Design and Simulation of Peer-to-Peer Energy

Trading Framework with Dynamic Electricity Price

Bidan Zhanga, Yang Dub, Eng Gee Lima, Lin Jiangc and Ke Yand
a
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China
b
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Australia
c
Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
2019 29th Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC) 978-1-7281-5043-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 10.1109/AUPEC48547.2019.211948

d
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Email: Bidan.zhang18@student.xjtlu.edu.cn yang.du@jcu.edu.au
Abstract — Peer-to-Peer (P2P) market scheme enables the
individual participant to trade surplus electricity generated by
rooftop photovoltaic (PV) with their neighbors. It is an effective
way to manage distributed generation (DG) and promote demand
response. In this paper, we proposed a P2P trading framework
with consideration of the dynamic retail electricity price for the
first time. The prosumers can use the decision-making model
proposed in this framework to automatically generate bids and
participate in the auction in the P2P market. Simulation has been
built in MATLAB to evaluate the performance of three pricing
models: Double Auction (DA), Mid-Market Rate (MMR) and
Supply and Demand Ratio (SDR). Simulation results show that
P2P energy trading can bring economic and technical benefits to
participants. It is also able to improve the local balance of energy
generation and consumption.
Index Terms— Peer-to-Peer energy trading, power market,
distributed energy resources, dynamic electricity price, battery
control strategy, clearing pricing mechanism
I. INTRODUCTION
The number of distributed energy resources (DERs), such
as rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system and energy storage,
connected to the power grid is increasing rapidly in recent years.
Due to PV system cost reduction and advances in information
and communication technology (ICT), more and more power
consumers are changing into prosumers [1-3]. In Australia,
more than a quarter of homes have installed the rooftop solar
panels [4]. However, the cost of the battery is still high which
limit its large-scale adoption. Meanwhile, many governments
are reducing subsidies for DERs. Great interests have been
raised to find an optimal way to manage DERs and maximize
the prosumers’ benefit.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading is the buying and selling of
energy between two or more grid-connected parties. Operators
provide only one local market platform with the necessary
functions, in which all market participants trade or share energy
to maximize their respective interests. Participants can be
neighboring individual residences, communities, microgrids, or
local distribution networks. Smart electricity meters,
blockchain, cryptocurrency, and other advanced information
and communication technologies make it possible to realize
minute-by-minute transactions [5]. On the other hand,
compared with the traditional feed-in tariff (FiT) scheme,
prosumers can make more revenue by participating in P2P
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 61803315), Jiangsu Science and Technology Program
(BK20180243), AI University Research Centre (AI-URC) through XJTLU
Key Programme Special Fund (KSF-P-02 and KSF-A-11) and research
development fund of XJTLU (RDF-17-01-28, RDF-15-01-40).
energy trading [6]. Under a FiT, prosumers trade directly and
independently with retailers. When the amount of electricity
generated does not meet prosumer's demand, prosumer buys the
deficit of electricity from the retail market at retail prices. When
the prosumer consumes less than its production, the surplus is
sold back to the retailer at the export price set by the FiT scheme.
To encourage prosumers to consume locally, it is a common
practice in many countries to set the export price below retail
prices [7]. This fact prompted prosumers to attempt to share
energy directly with neighbors in search of higher returns.
There is a huge potential to develop a P2P energy trading
scheme for more costumers.
Currently, several pilot projects and studies are conducted
to explore the potential of P2P energy trading. The pilot
projects are being developed around the world including Piclo
energy trading platform in the UK [8], Brooklyn Microgrid in
New York [9], power ledger in Australian [10], and the
Enerchain Project in Europe [11]. Most existing studies involve
designing energy sharing model [12][13], motivate the
participation of prosumers [6], battery control optimization in
P2P market [14][15], evaluation of energy sharing mechanisms
[7] and demand-side management [16][17]. Some mechanisms
for P2P energy sharing have been proposed and named by
researchers. Chen et al. [18] create a novel prediction
integration strategy optimization model to facilitate prosumers
actively participating in the continuous double auction market.
Chao et al. proposed and compared three different pricing
mechanisms for P2P energy sharing, namely bill sharing (BS)
mid-market rate (MMR) and auction-based pricing strategy
[19]. In the energy sharing model of P2P products proposed by
Liu et al., the internal price is determined by the supply-demand
ratio (SDR) in the micro-grid [20]. Yang et al. have proposed a
double-sided auction (DA) market clearing mechanism for
renewable generation units [21]. Zhou et al. evaluated three
existing P2P energy sharing mechanisms, i.e. SDR, MMR and
BS [7]. Cintuglu et al. designed a reverse auction model to
create a competitive market environment for DER owners [22].
Three P2P pricing mechanisms such as DA [21], MMR [19] and
SDR [20] were selected and implemented in this paper.
However, as pointed in [7], none of the current studies has
considered the impact of dynamic retail electricity prices on the
P2P market. There is a trend that more retailers may adopt
dynamic prices or implement demand response measures. It is
of interest to see whether various market mechanisms can be
applied in this situation, how battery control should be
optimized, and how prosumer will react.
The main contributions of this paper are listed as follows:
(1) A simulation platform is established to evaluate the
performance of different P2P trading mechanisms. (2)

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Retail Market
Historical Data
Energy Orders
DSOs
Energy Orders
Forecast
Energy Sharing Coordinator
Predicted Data
Pricing model
Power Flow Energy/Price Bid
Information Flow Internal Price
Prosumer
Energy
Energy
Decision
Making model Making model
Fig. 1. Overview of the proposed P2P energy trading framework.
Prosumer's decision model is proposed for generating energy
bid and price bid, which involved an innovative optimal battery
control strategy and using reinforcement learning technique. (3)
For the first time, the dynamic retail price is considered for the
trading framework design. Three P2P pricing mechanisms (DA,
MMR and SDR) were implemented and evaluated.
II. PEER-TO-PEER TRADING FRAMEWORK DESIGN
A. Framework overview
Comparing with conventional FiT scheme, it is more
beneficial for participants to trade with their peers. In a P2P
energy trading scheme, prosumer first trades its power
generation and consumption in the P2P market at the internal
price, and then clear the remaining electricity deficit or surplus
with the retail market. The internal price is usually set between
the export price and the retail price, so that each prosumer,
whether selling or buying electricity, can benefit from the P2P
market.
Fig.1 shows a P2P energy trading framework proposed in
this paper. The energy trading coordinator (ETC) manage the
transactions in the P2P market. The ETC can be an online
platform, operated by machine code rather than traditional
intermedia run by humans. Its main functions are to specify
trading rules and supervise energy trading activities, as well as
metering, billing and information sharing. Under this
framework, all transactions are processed by ESC instead of
only trade with retailers. After receiving prosumer's bid, the
ETC runs the pricing model, such as DA, MMR or SDR, to
obtain internal price based on the predicted retail price to match
the orders. The orders successfully filled in the P2P market are
all cleared at the same internal price. One special scenario can
occur due to retail price fluctuations that the retail price is lower
than the export price. In this case, trading in the retail market
benefits more than trading in the P2P market. In this case, the
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Transaction (n+1):
Transaction n Implementation n
Recording all submitted Implementing all executable
orders and matching orders orders
Retail&Export
Price
Imbalance Transaction (n-1) Implementation (n-1)
Energy Bid
0 min 15 min 30 min 45 min
A full round of trading.
Fig. 2. P2P market internal trading process.
orders will be traded at retail price or export price with the retail
market. At the same time, all matched orders will be sent to
distribution system operators (DSOs) to verify if the
transactions violate network constraints. Compared with the
market model proposed in reference [23], the proposed
framework in this paper includes forecast agent. Since dynamic
retail prices and internal prices in the P2P market will be
announced publicly, forecast agent is introduced to predict
Prosumer
retail prices based on historical data. Although many advanced
forecasting technologies have been proposed [24][25], it is still
Decision
very challenging for each user to predict PV power generation
by themselves, so forecast agent will also provide short-term
PV power forecasting services. It is assumed that the prediction
is accurate enough in this paper. After the order is filled, a
contract will be automatically signed, every participant needs
to execute the contract. The penalty will be applied to the party
who failed to complete the contract.
As shown in Figure 2, a trading cycle is 30 minutes, with
the first 15 minutes for the auction process, and the last 15
minutes for the contract to be implemented. Besides, this rolling
trade specifies that the execution period of the previous trade is
also the bid submission phase of the next trade. Real-time
electricity prices and bills are generated and sent to each market
participant at the end of the 30-minute trading cycle.
B. Decision making model
The decision model generates bidding documents for
prosumers, which including bidding price PˆP and electric
quantity Eˆ P . Prosumers’ decisions are denoted as:
{
dec = Eˆ P , PˆP } (1)
1) Battery control model and energy bidding decisions
The control of the battery is optimized to maximizing
individual benefits, which is affected by the market price and
reflects prosumer's bidding decision. The objective function for
prosumer is shown in (2) and (3). It shows is that minimizes the
sum of electricity costs and maximizes the total income of
battery and generation installation houses h and peers p in a
period of t. Formula (a) represents the electricity charges paid
to retailers and P2P markets due to the user's electricity
consumption. Formula (b) expresses the income from the sale
of electricity from DG to the grid and P2P market. Note that
even if this power is used to meet the load demand, it is
equivalent to save the expense, so the expression remains
unchanged. Formulas (c) and (d) show the cost of charging the
battery and the income that can be obtained from discharging
the battery respectively.
Object function:
 Fig. 3. Battery operation comparison under different set retail prices.

Minimize {Cost , - Income} (2) 1

S (t ,h ) = S (t -1,h ) + h（
C CG
(t ,h )
+ CP (t ,h )）- （DG (t ,h ) + DP (t ,h )） (11)
hD
min åå ( PG (t ) × E G (t ,h ) × Dt + PP (t ) × EP (t ,h ) × Dt） (a)
h t
Equations (12), (13) represent the total transaction volume
-(PP (t ) × GP (t ,h ) × Dt + PE ( t ) × GG ( t , h ) × Dt ) (b)
(3) of electricity demand bid and sales bid in the P2P market.
+(PG (t ) × CG (t ,h ) × Dt + PP (t ) × CP (t ,h ) × Dt ) (c)
PTB (t) = å CP (t ,h ) + dem(t ,h ) - pv (t ,h ) , pv(t ,h ) £ dem(t ,h ) (12)
-（PP × DP
(t ) (t ,h )
× Dt +PE × DG(t ) (t ,h)
× Dt） (d ) h

Where PG, PP and PE represent the retail price, internal PTS (t) = å DE (t ,h ) + pv(t ,h ) - dem(t ,h ) , dem(t ,h) £ pv( t ,h ) (13)
price and export price respectively. EG, EP are energy bought h

from the retail market and P2P market. GG and GP represent the
PV power sold to the retailer and P2P market. C and D stand
for the battery charging and discharging rate, and subscript P,
G stands for dealing with the P2P market and retail market
respectively. The transaction period is denoted as Δt.
Equations (4), (5) indicate that prosumers’ power demands
dem and PV generation pv does not change, the excess power
generated by PV and battery consumed by the local load first.
As (6) and (7) shows, individual transaction volume should be
less than the total amount of electricity purchased bid PTB or
sold bid PTS in the P2P market.
2) Price prediction model and price bidding decisions
Reinforcement learning refers to the study of the learning
process through interaction, which focuses on the effect of
rewards on subjects' choice to achieve goals [26]. In the
learning process, it is assumed that the production entity will
make decisions not only considering the current situation but
also referring to historical experience and/or projections for the
future to obtain the maximum benefit. This model is derived
from reference [7], Eq.(14) to (16) represent prosumer's price
bidding decision based on proposed reinforcement learning.
i -1

E G ( t ,h ) + E P ( t ,h ) = dem(t ,h ) (4) PˆP (i ,t,h ) = a1 (1 - g ) PP (i -1,t,h ) + g å (w P k P

(k,t, h )
)
k =i -W (14)
GP ( t ,h ) +GE (t ,h ) = pv (t ,h ) (5) + a 2 (1 - g ) [ PE + µ ( PG - PE ) ùû

åC h
P
(t ,h )
+ EP (t ,h ) £ PTS (t) (6)
a1 + a 2 = 1 (15)

Actual _ profit ( k ,t ,h )
å DP (t ,h ) + GP (t ,h ) £ PTB (t) (7) wk = i -1
(16)
h
å Actual _ profit ( k ,t , h )

The physical characteristic of the battery is represented in k =i -W

(8) that a lower bound s and an upper bound s limit the storage
level S (t ,h ) per battery. The battery’s charging and discharging
rate is limited to have specified rates a , b as shown in (9) and
(10). The overall storage level for the battery in a time step t is
determined by equation (11), where h C and h D denote the
charging and discharging efficiency.
s £ S (t ,h ) £ s
0 £ DG ( t ,h ) + DP ( t , h ) £ b
Where i is the number of current iterations; g represents
the learning rate value between 0 and 1; W is the number of the
previous iteration that prosumer considers making decisions;
wk is the iteration with order k of weighting factor of internal
price. a1 and a 2 are the weighting factor for predicting prices;
In the formula (16), Actual_profit is the income gained by the
seller from selling electricity, while it is the electricity cost
(8) saving for the buyer.
(9)

0 £ CG (t ,h ) + CP (t ,h ) £ a (10)

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 4. Electricity traded in P2P market under different set retail prices.

B. Technical index
III. Performance Evaluation
Two technical indexes are defined to measure the system
To evaluate the performance of the proposed framework, performance after the introduction of the P2P market from the
economic and technical index are introduced. The evaluation perspective of the power system.
results can be used to guide the design of an appropriate At the peak time, the volume of transactions in the retail
mechanism. market may increase sharply and the system will be under
A. Economic index significant pressure. The P2P market encourages local energy
The economic index measures the benefits of the overall balance. The internal trading volume of P2P market divided by
participants in the P2P energy trading. It measures the the total trading volume Total Volume at power transaction peak
willingness of all parties to participate in the market. Equation time tp is defined as Energy Balance index.
(17) shows the electricity cost saving rate. The total increase (t ,h) (t ,h)
PTB p + PTS p
Energy Balance = åå (22)
income rate from selling electricity is shown in (18), where tp h Total Volume
CostFiT , IncomeFiT and CostP , IncomeP represent the cost and
Within the P2P internal market, if considerable
income under FiT and P2P scheme. A weights factor d can be transactions flood into the market at a certain time, high peak
taken into account to evaluate the overall interests of the power will cause distributed network congestion. Therefore,
prosumer as shown in (19). Power Flatness is introduced to measure the transaction volume
Cost FiT - Cost P distribution of P2P internal market.
Cost Saving = å (17)
Cost FiT Volume(t )
Power Flatness = åå 1 - (23)
PTB(t,h) + PTS (t,h)
IncomeP - IncomeFiT t h
Increase Income = å (18) Where Volume is the difference above the average value
IncomeFiT
of total trading volume. In addition, the higher value of these
two indexes, the better the performance of the mechanism.
Overall Benefit = d ( Increase Income)
(19)
+ (1 - d )(Cost Saving ) IV. Framework implementation and evaluation
The user’s participation can be described in (20), S (t ,h ) Full A. Case design and simulation
represents the storage level of the battery under uninterruptible A case study is designed to evaluate three price clearing
work. The participation willingness is shown in (21), where mechanisms (DA, MMR and SDR) using the proposed
BenefitB reflects the overall benefits of battery installation as framework. A community microgrid is simulated which
compared to no battery installation. It can be seen that when the includes 10 participants, five of whom install both solar panels
participation degree is low and the profit is large, the users are and batteries, the other five are loads only. Retail and export
more willing to participate. prices were quoted from the real-time electricity price at June
S (t ,h ) Full - S (t ,h ) 22 in New South Wales, Australia [27]. To explore the impacts
Participation = åå (20) of the fluctuating price, a non-fluctuating electricity price
h t S (t ,h ) Full
(average retail price) model is set as a benchmark. Solar
Participation willingness = generation and load data were obtained from the CREST model
(21) [28]. The parameters of the battery model are from reference
d × BenefitB + (1 - d )（
× 1/Participation） [29]. All models were simulated using MATLAB, and the
decision-making models of prosumer were solved using Matlab
YALMIP toolbox.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 5. Electricity traded in the retail market under different set retail prices.

Fig.3 shows the different battery control behavior under

different market mechanisms, a positive number means the
battery is charging, and a negative number means the battery is
discharging. Battery does not operate if it is not profitable.
Compared with constant electricity price, the battery working
time is longer under fluctuating electricity price. It indicates
that dynamic retail price stimulates more demand response. The
three mechanisms causing similar results under fluctuating
prices, suggesting that the retail price has a greater impact on
battery control than the P2P internal price.
Figure 4 shows the trading volume under different clearing
mechanisms in P2P market. It can be observed that the internal
trading volume of P2P market is affected by the retail price, and
the peak volume is higher under the fluctuating retail price. Fig Fig. 6. Benefit index comparison under different set retail prices. (Where Index
4. (b) shows that when the retail price is constant, only the A represents increased income; B is cost saving; C refer to the overall benefit.)
internal price affects the trading power curve, while the MMR's
trading curve is flatter.
The transaction volume in the retail market is shown in
Fig.5. P2P market leads to a decrease in transaction volume in
the retail market compared with FiT scheme. The highest retail
price periods are between 6:30 to 9:00 and 17:00 to 21:30,
which also reflect the electricity transaction peak period in the
retail market. The transaction volume in the peak demand
period is minimized under fluctuating retail prices scheme
which can reduce the network pressure. Also, the transaction
volume also increased during the valley demand period.
B. Pricing model comparison
Three pricing models are evaluated using proposed
indexes. Fig.6 and Fig.7 compare the economic index, and Fig. 7. User response index comparison under different set retail prices. (Where
Table 1 displays the results of the technical index. Index D represents battery benefit; E is participation; F refer to the participation
Compared with the FiT, Fig.6 demonstrates that P2P willingness)
market can increase the total income of electricity sellers and Fig.7 shows the evaluation results regard to user response.
reduce the total cost of electricity buyers. Index A shows the Index D indicates that by installing the battery, benefits are
DA mechanism benefits the electricity sellers the most. Index increased for all the three mechanisms, among which the
B (cost saving) shows that the SDR mechanism can save the battery owners can gain more benefits under the DA mechanism.
most money for power buyers. Here we set the weight The participation index (index E) are very similar for all the
coefficient of increased increase and cost saving equal to 50% cases. Index F represents the satisfaction degree of users, and
respectively to get the total benefit result. The result shows that the weight coefficients set here are 60% for index D and 40%
DA mechanism contributes the most to the overall benefit. for index E. The DA mechanism has the highest user
Weight coefficients can be changed for different design purpose. satisfaction degree.
For example, if we want to attract more buyers, the weight It can be seen from Table 1 that the percentage of
coefficient of cost saving can be increased. electricity traded decrease during peak hours in the retail market
when adopt P2P trading scheme. It shows the adoption of

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 fluctuating retail prices can relieve the pressure of power [12] N. Liu, X. Yu, W. Cheng, C. Li, M. Li, and J. Lei, "Energy-Sharing
Model With Price-Based Demand Response for Microgrids of Peer-
network more than the constant price. Besides, three to-Peer Prosumers," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32,
mechanisms performed similarly under fluctuating retail prices, no. 5, pp. 3569-3583, 2017.
while MMR performed slightly worse under constant electricity [13] Y. Zhou, J. Wu, C. Long, M. Cheng, and C. Zhang, "Performance
prices. It can be seen from the power flatness index that MMR evaluation of peer-to-peer energy sharing models," Energy Procedia,
vol. 143, pp. 817-822, 2017.
under constant retail price is preferred to flattening the load
[14] L. Alexandra, Z. J. Martin, C. D. G. Pedro, and E. Ruud, "Local
curve. electricity market designs for peer-to-peer trading: The role of
TABLE 1. TECHNICAL INDEX EVALUATION battery flexibility," Applied Energy.
[15] S. Nguyen, W. Peng, P. Sokolowski, D. Alahakoon, and X. Yu,
Price mechanisms DA MMR SDR "Optimizing rooftop photovoltaic distributed generation with
Fluctuating Energy Balance (%) 54.630 54.404 54.352 battery storage for peer-to-peer energy trading," Applied Energy, vol.
retail price 228, pp. 2567-2580, 2018.
Power Flatness (%) 46.250 57.851 54.867
[16] R. Roche, B. Blunier, A. Miraoui, and V. Hilaire, "Multi-agent
Constant Energy Balance (%) 43.434 39.213 43.516 systems for grid energy management: A short review," in
retail price Power Flatness (%) 80.364 84.154 70.941 Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2010.
[17] M. R. Alam, M. St-Hilaire, and T. Kunz, "An optimal P2P energy
trading model for smart homes in the smart grid," Energy Efficiency,
V. CONCLUSION vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[18] K. Chen, J. Lin, and Y. Song, "Trading strategy optimization for a
In this paper we built a simulation model for a universal prosumer in continuous double auction-based peer-to-peer market:
P2P trading framework. Specific components in this framework A prediction-integration model," Applied Energy, vol. 242, pp.
can be customized to evaluate different scenarios. Dynamic 1121-1133, 2019.
retail price is considered, for the first-time, in designing this [19] C. Long, J. Wu, C. Zhang, L. Thomas, M. Cheng, and N. Jenkins,
"Peer-to-peer energy trading in a community microgrid," in 2017
framework. Different combination of the decision-making IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 2017, pp. 1-5:
models and the pricing models are evaluated with proposed IEEE.
evaluation indexes. Simulation results show that P2P market [20] N. Liu, X. Yu, C. Wang, C. Li, L. Ma, and J. Lei, "Energy-sharing
can bring economic and technical benefits to local market model with price-based demand response for microgrids of peer-to-
peer prosumers," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no.
participants. The DA mechanism is more in favor of the 5, pp. 3569-3583, 2017.
electricity sellers and battery owners, while the electricity [21] J. Yang, J. Zhao, J. Qiu, and F. Wen, "A Distribution Market
buyers benefit more from the SDR mechanism. The MMR Clearing Mechanism for Renewable Generation Units with Zero
mechanism has the best performance when evaluating the Marginal Costs," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.
PP, no. 99, pp. 1-1.
power flatness. The proposed framework can be beneficial for [22] M. H. Cintuglu, H. Martin, and O. A. Mohammed, "Real-time
P2P trading market designer or policy maker. implementation of multiagent-based game theory reverse auction
model for microgrid market operation," IEEE Transactions on
REFERENCE Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1064-1072, 2015.
[23] C. Zhang, J. Wu, Y. Zhou, M. Cheng, and C. Long, "Peer-to-Peer
[1] A. Saad al-sumaiti, M. H. Ahmed, and M. M. Salama, "Smart home energy trading in a Microgrid," Applied Energy, vol. 220, pp. 1-12,
activities: A literature review," Electric Power Components and 2018.
Systems, vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp. 294-305, 2014. [24] X. Chen, D. Yang, H. Wen, J. Lin, and W. Xiao, "Forecasting Based
[2] J. Yang, Z. Y. Dong, F. Wen, G. Chen, and Y. Qiao, "A Decentralized Power Ramp-Rate Control Strategies For Utility-Scale PV
Distribution Market Mechanism Considering Renewable Systems," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no.
Generation Units with Zero Marginal Costs," IEEE Transactions on 3, pp. 1862-1871, 2018.
Smart Grid, pp. 1-1, 2019. [25] K. Yan, X. Wang, Y. Du, N. Jin, H. Huang, and H. Zhou, "Multi-
[3] G. Chen, C. Li, and Z. Dong, "Parallel and Distributed Computation Step short-term power consumption forecasting with a hybrid deep
for Dynamical Economic Dispatch," IEEE Transactions on Smart learning strategy," Energies, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 3089, 2018.
Grid, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1026-1027, 2017. [26] X. Chen, D. Yang, and H. Wen, "Forecasting based power ramp-rate
[4] T. Lv and Q. Ai, "Interactive energy management of networked control for PV systems without energy storage," in 2017 IEEE 3rd
microgrids-based active distribution system considering large-scale International Future Energy Electronics Conference and ECCE Asia
integration of renewable energy resources," Applied Energy, vol. (IFEEC 2017 - ECCE Asia), 2017.
163, pp. 408-422, 2016. [27] X. Chen, Y. Du, W. Xiao, and S. Lu, "Power ramp-rate control based
[5] N. Wang, W. Xu, Z. Xu, and W. Shao, "Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading on power forecasting for PV grid-tied systems with minimum
among Microgrids with Multidimensional Willingness," Energies, energy storage," in IECON 2017 - 43rd Annual Conference of the
vol. 11, no. 12, p. 3312, 2018. IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 29 Oct.-1 Nov. 2017 2017
[6] W. Tushar et al., "A motivational game-theoretic approach for peer- [28] H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, L. Yang, Q. Liu, K. Yan, and Y. Du, "Short-Term
to-peer energy trading in the smart grid," Applied Energy, vol. 243, Photovoltaic Power Forecasting Based on Long Short Term
pp. 10-20, 2019. Memory Neural Network and Attention Mechanism," IEEE Access,
[7] Y. Zhou, J. Wu, and C. Long, "Evaluation of peer-to-peer energy vol. 7, pp. 78063-78074, 2019
sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent simulation framework," [29] E. G. Kardakos, C. K. Simoglou, and A. G. Bakirtzis, "Short-Term
Applied Energy, vol. 222, pp. 993-1022, 2018. Electricity Market Simulation for Pool-Based Multi-Period
[8] C. Zhang, J. Wu, L. Chao, and C. Meng, "Review of Existing Peer- Auctions," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.
to-Peer Energy Trading Projects ☆," Energy Procedia, vol. 105, pp. 2526-2535, 2013.
2563-2568, 2017. [30] N. E. Market. (2019). Data dashboard. Available:
[9] E. Mengelkamp, J. Gärttner, K. Rock, S. Kessler, L. Orsini, and C. https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-
Weinhardt, "Designing microgrid energy markets: A case study: The NEM/Data-dashboard.
Brooklyn Microgrid," Applied Energy, vol. 210, pp. 870-880, [31] E. McKenna and M. Thomson, "High-resolution stochastic
2018/01/15/ 2018. integrated thermal–electrical domestic demand model," Applied
[10] p. ledger. (2019). Current projects. Available: Energy, vol. 165, pp. 445-461, 2016.
https://www.powerledger.io/our-projects/. [32] A. Lüth, J. M. Zepter, P. Crespo del Granado, and R. Egging, "Local
[11] Enerchain. (2017). European energy trading firms test peer-to-peer electricity market designs for peer-to-peer trading: The role of
trading over the blockchain, enerchain website. battery flexibility," Applied Energy, vol. 229, pp. 1233-1243, 2018.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS. Downloaded on June 20,2021 at 13:29:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.