2020 International Conference on Smart Grids and Energy Systems (SGES)
Decision-making under uncertainty regarding the
integration of Renewable Technologies
E. Rebecka Rikkas
Electrical Power Engineering and Mechatronics
Tallinn University of Technology
Tallinn, Estonia
Abstract— This paper provides an energy business decision-
making feasible concepts for Distribution System Operator
internal processes concerning renewables' integration. The
2020 International Conference on Smart Grids and Energy Systems (SGES) | 978-1-7281-8550-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/SGES51519.2020.00154
primary purpose lies in minimizing the time-consuming
decision-making process, optimizing investment costs, and
supporting national energy goals. Selected scenarios include all
possible stakeholders involved and interested in the energy
industry with their expectations, described necessary activities,
and issues. The developed guide relied on a mixture of different
strategic planning techniques as simplified Osterwalder's
business canvas analysis, Benjamin Franklin's decision-making
process, and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats. Concepts included stand-alone storage integration
for the applications, usually rejected from the network
company's side. As a result, the decision-making process time
dropped in feasible scenarios, 20%, and 37%. Also, the decision-
making cost decreased by 23% and 33%.
Keywords— Decision-making concept, Decision-making cost,
Distribution System Operator, Stakeholder, Stand-alone Power
Storage
I. INTRODUCTION
Ongoing, and by 2030 expected faster growth of
Distributed Renewable Energy Generation pressures the
Distribution System Operators to search for more flexible and
sustainable alternatives in their integration processes within
the company. The fundamental solution lies in providing
preferable steps for the more straightforward and smooth
integration process, starting from applying the producer or
prosumer ending by installation the technology into the grid
and testing the unit in the network. Such an approach will
solve the general integration issues, mainly partnerships
between all participants. Besides, faster decisions and
agreements are more effective.
Primary responsibility of distribution companies lies in
ensuring high-quality electrical connections and the fast
elimination of their respective consumers' failures. Additional
responsibility lies in knowing the operation of new
technologies integrated into the grid without harming the
regular network operation.
The integration of new technologies requires changes in
internal necessary working procedures. Issues lie in daily
work internally and other technical problems in the grid. The
expected growth of Distributed Energy Resources (DER)
leads to fundamental changes in power generation systems.
The impacts of Distributed Power Generation (DPG) on
distribution networks are mainly due to the possible reversion
of unidirectional flows under the influence of micro, small and
medium scale DPG units feeding in at medium voltage (MV)
and low voltage (LV) levels of the network. Therefore, System
Operators develop new interfaces. Besides, obtaining the
installed capacity limit commences the direct movement of
978-1-7281-8550-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/SGES51519.2020.00154
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
active energy towards the Transmission System Operator
(TSO). Due to this dynamic movement, the Distribution
System Operator (DSO) must compensate for the TSO's high
cost. In practice, DSOs' customer covers described movement
costs leading to unsatisfied end-users. Such policy leads to
actual DPG rebound and dispute between the national and
European Union (EU) targets for 2030. However, the absence
of a clear guide from the DPG integration perspective is an
issue. That leads to some electricity parties' continuous
monopoly, not to the united market operation within all
available stakeholders. Transparent DSO's internal decision-
making (DM) processes should:
1. support the growth of DPG integration;
2. minimize the time-consuming integration
process, and possible conflicts between parties;
3. decrease the number of unsatisfied customers;
4. reduce potential high investments costs;
5. experts will have an opportunity to concentrate
on more specific daily working obligations;
6. solve problems in places with voltage.
It is essential to provide a customer more value in a
technologically rapidly changing world than he can expect,
even in the state company as DSO. Comprehension of the big
picture of all possible stakeholders in the energy business,
their needs, and expectations will support the expansion of
more DPG. Modifying an inner understanding of stakeholders
to the external view of them helps to make more efficient
internal choices. Also, described steps for all participants in
business concepts (as an example, storage owner DSO) will
prevent time-consuming decisions and possible time loss on
argues with the parties. In the end, the well-defined DM model
clarifies the direction of its processes.
When mentioning innovation or variation of solutions in
the energy systems, power storages as part of a business
concept, play their role. Still, there are restrictions and
boundaries, especially when DSO could be a bank owner, but
the current Energy Directive does not allow it. Therefore,
business ideas with various opportunities for energy storage to
integrate, are proposed in this paper without conflict with the
Directive.
This study concentrates on two main problems: thirst, to
minimize the time-consuming internal standard integration
process, and second, optimize the overall DM cost.
The author's working experience in the field has proved that
the monopoly companies usually use their position and can
ruin innovative ideas. For several years that frame of mind
has been changing, and even monopoly companies like
Distributed System Operator have departments for innovative
837
 ideas. Therefore, this paper proposed a new view of the Table I. Structure of a business concept analysis after matching the
integration process from the point of view of distribution primer expectations of different participants
company. Elements Description
In the paper, Section 2 performs concept development for Headline Short introduction into concept.
DSO´s internal DM processes regarding integrating renewable
Value Short description of the idea/goal.
technologies on LV and MV levels. Also, the valuation of the
main concepts suitable for the acceptance of all participants. End-user/Customer To whom the service/product is addressed?
segment
Section 3 provides results and discussion. The last, Section 4
concludes the research and has some considerations. Service provider Who offers to end-user/customer?
SWOT analysis What are the strengths, weaknesses,
A. Relative research opportunities, and threats?
In the research field, some proposed business models Financial resources Origin of the investments.
supporting DM defines first-use cases; secondly, their relevant Costs What kind of costs?
stakeholders and actors, and finally develop business
scenarios or concepts for selected use cases (e.g. funded by Other participants Other possible participants of interest or
involved parties into the process.
European Union projects IDEAS and Ambassador). Another
development strategy used building business concepts through
executive workshops with the main stakeholders involved.
Some projects (as EEPOS or eHub Project), describe business A. Stakeholder analysis and selection of major expectations
models and concepts via Osterwalder’s business canvas [1]. In First, understanding stakeholders, who they are, their
this paper author used a similar approach as in the eHub needs and expectations, and how to cover their demand plays
Project, meaning that the study includes only some elements an essential role in every business concept. Misunderstandings
of the model canvas. Besides, this canvas includes strengths, and strict integration procedures lead to decreased interest in
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. green energy and, ultimately, to failure to achieve EU energy
Also, the selection of the most feasible scenarios relied on goals by 2030. Following tables (Table II and III) describe
multi-decision method described by J.A. Morente-Molinera more detailed stakeholders in the field.
(2020, [2]).
Table II. Stakeholder view in energy business
Combination or extension of different techniques are also Stakeholder Additional description
met in the field. Alizadeh (2019, [3]) combined two models: Residential building Large multi-family
Benefit, Opportunity, Cost, Risk with Analytic Network home; Single-family
Process models. Elkadeema (2019, [4]) combined integrative detached home; Small
DM approach for efficient planning with an extensive techno- multi-family home
economic optimization analysis. Sitorus (2020, [5]) extended End-user (consumer). Commercial building Office; Retail; Hotel;
Shannon Entropy method, and presented the Integrated Can be Prosumer at Special purpose
Constrained Fuzzy Shannon Entropy. the same time. (storage, theater, etc.)
Real Estate Company
Malekpour (2020, [6]) in DM under deep uncertainty providing real estate
defined policies to achieve outcomes of interest. The valuation management
of outcomes based on relevant weights given by crucial
. Heat service Provider
stakeholders and decision makers.
Transmission System
Gherghel (2020, [7]) analyzed and proposed methodology Operator
how to involve the stakeholders into the multiple DM process.
Distribution System
Höfer (2020 [8]) composed a multi-criteria group decision Operator
model that applies Value-Focused Thinking to construct a Service Provider. Can Energy Producers Power, heat or
holistic objective system and uses the Multi-Attribute Utility be Prosumer at the combined technology
Theory a k-means clustering technique to evaluate the energy same time
transition scenarios. Technology
producers
This study includes the stakeholder's view and a DM tool
for DSO's internal process to integrate renewable technologies Energy storage Power, heat or cooling
owners storage
with faster decision time and cost for unusual cases.
Energy broker

II. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Government

Table I presents the structure of the concept development Authorities Regulator Local, national or EU
elements. All proposed business scenarios rely on the Policy Maker
components described in this table.
Investors, researches,
Linear Programming was used for optimizing the DM energy solution
Other interested designers, non-
cost. parties governmental
organizations,
financial institutions

838

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table II demonstrates stakeholders in the energy business.
The main stakeholders are end-users, service providers, and
prosumers (as newcomers in that field) who are running the
practical actions in the energy business. The authorities will
provide regulation, rules, and boundaries. Non-governmental
organizations will give public acceptance for the company. [1]
Other interested parties come from universities, different
research institutions, energy solution designers, or investors.
All of them can be on a local, national, or EU level.
of both sides [4]. In many real-life DM problems, acceptable
agreements achieved on minimum cost consensus are more
effective and desirable than more time-consuming and
expensive unanimous agreements [4]. Therefore, both degrees
and the cost of the agreement are essential factors in DM.
Table IV. Stakeholder needs and expectations
Stakeholder.
Energy
business/DSO Expectations/Needs. Both views included.

Table III illustrates stakeholders from the DSO view, End- The integration process is more comfortable and user-
where the main stakeholders are electricity consumers, user/Consumer friendly web based. Investment costs reduced. Cheaper
renewable energy. Better power supply.
prosumers, and power producers. Both maps have similarities
and differences as the DSO is only an electricity distribution Prosumer The integration process is more comfortable and user-
company at LV and MV levels. friendly web based. Investment cost reduced, and
payback period shortened. Cheaper renewable power.
Table III. DSO´s stakeholder view Distributed Balance in the network´s regular operation. Production
Stakeholder Additional description System Operator and consumption in balance. Investment cost optimized
(DSO) or reduced. Technical voltage losses reduced.
Micro size; Small On-Grid; Off-Grid
size; Medium size (” Transmission Investment costs reduced. Production and consumption in
DSO Consumer 1MW) System Operator balance. Power peak shaving. Independency from other
(TSO) countries.
DSO Prosumer Small size, Medium On-Grid; Off-Grid
size Energy/Power The integration process is more comfortable and user-
producer friendly web based. Energy efficiency improves, and
DSO Producer Small size; Medium On-Grid; Off-Grid therefore investment costs optimized or reduced.
size (” 1MW)
Energy broker/ Predicted use and real use in balance. Optimization of
. Transmission System Medium size (> 1 energy trade [1].
Operator MW); Large size Retailer
Service provider Technology producer Power technology Technology Technology improvement meets market trends and
producer demand. Invent new technologies suitable for grid, where
Power storage owner Power storage the renewals are not planned.
Government Authority (local, CO2 emissions reduced. Energy consumption/wasting
Authorities Regulator Local, national or EU national and EU energy reduced. National and EU goals achieved by 2030.
level) Energy efficiency improved. Maximize the use of (local)
Policy Maker renewable energy production [1].

 Investors, researches, Non-

energy solution governmental
Other interested designers, non- organization CO2 emissions reduced. Consumption reduced.
parties governmental National or Financial New financial business concepts, products and tools exist
organizations, energy international
brokers, financial institutions on the market.
institutions Other participants Consumption reduced but still covers the demand.
(investors, etc.) Maximize the use of (local) renewable energy production.

Table IV provides needs and expectations from both

stakeholder maps. Table V. Matching and selection of needs and expectations. Main
The analysis of stakeholders showed the differences in expectations illustrated in blue color
Overall expectations Participants/Experts
views of positioning the stakeholders regarding their role.
Despite the different positioning, stakeholders have the same DSO, TSO, authorities, non-
expectations and needs. All described requirements can be governmental institutions, end-
Energy balancing management user/consumer, energy
merged into overall main topics. Validation and data gathering broker/retailer, energy producer
by several face-to-face and brainstorm-style meetings with
experts from DSO and TSO, feedback from authorities on the Consumption of local energy DSO, TSO, prosumer, end-
user/consumer
national level, and research of the field took place in 2018-
2019. Next, Table V matches the demands from both sides. Energy cost-savings Energy producer, prosumer, end-
Such an approach leads to picking up the most relevant items user/consumer, energy
broker/retailer, energy producer
to cover more participants' needs and expectations. From the
matching in the table appears that energy balancing Cheaper renewable energy Prosumer, end-user/consumer
management and energy cost-saving topics are the main Goals in energy sector Authorities
interest of many participants.
Authorities, non-governmental
After selecting the most common expectations (Table V), institutions, energy producers,
Low emissions technology providers
the business concepts analysis structure (see Table I) is
applied in scenario analysis. The same expectations support Innovation in the field Other participants, financial
achieving consensus faster. The agreement is a complex and institutions
resource-consuming process that requires exchanging User-friendly energy services Energy producer, prosumer, end-
opinions among a moderator and experts and needs a balance user/consumer

839

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This paper describes only two feasible and economically The storage level ܵ௉ǡ௧ at the end of period t is based on
reasonable results of the concepts, where the DM consensus storage level ܵ௉ǡ௧ିଵ at the end of the previous time period,
under uncertainty is less costly. Besides, the ideas included summed by charging ܵ௉ǡ௧ ௜௡ ௢௨௧
and subtracted by discharging ܵ௉ǡ௧
sub-scenes with all possible variations (e.g., DSO is the bank
during period t. Efficiency ratios K௉ , K௉ , and K௉ are used
ௌ ௜௡ ௢௨௧
owner, when another storage owner is a producer for the same
integration). to model storage losses during storage charge and discharge.
The charging and discharging losses rate are 7%, while self-
Power storages can play an essential role in both topics of discharge daily loss rate is 0.05% [11].
interest. Primary scenarios consist only of power banks with
different ownership types: Storage model is formulated as following:
1. Owner DSO: off-grid and on-grid. ܵ௉ǡ௧ ൌ Kǡௌ ܵ
௉ ௉ǡ௧ିଵ
൅ K௜௡ ܵ ௜௡ െ ܵ௉ǡ௧
௉ ௉ǡ௧
௢௨௧ భ
K೚ೠ೟
(1)
ು
2. Owner producer: storage as an addition to existing Ͳ൑ ܵ௉ǡ௧ ൑ ܵ௉௠௔௫ ǡ (2)
technology, small and medium-scale production. Ͳ൑ ௜௡
ܵ௉ǡ௧ ൑ ܵ௉௜௡ǡ௠௔௫ , (3)
3. Owner prosumer: off-grid and on-grid, small and Ͳ൑ ܵ௉ǡ௧ ൑ ܵ௉௢௨௧ǡ௠௔௫ ,
௢௨௧
(4)
medium-scale production/consumption. Ͳ൑ ܵ௉௠௔௫ ൑ ‫ܵܨ‬௉௢௡ , (5)
4. Owner third participant: off-grid and on-grid, small ܵ௉௢௡ ‫ א‬ሼͲǡͳሽǤ (6)
and medium-scale production and consumption.
Constraint (2) means the capacity limit of the storage.
Small-scale means annual consumption of power 1751-
3750 kWh when the medium is from 3751- 8550 kWh. Small Constraints (3) and (4) limit the charging and discharging rate
scale production shows the production of one PV system with of the power bank. Constraints (5) and (6) disable or enable
a capacity of 50 kW. Each concept´s financial part includes the storage by using binary variable ܵ௉௢௡ . The letter F means
the power storage hourly based optimization model, where a big number.
the bank is short-term, meaning seconds to maximum one
Table VI. The stand-alone power storage model symbols
hour.
Symbol Description
Energy storage for end-user optimization business model ܵ௉ Stand-alone power storage
examples already exist [9] and were analyzed, therefore, this ௜௡
ܵ௉ǡ௧ Power storage charging during period t
research excluded storage concept with end-user. ௢௨௧
ܵ௉ǡ௧ Power storage discharging during period t
The economic objective in investment planning DM is ‫ܧ‬௉௉ Power plant production
௠௔௫
much higher than environmental goals [10]; therefore, this ‫ܧ‬௉௉ Power overproduction
௠௔௫
‫ܥ‬஽ௌை DSO´s connection point capacity limit
paper describes only two feasible and economically
‫ܦ‬௠௜௡ Power demand low
reasonable results of the concepts, where the DM consensus ‫ܦ‬௠௔௫ Power demand high
under uncertainty is less costly for all possible involved
parties. The storage is ON (ܵ௉௢௡ ሻwhen is the case of ‫ܧ‬௉௉
௠௔௫ ௠௔௫
or ‫ܥ‬஽ௌை or
‫ܦ‬௠௜௡ . The discharging starts when ‫ܦ‬௠௔௫ . Time is from
B. Concept 1 and 2: power storage model seconds to maximum hour as the model is hourly based. Such
an approach was chosen due to the restrictions as power
Concept 1describes the case where the bank owner is DSO.
storage is considered to be a producer. DSO is only the
The second scenario includes two storages, each in different
distributor; therefore, it cannot be a producer. The storage is
ownership at the same place of integration. That represents a
used for optimizing the regular work of the grid, for that
situation where is one power plant, but also, DSO and
reason the DSO can be owner of the power bank.
producer integrate the storages, and each of them owns their
DM time minimizing model (Fig. 2 and Table VII)
bank.
illustrates an integration application process.
Power storage model (Fig. 1 and Table VI) includes the
stand-alone storage integration as an off-grid or on-grid
solution in the places where existing voltage problems or ‫ܣ‬஼ ܻ஽ௌை ଷ௠
ܻ஽ௌை
capacity limits are almost reaching its maximum. The issue
of that situation is described in the introduction section of the
paper.
ܰ ܰ௎

௜௡
ܵ௉ǡ௧

ܰ஽ௌை ௎
ܰ஽ௌை
௎
ܰ௉௉

ܵ௉ǡ௧ିଵ ܵ௉ ܵ௉ǡ௧
௠௔௫
ܴ஺௖ ܴ ஽ௌை

௢௨௧
ܵ௉ǡ௧

ܲ௠௔௫
Fig. 1. Stand-alone power bank model
Fig. 2. Decision-making time minimizing model

840

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The ready-to-use DM form is used in the cases where the on viable arguments appeared to be 23.69%. Such a result
௎
application is rejected by DSO when the ܰ஽ௌை , or by the shows that even with one application, there is a possibility to
௎ optimize DM cost by limiting the time devoted to one case.
producer due to ܰ௉௉ . Then, the DSO can propose the ܴ஽ௌை
concept by integrating the stand-alone power bank. This will
௠௔௫
lead to ܲ௠௔௫ , ܲ஺௖ and ܶ௠௜௡ .
Savings on decision-making cost. Concept 1
Time usage contains devoted time to controlling and
accepting or rejecting an application ‫ܣ‬஼ , negotiation time, 35 32.85
contract preparation time, system integration, and re- 30
checking time. The cases with possible conflicts also contain 25
23.69
preparation time for court.
20

Table VII. Application process symbols 15

Symbol Description 10
‫ܣ‬஼ Connection application to DSO 5
ܻ஽ௌை A positive answer to the application
ଶ௠
ܻ஽ௌை Standard integration procedure up to 2 months 0
ܰ A negative answer to the application Savings on decision cost, % Savings on possible argues, %
௨
ܰ A negative answer due to uncertainty
௨ Fig. 4. Optimized decision-making cost in Concept 1
ܰ஽ௌை A negative answer due to uncertainty: limit
capacities, voltage problems B. Concept 2 result
௨
ܰ௉௉ A negative answer from the applicant due to high
investment/integration cost In the second scenario, it appeared that the less time-
‫ܫ‬௠௜௡ Decision-making and/or investment cost consuming DM in the situation where the power producer has
minimizing
a request to integrate the power plant, but the connection cost
ܶ௠௜௡ Minimizing the time on the decision-making
process and argues is too high. As the connection point has problems with the
ܶ௠௔௫ Maximizing the time on the decision-making grid and the DSO had no plans to invest in a concrete
process and argues connection point, then to the DSO opens an opportunity to
ܴ஽ௌை The ready-to-use concept in case of uncertainty
improve the grid with less investment cost (Fig. 5).
ܲ௠௔௫ Maximizing the satisfaction of all parties
௠௜௡ Minimizing the satisfaction of the applicant
ܲ஺௖
௠௔௫
ܲ஺௖ Maximizing the satisfaction of the applicant
Concept 2
As the salary and all possible integration costs are 100 90
individual, sensible, and secret information, Section 3
80 72
represents the results of costs only in percentages.
60
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
40
A. Concept 1 result
The result showed (Fig. 3) that the ready-to-use scenario 20
decreases the devoted time on one application by five
0
working days. Standard decision time, h New ready-to-use concept, h

Fig. 5. Time expenditure in Concept 2

Concept 1
114 The decrease from time spent on standard procedure to
120
ready-to-use concept is 2 working days (Fig. 6). For the
100 concept, where the integration cost and investments will
80 72 come from both sides, the savings are 22.73%, and reduction
on possible argues is 59.52%.
60
40
Savings on decision-making cost. Concept 2
20
70
0 59.52
Standard decision time, h New ready-to use concept, h 60
50
Fig. 3. Time expenditure in Concept 1
40
Experts' average time spent on meetings and DM, preparing 30 22.73
the agreements, and integration is 114 hours. With the ready- 20
to-use concept, the possible time spent meeting for discussing
10
the exceptional cases loses its necessity.
0
Fig. 4 illustrates the savings on the DM process. In the case
Savings on decision cost, % Savings on possible argues, %
where the expert of the DSO uses the scenario, the possible
saving on labor cost is 32.85% per one application. Savings Fig. 6. Optimized decision-making cost in Concept 2

841

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In addition to the described concepts, the interesting finding
from other not explained scenes showed that even more
investment needs can optimize the time-consuming DM
processes. Even one percent of the optimized cost from one
application could bring a reduction in future investments and
labor costs.
IV. CONCLUSION AND CONSIDERATION
In a traditional group decision-making method, experts
need to rank a set of alternatives based on their preferences
[2]. In a group decision-making process, experts reach a
consensus after discussion and persuasion, requiring a
moderator to spend time and resources to persuade experts to
change their original opinions [4].
In this paper, the most feasible concepts demonstrated the
highest cost reduction already in the DM process. Selected
two ideas due to the paper format restrictions showed that the
ready-to-use new decision-making process is more effective
as it allows to:
• minimize the overall time-consuming integration
process, and possible argues between parties by
implementing the more feasible read-to-use
integration decision process. The DM time
decreased from 114 hours (in Concept 1) and 90
hours (in Concept 2) to 72 hours.
• optimize the overall decision-making cost in
integration DM process. Saving in Concept 1
occurred to be 33% and 23% in Concept 2.
to weight the sustainability criteria of renewable energy technologies
under uncertainty. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 127
(2020) 109891
[6] Malekpour S, Walkerb W.E, J. de Haanc F, Frantzeskakid N, Marchaub
V. Bridging Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) and
Transition Management (TM) to improve strategic planning for
Sustainable Development. Environmental Science and Policy 107 (2020)
158–167
[7] Gherghel A, Teodosiu C, Notarnicola M, De Gisi S. Sustainable design
of large wastewater treatment plants considering multi-criteria decision
analysis and stakeholders’ involvement. Journal of Environmental
Management 261 (2020) 110158
[8] Höfer T, Madlener R. A participatory stakeholder process for evaluating
sustainable energy transition scenarios. Energy Policy 139 (2020)
111277
[9] Burger S.P, Luke M. Business models for distributed energy resources:
A review and empirical analysis. Energy Policy 109 (2017) 230-248
[10] Li R., Wei W., Zhe C., Jiuchun J., Zang W. A review of optimal
planning active distribution system Models, methods, and future
researchers. Aalborg University. 2017. 10.3390/en10111715
[11] Rikkas R. Economic feasibility analysis for a residential building in
Tallinn with high electricity consumption. A case study with suitable
energy storage for the Estonian climate. 17th International Conference
on the European Energy Market. 16–18 September 2020, Sweden.

As a future consideration, the further work of the model

could be expanded to investment cost optimization of the
producers, and possible review for all parties who were
connected to the decision-making consensus.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Author´s appreciation for working experience in the
Estonian biggest Distributed System operator Elektrilevi in
the Department of Digital Technologies from June 2014 to
January 2016. Obtained skills influenced the following years
of the research topics during Doctoral Degree level studies in
Tallinn University of Technology.
An individual expression of gratitude to Prof. Risto
Lahdelma from Aalto University, School of Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering/ School of Science,
Department of Mathematics and Systems Analysis for fresh
insights with modeling and analyzing the data.

REFERENCES
[1] Sepponen M, Heimonen I. Business concepts for districts´ Energy hub
systems with maximized share of renewable energy. Energy and
Buildings 124 (2016) 273- 280
[2] Morente-Molinera J.A, Wu X, Morfeq A , Al-Hmouz R, Herrera-
Viedma A. A novel multi-criteria group decision-making method for
heterogeneous and dynamic contexts using multi-granular fuzzy
linguistic modelling and consensus measures. Information Fusion 53
(2020) 240–250
[3] Alizadeh R, Soltanisehat L, Lund P., Zamanisabzi H. Improving
renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through
a hybrid MCDM method. Energy Policy 137 (2020) 111174
[4] Zhang H., Kou G., Peng Y. Soft consensus cost models for
group decision making and economic interpretations. European Journal
of Operational Research 277 (2019) 964–980
[5] Sitorus F, Brito-Parada P.R. A multiple criteria decision-making method

842

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Del Norte Biblioteca. Downloaded on April 08,2023 at 17:02:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.