Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Multiple Criteria Decision Support for Suppliers on the Competitive Electric Power Market

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As an active participant of a competitive energy market, the generator (the energy supplier) challenges new management decisions being exposed to the financial risk environment. There is a strong need for the decision support models and tools for energy market participants. This paper shows that the stochastic short-term planning model can be effectively used as a key analytical tool within the decision support process for relatively small energy suppliers (price-takers). A self-scheduling method for the thermal units on the energy market is addressed. A schedule acquired for given preferences can be used as a desired pattern for bidding process. The uncertainty of the market prices is modeled by a set of possible scenarios with assigned probabilities. Several risk criteria are introduced leading to a multiple criteria optimization problem. The risk criteria are well appealing and easily computable (by means of linear programming) but they meet the formal risk aversion standards. The aspiration/reservation based interactive analysis applied to the multiple criteria problem allows us to find an efficient solution (generation scheme) well adjusted to the generator preferences (risk attitude).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.H. Allen, M.D. Ilic, Price-Based Commitment Decision in the Electricity Markets (Springer, London, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. Andersson, H. Mausser, D. Rosen and S. Uryasev, Credit risk optimization with conditional valueat-risk criterion, Math. Program. 89 (2001) 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C.J. Andrews, Evaluating risk management strategies in resource planning, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (1995) 420–426.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.M. Arroyo and A.J. Conejo, Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (2000) 1098–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  5. G.A. Berry, B.F. Hobbs, W.A. Meroney, R.P. O'Neil and W.R. Stewart, Analyzing strategic bidding behaviour in transmission networks, in: IEEE Tutorial on Game Theory Applications in Electric Power Markets, ed. H. Singh (IEEE Press, 1999) pp. 7–32.

  6. D.P. Bertsekas, G.S. Lauer, N.R. Sandell and T.A. Posbergh, Optimal short-term scheduling of large scale power systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 28 (1983) 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper, Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming (Wiley, New York, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Dentcheva, R. Gollmer, A. Möller, W. Römisch and R. Schultz, Solving the unit commitment problem in power generation by primal and dual methods, in: Progress in Industrial Mathematics at ECMI 96, Stuttgart (1997) pp. 332–339.

  9. T.S. Dillon,W. Edwin, H.D. Kochs and R.J. Taud, Integer programming commitment with probabilistic reserve determination, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst. 97(6) (1978) 2154–2166.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.W. Ferrero, S.M. Shahidehpour and V.C. Ramesh, Transactions analysis in deregulated power system using game theory, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12 (1997) 1340–1347.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.W. Ferrero, J.F. Rivera and S.M. Shahidehpour, Application of games with incomplete information for pricing electricity in deregulated power pools, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13 (1998) 184–189.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O.B. Fosso, A. Gjelsvik, A. Haugstad and M.B.Wangensteen, Generation scheduling in a deregulated system: the Norwegian case, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (1999) 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  13. X. Guan, Y.-C. Ho and F. Lai, An ordinal optimization based bidding strategy for electric power suppliers in the daily energy market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16 (2001) 788–797.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Y.Y. Haimes, Risk of extreme events and the fallacy of the expected value, Control Cybernet. 22 (1993) 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  15. B.F. Hobbs and P. Meier, Energy Decisions and the Environment: A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  16. B.F. Hobbs, M.H. Rothkopf, R.P. O'Neill and H.P. Chao (eds.), The Next Generation of Electric Power Unit Commitment Models (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  17. E.S. Huse, I. Wangensteen and H.H. Faanes, Thermal power generation scheduling by simulated competition, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (1999) 472–476.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ILOG Inc., Using the CPLEX Callable Library (ILOG Inc., Incline Village, 1997).

  19. IMPAQ Inc., I-Enviser (IMPAQ Information Management Inc., Warsaw, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. T.A. Johnsen, Demand, generation and price in the Norwegian market for electric power, Energy Economics 23 (2001) 227–251.

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Konno and H. Yamazaki, Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its application to Tokyo stock market, Management Sci. 37 (1991) 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M.M. Kostreva and W. Ogryczak, Linear optimization with multiple equitable criteria, RAIRO Rech. Opér. 33 (1999) 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.W. Lamont and S. Rajan, Strategic bidding in an energy brokerage, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12 (1997) 1729–1733.

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. Lemarechal, Short-term optimization of power plants by decomposition, in: Proc. of the 14th Sympos. on Operation Research, Ulm (1989).

  25. A. Lewandowski and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.), Aspiration Based Decision Support Systems – Theory, Software and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  26. C.A. Li, A.J. Svoboda, X.H. Guan and H. Singh, Revenue adequate bidding strategies in competitive electricity markets, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (1999) 492–497.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, J. Finance 7 (1952) 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A.G. Martins, D. Coelho, C.H. Artunes and J. Climaco, A multiple objective linear programming approach to power generation planning, Internat. Trans. Oper. Res. 3 (1996) 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  29. B. Mo, A. Gjelsvik and A. Grundt, Integrated risk management of hydro-power scheduling and contract management, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16 (2001) 216–221.

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Möller and W. Römisch, A dual method for the unit commitment problem, in: Proc. 9th ECMI Conf., Lyngby/Copenhagen (1996).

  31. J.A. Muckstadt and S.A. Koenig, An application of Lagrangian relaxation in power generation, Working paper, WP–96–109, IIASA, Laxenburg (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  32. W. Ogryczak, Stochastic dominance relation and linear risk measures, financial modelling, in: Proc. 23rd Meeting of the EUROWorking Group on FinancialModelling, ed. A.M.J. Skulimowski (Progress & Business Publ., Cracow, 1999) pp. 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  33. W. Ogryczak and A. Ruszczyński, From stochastic dominance to mean–risk models: semideviations as risk measures, European J. Oper. Res. 116 (1999) 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  34. W. Ogryczak, K. Studzi´nski and K. Zorychta, DINAS: a computer-assisted analysis system for multiobjective transshipment problems with facility location, Comput. Oper. Res. 19 (1992) 637–647.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ch.W. Richter, Jr. and G.B. Sheble, Genetic algorithm evolution of utility bidding strategies for the competitive marketplace, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13 (1998) 256–261.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R.T. Rockafellar and R.J.-B. Wets, Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty, Math. Oper. Res. 16 (1991) 119–147.

    Google Scholar 

  37. S.M. Shahidehpour, Unit commitment with transmission security and voltage constraints, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (1999) 757–764.

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Shahidehpour and M.Marwali, Maintenance Scheduling in a Restructured Power System (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  39. G.B. Sheble, Decision analysis tools for GENCO dispatchers, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (1999) 745–750.

    Google Scholar 

  40. G.B. Sheble and G.N. Fahd, Unit commitment literature synopsis, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9 (1994) 128–135.

    Google Scholar 

  41. G.B. Shrestha, S. Kai and L. Goel, Strategic bidding for minimum power outpout in the competitive power market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16 (2001) 813–818.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S.N. Siddiqi, Project valuation and power portfolio management in a competitive market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (2000) 116–121.

    Google Scholar 

  43. H.L. Song, C.C. Liu and J. Lawarree, Decision making of an electricity suppliers bid in a spot market, in: Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society 1999 Summer Meeting, Vol. 1 (1999) pp. 692–696.

    Google Scholar 

  44. M.G. Speranza, Linear programming models for portfolio optimization, Finance 14 (1993) 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R.E. Steuer, Multiple Criteria Optimization – Theory, Computation & Applications (Wiley, New York, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  46. E. Toczyłowski and I. Zółtowska, Analysis of optimization models for utilities acting in the presence of market risk, in: Optimization in Electric Power Systems, IV National Conference, Jachranka, Poland (2001) pp. 122–128 (in Polish).

  47. P. Visudhiphan and M.D. Ilic, Dynamic games-based modeling of electricity markets, in: Proc. of IEEE Power Engineering Society 1999 Winter Meeting, Vol. 1 (1999) pp. 274–281.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G.A Whitmore and M.C. Findlay (eds.), Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision-Making Under Risk (DC Heath, Lexington, MA, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  49. A.P. Wierzbicki, A mathematical basis for satisficing decision making, Math. Model. 3 (1982) 391–405.

    Google Scholar 

  50. A.P. Wierzbicki, M. Makowski and J. Wessels (eds.), Model Based Decision Support Methodology with Environmental Applications (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  51. H.P. Williams, Model Building in Mathematical Programming (Wiley, New York, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  52. M.R. Young, A minimax portfolio selection rule with linear programming solution, Management Sci. 44 (1998) 673–683.

    Google Scholar 

  53. D. Zhang, Y. Wang and P.B. Luh, Optimization based bidding strategies in the deregulated market, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (2001) 981–986.

    Google Scholar 

  54. H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Sets Theory and Its Applications, 3rd ed. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Control & Computation Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-665, Warsaw, Poland

    Mariusz Kaleta, Włodzimierz Ogryczak, Eugeniusz Toczyłowski & Izabela Żółtowska

Authors
  1. Mariusz Kaleta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Włodzimierz Ogryczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugeniusz Toczyłowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Izabela Żółtowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eugeniusz Toczyłowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaleta, M., Ogryczak, W., Toczyłowski, E. et al. On Multiple Criteria Decision Support for Suppliers on the Competitive Electric Power Market. Annals of Operations Research 121, 79–104 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023351118725

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023351118725

Search

Navigation