
1
k∆P (0) k∞ .
=
(1 − ξ)
PN
(n)
Therefore, the increasing sequence
n=1 Pr(|∆Pi | > )
1
(0)
is upper bounded by (1−ξ) k∆P k∞ with the augment
of N , which indicates the convergence of the sequence
PN
(n)
n=1 Pr(|∆Pi | > ) for ∀ > 0. By using the BorelCantelli lemma [39], we obtain


(n)
Pr lim sup{|∆Pi | > } = 0, ∀i ∈ Nd ,
=

n→∞

Proof: Based on (19), we have the following

Therefore, τ̄ · maxi,j6=i∈Nd

∞
1X
k∆P (n) k∞ ,
 n=1

(22)

which implies that the proposed random update algorithm
converges to the unique Nash equilibrium almost surely when
(21) is satisfied.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Ackermann, G. Andersson, and L. Söder, “Distributed generation: a
definition,” Electric power systems research, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 195–204,
2001.
[2] U. D. of Energy, “Annual energy outlook 2015.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
[3] J. Driesen and F. Katiraei, “Design for distributed energy resources,”
Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 30–40, 2008.
[4] N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay, “Microgrids,”
Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 78–94, 2007.
[5] P. M. Costa and M. A. Matos, “Assessing the contribution of microgrids
to the reliability of distribution networks,” Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 382–389, 2009.
[6] C. Colson, M. Nehrir, and R. Gunderson, “Distributed multi-agent
microgrids: a decentralized approach to resilient power system selfhealing,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Resilient
Control Systems, 2011, pp. 83–88.
[7] Y. Li, B. L. Ng, M. Trayer, and L. Liu, “Automated residential demand
response: Algorithmic implications of pricing models,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1712–1721, 2012.
[8] G. S. Kasbekar and S. Sarkar, “Pricing games among interconnected
microgrids,” in Proceedings of IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, 2012, pp. 1–8.
[9] Q. Zhu, J. Zhang, P. W. Sauer, A. Dominguez-Garcia, and T. Basar, “A
game-theoretic framework for distributed generation of renewable energies in smart grids,” in Proceedings of American Control Conference,
2012, pp. 3623–3628.
[10] T. Basar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic noncooperative game theory. SIAM,
1995, vol. 200.
[11] W. Saad, Z. Han, H. V. Poor, and T. Başar, “Game-theoretic methods for
the smart grid: An overview of microgrid systems, demand-side management, and smart grid communications,” Signal Processing Magazine,
IEEE, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 86–105, 2012.
[12] J. De La Ree, V. Centeno, J. S. Thorp, and A. G. Phadke, “Synchronized
phasor measurement applications in power systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2010.

[13] S. Sridhar, A. Hahn, and M. Govindarasu, “Cyber–physical system
security for the electric power grid,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100,
no. 1, pp. 210–224, 2012.
[14] J. D. Glover, M. Sarma, and T. Overbye, Power System Analysis &
Design, SI Version. Cengage Learning, 2011.
[15] A. Kwasinski, V. Krishnamurthy, J. Song, and R. Sharma, “Availability
evaluation of micro-grids for resistant power supply during natural
disasters,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2007–
2018, 2012.
[16] A.-H. Mohsenian-Rad, V. W. Wong, J. Jatskevich, R. Schober, and
A. Leon-Garcia, “Autonomous demand-side management based on
game-theoretic energy consumption scheduling for the future smart
grid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 320–331,
2010.
[17] E. Nekouei, T. Alpcan, and D. Chattopadhyay, “Game-theoretic frameworks for demand response in electricity markets,” IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 748–758, 2015.
[18] Z. M. Fadlullah, D. M. Quan, N. Kato, and I. Stojmenovic, “Gtes: An
optimized game-theoretic demand-side management scheme for smart
grid,” Systems Journal, IEEE, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 588–597, 2014.
[19] S. Maharjan, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhang, S. Gjessing, and T. Basar, “Dependable
demand response management in the smart grid: A stackelberg game
approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 120–
132, 2013.
[20] B. Chai, J. Chen, Z. Yang, and Y. Zhang, “Demand response management with multiple utility companies: A two-level game approach,” IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 722–731, 2014.
[21] Q. Zhu, P. Sauer, and T. Basar, “Value of demand response in the smart
grid,” in Proceedings of Power and Energy Conference at Illinois, 2013,
pp. 76–82.
[22] E. Dall’Anese, H. Zhu, and G. B. Giannakis, “Distributed optimal power
flow for smart microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4,
no. 3, pp. 1464–1475, 2013.
[23] S. Chaiken, “A combinatorial proof of the all minors matrix tree
theorem,” SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods, vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 319–329, 1982.
[24] Y. Levron, J. M. Guerrero, and Y. Beck, “Optimal power flow in
microgrids with energy storage,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3226–3234, 2013.
[25] P. Wan and M. D. Lemmon, “Optimal power flow in microgrids
using event-triggered optimization,” in Proceedings of American Control
Conference, 2010, pp. 2521–2526.
[26] J. B. Rosen, “Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave
n-person games,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.
520–534, 1965.
[27] F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized nash equilibrium problems,”
Annals of Operations Research, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 177–211, 2010.
[28] J. Nocedal and S. Wright, Numerical optimization. Springer Science
& Business Media, 2006.
[29] M. Kezunovic, “Smart fault location for smart grids,” IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 2011.
[30] D. B. Rawat and C. Bajracharya, “Detection of false data injection attacks in smart grid communication systems,” Signal Processing Letters,
vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1652–1656, 2015.
[31] T. T. Kim and H. V. Poor, “Strategic protection against data injection
attacks on power grids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 326–333, 2011.
[32] K. Reinhard, “On data quality and availability modeling of power
grid phasor measurements,” in Proceedings of North American Power
Symposium, 2012, pp. 1–5.
[33] Y. Mo, T. H.-J. Kim, K. Brancik, D. Dickinson, H. Lee, A. Perrig, and
B. Sinopoli, “Cyber–physical security of a smart grid infrastructure,”
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 195–209, 2012.
[34] E. Bou-Harb, C. Fachkha, M. Pourzandi, M. Debbabi, and C. Assi,
“Communication security for smart grid distribution networks,” Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 42–49, 2013.
[35] P. W. Sauer, Power system dynamics and stability. Prentice Hall, 1998.
[36] R. Christie, “Power systems test case archive.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/pf14/pg tca14bus.htm.
[37] A. Berman and N. Shaked-Monderer, Completely positive matrices.
World Scientific, 2003.
[38] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis. Cambridge university
press, 2012.
[39] P. Billingsley, Probability and measure. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

