The number of sensors and controllers connected to the electric power system is expected to grow by several orders of magnitude over the next several years. However, the information networks that are currently used to transmit and analyze data on the system are ill-equipped to handle the volume of communications resulting from the increased number of sensors. For example, the current information networks are incapable of delivering large amounts of data collected by the sensors in a predictable, time-effective, and reliable manner.
Without the ability to effectively manage and use data from the sensors, the deployment of sensors into the power grid (e.g., phasor measurement sensors into the transmission system and smart meters into the distribution system) will not result in the desired improvements. For example, existing bidding strategies for wholesale market are not readily adaptable to thermostatically controlled loads implemented at the consumer side. Further, requirements for multiple bidding iterations, large amounts of bid data, and an inability to encode private information into consumer bids hampers deployment of successful strategies for control schemes for demand response. Accordingly, there is ample opportunity for improved systems, methods, and apparatus for managing and using data in a power grid or other electric power distribution system.
Apparatus and methods are disclosed for the design, analysis, testing, and manufacture of devices used to coordinate groups of thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs) to achieve system-level objects with price incentives. In some examples, the framework is based on improving social welfare of the system subject to one or more feeder power constraints. In the framework, each individual load submits a bid to the market based on its current state. The market collects all the bids and determines the cleared price accordingly. After receiving the cleared price, each individual load makes the local control decision to maximize its utility. This framework can provide a solid mathematical foundation to the disclosed transactive control techniques.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, a method of providing power to a load via a power grid by submitting bids to a market coordinator includes determining an energy response relating price data for one or more energy prices to quantity data for power to be consumed by the load, the load being coupled to receive power from the power grid and sending a bid for power for a finite time period based on the energy response to the coordinator.
In some examples, a method of providing power further includes receiving a clearing price from the coordinator responsive to sending the bid, where the clearing price is based at least in part on the bid and on bids received from a plurality of additional loads. In some examples, the method further includes, responsive to the sending the bid to the load, sending power received from the power grid.
In some examples of the method, the energy response is a function based on at least one or more of the following: a consumption state of the load, an air temperature, and/or an inner mass temperature. In some examples, the energy response is a function of a user response parameter, the user response parameter relating energy price, and a selected user comfort level. In some examples, the energy response is based at least in part on an equivalent thermal parameter model and a control policy indicating one or more power states for the load. In some examples, the bid includes one price and one corresponding quantity. In some examples, the bid includes two or more prices and two or more respectively corresponding quantities. In some examples, the bid is based on a point between two vectors relating a state of the load, a model parameter, and a user input parameter. In some examples, the bid is based at least in part on an equivalent thermal parameter model. In some examples, the finite time period is less than one hour.
In some examples, a controller for operating a thermostatically-controlled load includes one or more sensors configured to generate temperature data used to determine the energy response, a network adapter configured to transmit the bid to the coordinator, one or more processors, one or more actuators configured to activate and/or deactivate the thermostatically-controlled load responsive to one or more signals received from the processors, one or more computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by the processors, cause the controller to perform the disclosed computer-implemented methods.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, a method of allocating power to a plurality of loads coupled to a power grid using a market coordinator includes receiving one respective bid for each of the loads, each of the received bids being generated based on an energy response relating a price and a quantity of power bid for a bidding time period for the respective load, determining a clearing price for the plurality of bids, and transmitting the clearing price to each of the loads. In some examples, the method includes sending power to a selected one or more of the loads, the loads being selected based on the received bids and the clearing price. In some examples, the determining the clearing price comprises producing a demand curve by ordering the received bids according to their respective prices.
In some examples, each of the bids includes an energy to price function according to a parameter vector that is substantially identical for each of the respective loads.
In some examples, a method of allocating power to a plurality of loads coupled to a power grid includes comparing a total quantity of power bid for the plurality of loads to a feeder power constraint representing the maximum power to be generated during the bidding time period. Based on the comparing: if the total quantity wof power bid is less than the feeder power constraint, then selecting the clearing price based on a wholesale market price, and if the total quantity of power bid is greater than the feeder power constraint, then selecting the clearing price such that the power consumed by bids exceeding the clearing price does not exceed the feeder power constraint.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, a market-based control system configured to coordinate a group of thermostatically controlled loads to achieve system-level objectives with pricing incentives includes a market coordinator configured to generate clearing price data based on a plurality of bids specifying a quantity and a price for consuming power. The system further includes thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs), each of the TCLs being configured to transmit bid data for their respective bids to the market coordinator specifying a bid quantity and a bid price for power received via a power grid for a predetermined time period. In some examples, each of the TCLs is further configured to consume or not consumer power from the power grid based at least in part on the clearing price data and the TCLs' respective bid for the predetermined time period. The system includes computer network configured to transmit the bid data and the clearing price data between the market coordinator and each of the TCLs.
Some examples of the market-based control system further include a power grid configured to distribute power to the TCLs based at least in part on a market cleared by the market coordinator. In some examples of the system, a power generation market administrator is configured to send wholesale energy price data to the market coordinator, the wholesale energy price data being used at least in part to determine the clearing price data.
In some examples of the disclosed technology a power grid includes an electric power distribution system configured to transmit electric power from one or more power sources to a plurality of thermostatically controlled loads and a market coordinator configured to perform any of the disclosed methods.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, one or more computer-readable storage media store computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform any of the disclosed computer-implemented methods.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter. The foregoing and other objects, features, and advantages of the disclosed technology will become more apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying figures.
I. General Considerations
This disclosure is set forth in the context of representative embodiments that are not intended to be limiting in any way.
As used in this application the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include the plural forms unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Additionally, the term “includes” means “comprises.” Further, the term “coupled” encompasses mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical, as well as other practical ways of coupling or linking items together, and does not exclude the presence of intermediate elements between the coupled items. Furthermore, as used herein, the term “and/or” means any one item or combination of items in the phrase.
The systems, methods, and apparatus described herein should not be construed as being limiting in any way. Instead, this disclosure is directed toward all novel and non-obvious features and aspects of the various disclosed embodiments, alone and in various combinations and subcombinations with one another. The disclosed systems, methods, and apparatus are not limited to any specific aspect or feature or combinations thereof, nor do the disclosed things and methods require that any one or more specific advantages be present or problems be solved. Furthermore, any features or aspects of the disclosed embodiments can be used in various combinations and subcombinations with one another.
Although the operations of some of the disclosed methods are described in a particular, sequential order for convenient presentation, it should be understood that this manner of description encompasses rearrangement, unless a particular ordering is required by specific language set forth below. For example, operations described sequentially may in some cases be rearranged or performed concurrently. Moreover, for the sake of simplicity, the attached figures may not show the various ways in which the disclosed things and methods can be used in conjunction with other things and methods. Additionally, the description sometimes uses terms like “produce,” “generate,” “display,” “receive,” “evaluate,” “determine,” “send,” “transmit,” and “perform” to describe the disclosed methods. These terms are high-level descriptions of the actual operations that are performed. The actual operations that correspond to these terms will vary depending on the particular implementation and are readily discernible by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Theories of operation, scientific principles, or other theoretical descriptions presented herein in reference to the apparatus or methods of this disclosure have been provided for the purposes of better understanding and are not intended to be limiting in scope. The apparatus and methods in the appended claims are not limited to those apparatus and methods that function in the manner described by such theories of operation.
Any of the disclosed methods can be implemented as computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable storage media, such as one or more optical media discs, volatile memory components (such as DRAM or SRAM), or nonvolatile memory components (such as hard drives and solid state drives (SSDs))) and executed on a computer (e.g., any commercially available computer, including smart phones or other mobile devices that include computing hardware). Any of the computer-executable instructions for implementing the disclosed techniques, as well as any data created and used during implementation of the disclosed embodiments, can be stored on one or more computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable storage media). The computer-executable instructions can be part of, for example, a dedicated software application, or a software application that is accessed or downloaded via a web browser or other software application (such as a remote computing application). Such software can be executed, for example, on a single local computer (e.g., as a process executing on any suitable commercially available computer) or in a network environment (e.g., via the Internet, a wide-area network, a local-area network, a client-server network (such as a cloud computing network), or other such network) using one or more network computers.
For clarity, only certain selected aspects of the software-based implementations are described. Other details that are well known in the art are omitted. For example, it should be understood that the disclosed technology is not limited to any specific computer language or program. For instance, the disclosed technology can be implemented by software written in C, C++, Java, or any other suitable programming language. Likewise, the disclosed technology is not limited to any particular computer or type of hardware. Certain details of suitable computers and hardware are well-known and need not be set forth in detail in this disclosure.
Furthermore, any of the software-based embodiments (comprising, for example, computer-executable instructions for causing a computer to perform any of the disclosed methods) can be uploaded, downloaded, or remotely accessed through a suitable communication means.
Such suitable communication means include, for example, the Internet, the World Wide Web, an intranet, software applications, cable (including fiber optic cable), magnetic communications, electromagnetic communications (including RF, microwave, and infrared communications), electronic communications, or other such communication means.
The disclosed methods can also be implemented by specialized computing hardware that is configured to perform any of the disclosed methods. For example, the disclosed methods can be implemented by an integrated circuit (e.g., an application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) or programmable logic device (“PLD”), such as a field programmable gate array (“FPGA”)). The integrated circuit or specialized computing hardware can be embedded in or directly coupled to an electrical device (or element) that is configured to interact with controllers and coordinators. For example, the integrated circuit can be embedded in or otherwise coupled to a generator (e.g., a wind-based generator, solar-based generator, coal-based generator, or nuclear generator), an air-conditioning unit; heating unit; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system; hot water heater; refrigerator; dish washer; washing machine; dryer; oven; microwave oven; pump; home lighting system; electrical charger, electric vehicle charger; or home electrical system.
II. Introduction to the Disclosed Technology
Methods and apparatus are disclosed for implementing market based control frameworks to coordinate a group of autonomous Thermostatically Controlled Loads (TCL) to achieve system-level objectives with pricing incentives.
Examples of TCLs that can be coordinated according to the disclosed technology include air conditioners, heat pumps, hot water heaters, refrigerators, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and commercial and industrial loads. The electricity consumption of TCL can be modulated while still meeting desired end-user temperature requirements due to the inherent thermal storage properties of TCLs.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, the framework is configured to maximize social welfare subject to a feeder power constraint. The framework allows a market coordinator to affect the aggregated power of a group of dynamical systems, and creates an interactive market where the users and the coordinator cooperatively determine the optimal energy allocation and energy price. An optimal pricing strategy is derived, which maximizes social welfare while respecting the feeder power constraint. The bidding strategy is also designed to compute the optimal price in real time based on local device information. Numerical simulations based on realistic price and model data are performed. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed approach can effectively maximize the social welfare and reduce power congestion at key times.
In one embodiment, an optimal pricing strategy is proposed, which maximizes the social welfare while respecting the feeder constraint. A bidding strategy is also proposed to enable the numerical computation of the optimal price. In some examples of the disclosed technology, certain advantages can be realized. First, the proposed pricing strategy has been proven optimality, where social welfare can be maximized while the feeder power constraint is respected. Second, certain disclosed proposed bidding strategies provide the market with a minimum amount of information that is sufficient for the market to implement an optimal pricing strategy. This enables implementation of the disclosed framework in real time (e.g., by clearing a market using one bid from each load in a 5-minute period).
The disclosed technology provides a foundation for a fully dynamic version of market-based control of Thermostatically Controlled Loads to maximize the social welfare over multiple control periods. In such cases, all loads bid a price vector for the entire planning horizon, and the market is cleared with all prices for the subsequent periods within the horizon. Thus, social welfare can be maximized for multiple periods, and shape the power consumption, thereby flattening the power curve.
Disclosed bidding strategies enables a market coordinator to estimate aggregate power demand in response to market prices more accurately. Therefore, given a power trajectory, the market coordinator can determine the cleared price to coordinate loads to match the power trajectory reference in real time.
In certain examples of the disclosed technology, a group of TCLs are coordinated by a market coordinator with price incentives to limit aggregated power demand and improve system efficiency. Each device adjusts its temperature setpoint control in response to the energy price to maximize individual utility. The change on the setpoint control will then modify the system dynamics and affect the system state, on which the generated bid is based. According to the received load bids, the coordinator clears the market with a price for the next cycle to maximize social welfare subject to a feeder power constraint. A systematic mathematical framework is provided for the analysis and design of this kind of market-based coordination of responsive loads with nontrivial dynamics.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, a market-based coordination framework includes a coordinator that coordinates a group of autonomous TCLs to achieve system-level objectives with price incentives. In some examples, adapting the technology to TCLs allows incorporation of more realistic load dynamics into a market-based coordination framework. In some examples, the framework allows for the users to indicate their preferences regarding how TCL temperature setpoints respond to market clearing price(s). In this way, an interactive market is created for the coordinator and the users cooperatively determine energy allocation in a decentralized manner. In some examples, an optimal price is found to align individual optimality and social optimality. This property does not hold in general when the feeder power constraint is imposed on the system. In some examples, the devices can only bid once during each market clearing cycle. Thus, multiple iterations between the load controllers and market coordinator for each market clearing cycle, which demands considerable communication and computational resources, can be avoided.
Optimal pricing strategies are disclosed, which maximize the social welfare of the system, subject to a feeder power constraint. Load device bidding strategies are also presented to compute the optimal price numerically in real time while respecting the computational and communication constraints of the system. The effectiveness of the disclosed technology is demonstrated via a number of simulations based on realistic models of residential air conditioning loads. Disclosed frameworks can effectively cap the aggregated power below the feeder capacity and thus maximize the social welfare.
III. Example Coordinated Power Grid Network
A diagram 100 illustrating an example of a possible network topology for an environment implementing coordination of thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs) according to the disclosed technology is depicted in
The power grid 120 includes transmission lines 125 that carry power from the energy sources 110 to a number of loads, including thermostatically-controlled loads. Energy consumers with suitable TCLs for deploying in the illustrated environment include residential consumers, including residential consumers 130 and 140, industrial consumers, such as industrial consumer 150, and commercial consumers, such as commercial consumer 160. Each of the associated consumers 130, 140, 150, and 160 is associated with one or more thermostatically-controlled loads. For example, the residential consumer 130 has three thermostatically-controlled loads (TCL) 131-133. Further, as shown, each of the TCLs 131-133 is coupled to a controller 136-138, respectively. Each of the controllers 136-138 can submit bids and receive clearing prices via a bid aggregator 135, and actuate their respective coupled TCLs 131-133 (e.g., by turning the associated load on or off by activating/deactivating the load). Additionally, residential consumer 140 has a number of TCLs 141-143 that are coupled to a single controller 146. The controller 146 can submit bids, receiving clearing prices, and actuate any of the coupled TCLs 141-143. Industrial consumer 150 has a number of TCLs (e.g., TCL 151) (controller(s) and any bid aggregator(s) being omitted from
Each of the TCLs is coupled to a controller that is operable to submit data to and receive data from other components via a computer network 170. In some examples, a number of TCLs associated with a single consumer can have data aggregated and bids submitted together using a bid aggregator (e.g., bid aggregator 135). In some examples, one or more of the TCL controllers are implemented using a microcontroller, memory, and suitable input/output resources for receiving signals carrying sensor data local to the TCL and controlling the coupled TCL (e.g., by actuating motors and other components of a respective TCL). In other examples, TCL controllers can be implemented using programmable logic or a general-purpose computer configured to receiving signals carrying signal data and generate signals for controlling the coupled TCL.
Each of the TCLs can be coupled to, for example, computing devices having computer hardware that run software or is otherwise configured to communicate with other computing devices accessible by the network 170. In other examples, the TCLs send data to other computing devices associated with one or more of the energy consumers. Each of the controllers coupled to and/or associated with the TCLs, a market coordinator 180, and a power generation market administrator 190 can have computer architecture(s) similar to those illustrated in
As shown in
In the illustrated example, the TCLs are configured to determine an energy response relating price data for one or more energy prices to quantity data for power to be consumed by the associated TCL and to send bids for power for a finite time period based on the energy response to the market coordinator 180. In some examples, each of the TCLs submits a single bid to the mark coordinator 180 for each finite time period. In other examples, additional bids are submitted in an iterative process. The market coordinator 180 in turn aggregates bids from a number of energy consumers participating in the market for the finite time period, and calculates a clearing price. The clearing price is transmitted from the market coordinator 180 to each of the energy consumers. The energy consumers respond to the clearing price by, for example, actuating their associated loads to activate or de-activate, thereby consuming, or not consuming, respectively, energy from the power grid according to the clearing price. For example, if an energy consumer did not bid a sufficient price to be allocated energy by the market coordinator, that consumer, a controller associated with the TCL, will not activate the device. Conversely, if a bid submitted for an associated TCL was sufficient to receive power, the controller can activate the associated thermostatically-controlled load. While the examples disclosed herein respond to the clearing price by either activating or de-activating the load, in other examples a finer-grained response of the loads can be performed (e.g., by consuming a portion of the loads maximum energy consumption). In some examples, the market coordinator 180 itself sends signals to activate or de-activate the loads, accordingly.
It should be noted that in some examples, individual TCLs associated with an energy consumer can submit different price and/or quantity values in their bid to the market coordinator 180 and thus, in certain instances, only a subset of TCLs associated with a particular TCL will be activated or de-activated according to the clearing price. As will be more fully explained below, this process can be repeated at fixed intervals (e.g., intervals of one hour or less, intervals of ten minutes or less, or intervals of five minutes or less).
In the illustrated example of
The various possible roles and functionalities of the TCLs, market coordinator 180, and power generation market administrator 190 will be described in more detail in the following sections.
IV. Example Computing Environment
The computing environment 200 is not intended to suggest any limitation as to scope of use or functionality of the technology, as the technology may be implemented in diverse general-purpose or special-purpose computing environments. For example, the disclosed technology may be implemented with other computer system configurations, including hand held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The disclosed technology may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
With reference to
The storage 240 may be removable or non-removable, and includes magnetic disks, magnetic tapes or cassettes, CD-ROMs, CD-RWs, DVDs, or any other medium which can be used to store information and that can be accessed within the computing environment 200. The storage 240 stores instructions for the software 280, plugin data, and messages, which can be used to implement technologies described herein.
The input device(s) 250 may be a touch input device, such as a keyboard, keypad, mouse, touch screen display, pen, or trackball, a voice input device, a scanning device, or another device, that provides input to the computing environment 200. For audio, the input device(s) 250 may be a sound card or similar device that accepts audio input in analog or digital form, or a CD-ROM reader that provides audio samples to the computing environment 200. The input device(s) 250 can also include sensors and other suitable transducers for generating data about the environment such as room temperature, humidity, and status information for one or more TCLs (e.g., TCL 265). The output device(s) 260 may be a display, printer, speaker, CD-writer, or another device that provides output from the computing environment 200. The output device(s) 260 can also include interface circuitry for sending actuating commands to the TCLs, (e.g., TCL 265), for example, to activiate or deactivate actuators (e.g., motors, solenoids, hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators, etc.) the TCL, or to request sensor or other data from the TCL.
The communication connection(s) 270 enable communication over a communication medium (e.g., a connecting network) to another computing entity. The communication medium conveys information such as computer-executable instructions, compressed graphics information, video, or other data in a modulated data signal. The communication connection(s) 270 are not limited to wired connections (e.g., megabit or gigabit Ethernet, Infiniband, Fibre Channel over electrical or fiber optic connections) but also include wireless technologies (e.g., RF connections via Bluetooth, WiFi (IEEE 802.11a/b/n), WiMax, cellular, satellite, laser, infrared) and other suitable communication connections for providing a network connection for the disclosed controllers and coordinators. Both wired and wireless connections can be implemented using a network adapter. In a virtual host environment, the communication(s) connections can be a virtualized network connection provided by the virtual host. In some examples, the communication connection(s) 270 are used to supplement, or in lieu of, the input device(s) 250 and/or output device(s) 260 in order to communicate with the TCLs and/or sensors.
Some embodiments of the disclosed methods can be performed using computer-executable instructions implementing all or a portion of the disclosed technology in a computing cloud 290. For example, data acquisition and TCL actuation can be performed in the computing environment while computing energy response functions or bid generation can be performed on servers located in the computing cloud 290.
Computer-readable media are any available media that can be accessed within a computing environment 200. By way of example, and not limitation, with the computing environment 200, computer-readable media include memory 220 and/or storage 240. As should be readily understood, the term computer-readable storage media includes the media for data storage such as memory 220 and storage 240, and not transmission media such as modulated data signals.
V. Example Consumer Controller
VI. Example Market-Based Coordination Framework
Apparatus and methods are disclosed for implementing market-based coordination frameworks for TCLs. In an exemplary embodiment, a market coordinator procures energy from the wholesale market and manages N users to maximize the social welfare subject to a feeder power constraint. C(α) represents the cost for the coordinator to procure α unit of energy from the wholesale market. The unit price can then be the Locational Marginal Price plus some additional charge for using the distribution network. For ease of explanation for this example, it is assumed that C is convex and continuously differentiable.
The market is cleared (e.g., by the market coordinator) every T units of time. At the beginning of each time cycle, each of the local devices receives the energy price and make control decisions to maximize its individual utility. This control decision affects the load dynamics and state, and in turn influences user bidding for the next market clearing cycle. After collecting all the device bids, the coordinator determines the price such that the social welfare is maximized, and the aggregated power does not exceed the feeder power constraint. As used herein, the aggregated power is the average power consumed during each market cycle.
VII. Example Method of Market Coordination for Energy Load Coordination
At process block 410, a number of bids are received for a plurality of energy loads that were generated based, at least in part on, an energy response relating price and quantity for a load. For example, each of a number of thermostatically-controlled loads (TCLs) can send bids expressed as a single price quantity pair, or as a plurality of two or more price quantity pairs. In other examples, more complex expressions of bids are received. Each of the bids can be associated with a single TCL, or represent an aggregated bid for two or more TCLs. Each of the bids for those TCLs participating in the market are for a finite time duration (e.g., five minutes). Once bids have been received for the associated TCLs, the method proceeds to process block 420. In addition to collecting the bids, the coordinator can also calculate the uncontrolled power load Quc and the power feeder constraint Qlim for the finite time period.
At process block 420, a demand curve is produced by ordering the bids received at process block 410 according to their respective prices. For example, a market coordinator can order the received bids in a decreasing sequence from the highest bid to the lowest bid. Thus, energy can be allocated to TCLs associated with higher bids at a higher priority than TCLs associated with lower bids.
Before each market clearing cycle, the market coordinator collects all the bids from the devices, and orders the bidding price in a decreasing sequence Pbid1, . . . , Qbid1, where N denotes the number of users. With the price sequence and the associated bidding power sequence Qbid1, . . . , QbidN, the coordinator can construct the demand curve that maps the market energy price to the aggregated power. Using the demand curve 510, the coordinator can clear the market and determine the energy price to ensure that the aggregated power does not exceed the feeder capacity: if the total power demand (the total quantity of power bid) is less than the feeder power constraint, then the clearing price is equal to the base price Pbase (see
Once the demand curve has been produced, the method proceeds to process block 430.
At process block 430, the total power demanded according to all of the bids received is compared to a feeder power constraint. The feeder power constraint indicates the maximum amount of energy that can be provided by energy producers for the upcoming time period that the bids were based on. For example, based on power generation availability, transmission line conditions, and/or regulatory constraints, the feeder power constraint can be determined. If the total power demand is less than the amount of energy according to the feeder power constraint, the method proceeds to process block 440. Conversely, if the total power demand is greater than the feeder power constraint, the method proceeds to process block 450. Comparison of the total power demand to the feeder power constraint can be formed using the market coordinator 180 and the power generation market administrator 190 described above regarding
At process block 440, because the total power demand was less than the feeder power constraint, the clearing price is set to the wholesale market price. In the depicted embodiment, the clearing price is set to the same value for all bidders in the market for the current finite time period.
On the other hand, if it was determined that the total power demand is greater than the feeder power constraint, then method proceeds to process block 450 and the clearing price is set based on the intersection of the total power demand and the feeder power constraint. In the depicted embodiment, the clearing price is set to the same value for all bidders in the market for the current finite time period. In other examples, the clearing price could vary depending on the individual bid received from each of the TCLs.
An example of demand curve associated with this situation is illustrated in a chart 700 shown in
At process block 460, the clearing price is sent to controllers associated with TCLs that bid in the market. The clearing price can be sent, for example, using a computer network such as computer network 170 from the market coordinator 180 to each of the TCLs. After sending the clearing price to the TCLs, the method proceeds to process block 470.
At process block 470, the controllers associated with each of the bidding TCLs operate their loads according to the clearing price. In other words, if the associated TCL sent a bid greater than or equal to the clearing price, then the associated TCL is allowed to consume the amount of energy that was bid during the market session. For associated TCLs that did not submit a sufficient bid, and did not receive power because the total power demand was greater than the feeder power constraint, the associated controllers will de-activate the associated TCL.
The operations described above in the flowchart 400 can be performed repeatedly for each finite time period. For example, bidding for a next one (or more than one) time period can begin during the time period in which the TCL is operating according to a previously-cleared bid. In some examples, the sequence of bidding and price clearing is performed only once for each finite time period. Thus, communication and processing overhead associated with repeated bidding can be avoided.
In some examples of the method outlined in
The example method of market coordination elaborated in
VIII. Example Method of Producing Energy Response
To Generate Bids for Control of Load Devices
At process block 810, a controller coupled to a TCL determines an energy response relating price data to quantity data for energy or power to be consumed by the associated load. In some examples, the energy response is modeled using a function based on at least one or more of the following: a consumption state of the load (e.g., whether the load is currently operating or not), an air temperature (e.g., the current room temperature), and/or an inner mass temperature (e.g., the current temperature of solid objects within a region being heated or cooled by the associated load). In some examples, one or more of the variables on which the energy response function is based are estimated. For example, the inner mass temperature may not be available by data from a sensor. Other parameters of the energy response function can be provided by a sensor, for example the consumption state of the load, or the current room temperature. In other examples, other variables can be included in the energy response, including time of day, humidity, weather, outside air temperature, solar gain, or other suitable parameters.
In some examples, the energy response is a function of a user response parameter where the user response parameter relates an energy price and a user-selected comfort level. For example, the user can indicate a desired comfort level in relation to price using a controller, such as the controller 300 discussed above regarding
In some examples, the energy response is based, at least in part, on an equivalent thermal parameter model and a control policy indicating one or more power states for the load. These parameters are discussed further below. In some examples, the bid includes exactly one price and one corresponding quantity. In other examples, the bid includes two or more prices and two or more respectively corresponding quantities. In some examples, the bid is based on a point between two vectors that relate a state of the load, a model parameter, and a user input parameter. In some examples, the bid is based, at least in part, on an equivalent thermal parameter model. In some examples, the finite time period is less than one hour. In some examples, the finite time period is approximately five minutes or ten minutes.
A further detailed explanation of determination of exemplary energy consumption functions and energy response curves are discussed below and illustrated in
After determining an energy response, data representing the energy response is encoded and the method proceeds to process block 820.
At process block 820, the energy bid for a finite time period T based on the energy response data generated at process block 810 is sent to a market coordinator. For example, the energy bid data can be sent using a wired computer network, a wireless computer network, satellite or radio communication, or other suitable technologies for sending data to the market coordinator. After sending the energy bid to the market coordinator, the method proceeds to process block 830.
At process block 830, a clearing price is received from the market coordinator. The clearing price is based, at least in part, on the bid submitted by the controller at process block 820 in combination with energy bids that were submitted by other energy consumers associated with the same market coordinator. After receiving the clearing price for the associated time period T, the method compares the clearing price to the bid price. If the clearing price is less than the bid price, then the method proceeds to process block 840. If, on the other hand, the clearing price is greater than the bidding price sent at process block 820, then the method proceeds to process block 850.
At process block 840, one or more load devices associated with the controller and the successful energy bid (e.g., a clearing price that was less than or equal to the bidding price) is used to activate the associated load device for the finite time period T. In some examples, the load device is activated at a finer granularity than on/off. The load device is then permitted to consume its bid amount of energy for the corresponding time period.
At process block 850, the controller associated with the load uses an actuator to de-activate the load device for the finite time period T associated with the bid sent at process block 820. Thus, because the bid sent at process block 820 was insufficient, the load device remains idle for the finite time period. After de-activating the load device, the method proceeds to process block 860.
At process block 860, additional input data is gathered (e.g., room temperature, user preferences, inner mass temperatures, and other suitable data). The input data gathered is to be used for determining an energy response for the next time period. Once sufficient input data is gathered, the method proceeds back to process block 810 in order to determine a second energy response for a second finite time period.
A. Example Energy Consumption Function
The example energy consumption function ei is modelled using an Equivalent Thermal Parameter model (e.g., using the model as described above regarding Equation 2). For notational convenience, let ai represent the energy allocation of ith user, e.g., such that: ai=ei(xi(tk),ui(tk)).
Determinations of example energy consumption functions, as can be implemented in some examples of the disclosed technology, are discussed in further detail below.
B. Example Individual Load Dynamics
For the following exemplary analysis of individual load dynamics, let foni and foffi foffi: Rn×Rm→Rn denote the dynamics of the ith TCL for on and off state, respectively. Let zi(t) be the continuous state of load i. Denote qi(t)∈Rn
where θim∈Rn
żi(t)=Aizi(t)+Boni(Boffi) (Eq. 2)
where żi(t) includes a measured room temperature Tci(t) and an inner mass temperature, and the model parameters include Ai, Boni and Boffi, such that the model parameter θim=[Ai, Boni, Boffi]T.
In some examples, the power state of a TCL is regulated by a hysteretic controller based on the control deadband: [ui(t)−δ/2, ui(t)+δ/2], where ui(t) is the temperature set point of the ith TCL and δ is the deadband. For example, in air conditioning mode, the controller turns off the system when Tci(t)≤ui(t)−δ/2, turns on the system when Tci(t)≥ui(t)+δ/2, and remains in the same power state otherwise. Such a control policy can be represented as follows in Equation 3:
For notational convenience, a hybrid state is defined as xi(t)=[qi(t), zi(t)]T for the ith TCL. Let [tk,tk+T] be the kth market clearing cycle. Energy consumption of the TCL during each market clearing cycle depends on the current state and the control. Therefore, given a state xi(tk) and a constant setpoint control ui(tk), the portion of time the system is on during a market cycle can be estimated, and hence derive the energy consumption ei(xi(tk), ui(tk)) of the ith TCL based on the system dynamics and control strategy, where ei:n+1×→.
C. Example Calculation of User Preferences and Valuation
After a market is cleared (e.g., by the market coordinator 180), the devices receive the energy price Pc and make control decisions ui(tk) according to an energy response curve (e.g., the energy response curve 1110 or the approximated energy response curve 1120), which maps the price Pc to the control decisions ui(tk). Each device user can specify user preferences θui as an input parameter to affect the response curve. Therefore, the response curve can be represented as a function g: →m parameterized by θui, e.g., ui(tk)=g(Pc;θiu). In some examples of the disclosed technology, the user input θiu includes the slope of the response curve, the minimum temperature, the maximum temperature, and the desired temperature.
In some examples, the user response curve reflects the trade-off between comfort and cost, for example, when energy price Pc is relatively high, the device will adjust control ui(tk) to reduce power consumption. Therefore, the user response can be viewed as being obtained by solving an optimization problem to maximize individual utility of the corresponding load device: user comfort minus energy cost. Such an optimization problem can be formulated by defining a valuation (utility) function Vi: ×n→, which represents the ith user's valuation (comfort) over ai units of energy allocation. In some examples, it is assumed that Vi is concave, continuously differentiable, Vi(0)=0, and V′(0)>0. If Eim is the total energy if the ith device is on during the entire cycle, which indicates ai=ei(xi(tk),ui(tk))≤Eim. Then the user response can be fully captured by the following optimization problem:
where P is the energy price variable. An optimal solution to problem (4) can be described by the following Equation 5:
where hi: ×n→. It can be verified that with the conditions imposed on Vi, function hi is continuous and non-increasing with respect to P for ∀i=1, . . . ,N.
It should be noted that in the present example, each user response g(P; θiu) corresponds to an energy consumption ei(xi(tk),g(P; θiu)), which should be the optimal solution to problem (4). Therefore, the user response g should satisfy the following Equation 6:
hi(⋅,xi(tk))=ei(xi(tk),g(⋅;θiu)) (Eq.6)
Thus, energy response function hi can be derived when the user response g and the energy function ei are given.
In some examples, the energy response function hi is a function based on a hybrid state of the associated TCL and a user response. The hybrid state, in turn, is a function of the operating state of the TCL, room temperature, and inner mass temperature. Thus, by providing such energy response functions, user preferences can be submitted to the market coordinator in the form of a bid that inherently includes information not visible to other bidders. Also shown in the chart 1100 is an approximated energy response function 1120 of the energy function hi. The example approximation shown in
The proposed framework allows the users to control their loads by specifying the user preferences. Therefore, the user input parameter θiu is used in the present disclosure to represent this user influence. For notational convenience, the dependence of response curve g(P; θiu) and the valuation function Vi(ai,xi(tk); θiu) on θiu, can be omitted and denoted as gi(P) and Vi(ai,xi(tk)), respectively.
D. Example Bidding and Pricing Strategy using Energy Response
In some examples of the disclosed technology, it can be assumed that both the valuation function Vi and the user response gi, are unknown to the coordinator. Therefore, aside from responding to price signals, the devices are also required to submit bids to reveal some information for the coordinator to determine the energy price. For example, let bi: Rn+n
In real time, the coordinator collects all the bids from the TCL controllers and determines the price according to those bids. The bids can be denoted as b(x(tk),θu,θm)=[b1(x1(tk), θ1u, θ1m), . . . ,bN(xN(tk), θNu, θNm))]T. Then a pricing strategy w can be defined to map the bidding collection to the energy price, e.g. w: →, where is the set of all feasible bid collections. In some examples, the price is determined according to the demand curve constructed by bidding collection, an example of which is illustrated in
E. Market-Based Coordination Framework
As discussed above, the market coordinator collects the energy consumer bids and clears the market. In some examples, the market coordinator is configured to clear the bids in a manner intended to maximize overall social welfare of the system of market participants. In order to explain an exemplary formulation of the entire problem below, a step-by-step approach is adopted, starting first with a simple energy allocation problem, and then gradually adding key components until a number of features of the disclosed technology have been discussed at length.
Consider the following constrained optimization problem, dubbed Problem 1:
Problem 1: Find the optimal energy allocation to maximize social welfare subject to a feeder power constraint:
subject to:
where D=B*T and B is the feeder capacity and C is the cost function for the coordinator to purchase the energy from the wholesale market.
The foregoing Problem 1 is a convex optimization problem, and gives an optimal energy allocation that maximizes the social welfare. However, one concern is that the energy allocation vector has N degrees of freedom, while the coordinator determines a single-valued clearing price. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the optimal energy allocation can be realized using real-time pricing.
Example 1: As a counterexample, consider two users with V1=a1, V2=3a2 and C(a1+a2)=2a1+2a2. Assume that D=1 and Eim=2. An optimal solution to Problem 1 is a1=0, a2=1. However, according to (Eq. 4), given any energy price, ai is either 0 or 2. Therefore, the optimal energy allocation cannot be achieved via pricing.
To address this issue, a formal explanation of the concept of implementable energy allocation can be applied as follows:
Definition 1: The energy allocation vector a=[a1, . . . , aN] is called implementable if there exists a price P, such that ai=hi(P, xi(tk)) for all i=1, . . . , N. In this case, it is said that P implements the energy allocation a in the kth cycle.
With the above definition, the set of the implementable energy allocation can be defined as Ik={al∃P, s.t.ai=hi(P, xi(tk)), ∀i=1, . . . , N}. An energy allocation problem considering implementable allocation and feeder power constraint is discussed below regarding Problem 2:
Problem 2: Find an optimal implementable energy allocation to maximize social welfare subject to a feeder power constraint:
Compared with Problem 1, Problem 2 has an additional constraint a∈Ik, which ensures that an optimal solution is implementable. But in most cases, these two problems are not equivalent. To this end, the following analysis is formulated where the valuation functions Vi and individual load dynamics are unknown to the coordinator:
Problem 3: The coordinator should design the bidding function bi, and determine the pricing strategy w such that w(b(x(tk), θu, θm)) implements an optimal solution to Problem 2.
Thus, certain examples of the disclosed framework are different from wholesale energy market bidding, as the internal dynamics of the TCLs are incorporated into the decision making. The energy price triggers the setpoint control, which modifies the system dynamics and affects the resulting power consumption.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, the coordinator prices the energy and hence influences the user control. The user control parameters are propagated through load dynamics and affects the system state, which determines TCL controller bidding. Then these bids are submitted to the coordinator and in return will affect the energy price of the next cycle. Therefore, different from classical mechanism design problems and the wholesale energy market, the proposed framework considers the load dynamics and forms a closed-loop system, creating a decentralized approach for the energy consumers and the coordinator to determine an optimal energy allocation cooperatively in real time.
IX. Example Pricing and Bidding Strategies
In this section, an optimal pricing strategy and a corresponding bidding strategy in two steps are disclosed. First, for purposes of this example it is assumed that the coordinator has the complete information and derives an analytic expression of the optimal price. Second, for purposes of this example the complete information assumption is removed, and a bidding strategy is proposed to implement the optimal pricing strategy in a decentralized manner.
As discussed in further detail above regarding
A. Pricing Strategy Assuming Complete Information
Throughout this subsection, the function Vi and hi's dependence on the system state xi(tk) are omitted, as doing so does not substantially affect the result for this example. In all other sections this dependence is considered unless otherwise stated.
To derive the optimal price to Problem 3, first define a price P*, which is the price that implements the optimal solution of the following energy allocation problem as stated in Equation 10:
Notice that the energy allocation problem is reduced from Problem 1 by dropping the feeder power constraint. According to the welfare theorem, the optimal price that implements the optimal energy allocation should be the marginal cost of energy. This result can be summarized as the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Let a* be the optimal solution of problem, then a*∈Ik, and
implement a*.
Remark 3: The proof of Proposition 1 implies that the optimal energy allocation strategy to Equation 10 is always implementable. However, this property does not hold when the coupled constraint (Relation 8a) is taken into consideration.
To find an optimal solution of Problem 2, the constraint a∈Ik is imposed on Problem 1 and its cost function is checked. As a∈Ik, there is a P such that hi(P)=ai.for ∀i. Inserting this function into the social welfare function above (Relation 10), we obtain the following:
Proposition 2: U(P) is non-increasing with respect to P when P≥P*.
Proof: Since Since U(P) is continuous, we only need to prove that U0(P+)≤0, ∀P≥P*, where U0(P+) denotes the right derivative of function U at P. As
it suffices to show that (Vi0(hi(P))−C0(Pi=1 hi(P)))·h0i(P+)≤0 for all i. For notation convenience, let
we need to prove γi(P)*hi′(P+)≤0 for ∀i when P≥P+. Now we divide all the users into two groups. The user in the first group satisfies γi(P+)≥0. As Vi is concave, C is convex, and hi is non-increasing, γi(P) is non-decreasing. Therefore, γi(P+)≥γi(P+)≥0, which indicates that γi(P)·h0i(P+)≤0. For the second group, we have γi(P+)≤0. Note that γi(P+) is the derivative of (4) with respect to ai evaluated at the optimal point hi(P+) when P=P+. As (4) is concave and differentiable, γi(P+)<0 indicates that the optimal solution of (4) is on the boundary of the constraint: hi(P+)=0. Moreover, since hi(P+)≥0 and hi is non-increasing, when P≥P+, hi(P)=0, which indicates that h0i(P+)=0 for P≥P+. In addition, P+<P−. Therefore, γi(P)·h0i(P+)=0 for i in the second group. This completes the proof.
Furthermore, define a
The existence and uniqueness of
Theorem 1: Let Pc be the price that implements the optimal solution of Problem 2, then Pc=max{
Proof: First, consider the case where P*≥
In addition, according to Proposition 1, P* implements an a* such that a*∈Ik. With above conditions satisfied, Problem 1 and Problem 2 are equivalent, which indicates Pc=P*. Second, let us consider the case where P*<
To this end, Theorem 1 does not provide an explicit solution of the optimal price that can be derived numerically. But it provides a procedure to determine Pc: first solve Problem 10 and compute P*. Then P* is compared with
B. Bidding Strategy Design
This section outlines a general bidding strategy for the coordination of TCLs, as can be used in certain examples of the disclosed technology. A disclosure of application of the example bidding strategy to TCLs (e.g., air conditioning systems) is then further detailed.
An example general bidding design is disclosed. Ideally, each device can submit all the private information to the coordinator, including valuation function Vi, system state xi(tk), model parameter θmi and the user input θui. Then the coordinator can easily solve Problem 3 and derive the optimal price. However, this bidding strategy is difficult to implement in the real time market, due to computational and communicational limitations. Therefore, the device has to submit a bid of a minimum amount of information that is enough for the market to derive an optimal clearing price. For this example application, a sufficient bidding is defined as follows:
Definition 2: A bidding vector b(x(tk),θu, θm) is a sufficient bidding, if the coordinator can compute the optimal price Pc numerically merely based on b(x(tk),θu,θm).
As will be readily understood to one of ordinary skill in the relvant art, if the users bid all the private information, then there is a sufficient bidding. To derive a realistic sufficient bidding, we refer to (Eq. 6), and assume that the energy function ei(xi(tk),gi(⋅)) can be parameterized by θib, because the structure of the energy function for each ith TCL is the same, while their differences can be captured by θib. This assumption is justified because the TCLs can be captured by the same ETP model and regulated by the same hysteretic controller (Eq. 3). Therefore, the energy function can be defined as:
where {tilde over (e)} is the energy versus price function parameterized by θib. This provides the following result:
Theorem 2: Regard ei(xi(tk), gi(P)) as a function of price P and assume this function can be parameterized by θib, because ei(xi(tk),gi(P))={tilde over (e)}(P; θib). Then [θib, . . . , θnb] is a sufficient bidding.
Proof: According to Theorem 1, Pc=max{
and
As P* implements a*, we have Ai*=hi(P*, xi) for i=1, . . . , N and hence the following:
Based on (Eq. 12), the coordinator only needs to know the function
to compute the optimal price numerically. As ei(xi(tk), gi(⋅)) can be parameterized by θib, according to (6), θib contains all the information of function hi(⋅, xi(tk)). Therefore, [θib, . . . , θNb]T is a sufficient bidding.
As will be readily understood to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the result of Theorem 2 is very general and can be applied in different types of TCLs, including HVACs, water heaters, dryers, etc. It can also be extended to the coordination of users with heterogeneous energy response curves hi, where each user has to bid both the function structure and the parameters of ei.
In some examples of the disclosed technology, a market coordinator orders all the bids in decreasing order and clears the market based on the demand curve constructed in
A further explanation of an exemplary method of calculating the energy response function hi, for example, as depicted in
For notational convenience, define c1=ei(u1,θiu,θim) and c2=ei(u2,θiu,θim), where u1 and u2 are the temperature setpoint control corresponding to c1 and c2, respectively. Using the second-order ETP model (2) and control policy (3), ui and u2 for the ith device can be obtained as:
where L=[1,0], and the power state of the ith TCL is on at tk.
The positions of c1 and c2 contribute significantly to effectiveness of the bidding. In some examples, the bid price is determined at the middle point of c1 and c2, which gives:
In this example, the sufficient bidding consists of the bidding price and bidding power, e.g., θib=[Pbidi, Qbidi]. After the coordinator collects all the bids, the function hi can be constructed to compute the energy price.
The disclosed bidding strategy assumes knowledge of ETP model parameters θim. In practice it may be difficult to derive these parameters. In some examples of the disclosed technology, ETP model parameters can be estimated by joint state and parameter estimation using extended Kalman filter or particle filter. In some examples, the ETP model used in the framework may be inaccurate in terms of characterizing the energy consumption of TCLs.
X. Example Simulation Results
In this section example simulations based on the proposed framework are applied to the market-based coordination of the thermostatically controlled loads. Example simulation results are presented to demonstrate effectiveness of the proposed approach in certain examples of the disclosed technology.
A. Simulation Setup
The proposed framework is validated against simulations in GridLAB-D, where a second-order ETP model is used to simulate air conditioners as TCLs. The ETP model parameters are determined by various building parameters, such as floor area, ceiling height, glass type, glazing layers and material, area per floor, etc. Realistic default values are used in GridLAB-D. In the simulation, 1000 sets of building parameters are generated. A few parameters are randomly generated and the rest of the parameters take their default values in GridLAB-D. Throughout the simulation, it is assumed that the air conditioner consumes 5 kW power on average. The uncontrollable aggregated power is assumed to be 12 MW, and the feeder power constraint is 15 MW.
The simulation is further based on weather data and the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) data for Columbus, Ohio, include air temperature and the solar gain. The energy price data is derived from a wholesale energy market and modified to a retail rate in expressed in dollars per kWh, plus a retail modifier.
Different outside air temperature traces are used to validate the proposed framework, as shown in the chart 1200 of
First, the simulation is performed with the outside air temperature record on Aug. 20, 2009 in Columbus, Ohio. The simulation covers a horizon of 24 hours, and the power trajectory is shown in the chart 1300 of
The market clearing prices for the entire day is presented in the chart 1400 of
Furthermore, to demonstrate the optimality of the proposed pricing strategy, it can be compared with a base scenario in terms of social welfare. In the base scenario, the market clearing price is randomly chosen in a set Γ, which satisfies the following condition: (a) P∈Γ indicates that Pc implements an aggregated power that respects the feeder power constraint (P≥
Thus, a market-based coordination framework for thermostatically controlled loads is disclosed, where a coordinator uses pricing incentives to manage a group of users under a given feeder power constraint. An example optimal pricing strategy is derived, and the bidding strategy is designed to elicit an optimal price numerically. The proposed framework can provide a systematic way to designing bidding and pricing strategy for the price-driven demand response programs. Simulation results are presented to validate the proposed approach. In other examples, the fully dynamic market based control framework is used with multiple bidding periods and extending to other appliances, including HVACs, water heaters, dryers, and other suitable loads.
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of the disclosed subject matter may be applied, it should be recognized that the illustrated embodiments are only preferred examples and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the scope of the claims to those preferred examples. Rather, the scope of the claimed subject matter is defined by the following claims. We therefore claim as our invention all that comes within the scope of these claims.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/866,404, filed Sep. 25, 2015, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/056,212, entitled “ON MARKET-BASED COORDINATION OF THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED LOADS WITH USER PREFERENCE,” filed Sep. 26, 2014, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/056,221, entitled “A MARKET MECHANISM DESIGN APPROACH FOR COORDINATION OF THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED LOADS WITH UNKNOWN PARAMETERS,” filed Sep. 26, 2014, which applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
This invention was made with Government support under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Government has certain rights in the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4010614 | Arthur | Mar 1977 | A |
5572438 | Ehlers et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5684710 | Ehlers et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5696695 | Ehlers et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5924486 | Ehlers et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
6216956 | Ehlers et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6343277 | Gaus et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6633823 | Bartone et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6681156 | Weiss | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6895325 | Munson, Jr. | May 2005 | B1 |
6963854 | Boyd et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7043380 | Rodenberg et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7085739 | Winter et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7130719 | Ehlers et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7135956 | Bartone et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7141321 | McArthur et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7243044 | McCalla | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7249169 | Blouin et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7343226 | Ehlers et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7343360 | Ristanovic et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7379997 | Ehlers et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7418428 | Ehlers et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7516106 | Ehlers et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7599866 | Yan et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7716101 | Sandholm et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7953519 | Hamilton, II et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7996296 | Lange | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8126794 | Lange et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8271345 | Milgrom et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8355827 | Egnor et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8478452 | Pratt et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8504463 | Johnson et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8527389 | Johnson et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8577778 | Lange et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8639392 | Chassin | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8694409 | Chassin et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8700225 | Pratt et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8706650 | Ozog | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8788415 | Chassin et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8892264 | Steve et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
9026473 | Chassin et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9087359 | Chassin | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9094385 | Akyol et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9129337 | Chassin et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9240026 | Chassin et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9245297 | Chassin et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9269108 | Chassin et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9310792 | Lu et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9342850 | Chassin et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9425620 | Chassin et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9589297 | Fuller et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9762060 | Kalsi et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9817375 | Li et al. | Nov 2017 | B2 |
9965802 | Powell et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
10210568 | Lian et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10607303 | Lian et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
11361392 | Bhattarai et al. | Jun 2022 | B2 |
20010032029 | Kauffman | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020038279 | Samuelson et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020091626 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020128747 | Mima | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020132144 | McArthur et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020178047 | Or et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030014379 | Saias et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023540 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2003 | A2 |
20030036820 | Yellepeddy et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030040844 | Spool et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030040845 | Spool et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041002 | Hao | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041016 | Spool et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041017 | Spool et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030055774 | Ginsberg | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078797 | Kanbara et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030093332 | Spool et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093357 | Guler et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030139939 | Spool et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030144864 | Mazzarella | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149672 | Laskoski | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030216971 | Sick et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040010478 | Peljto et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015428 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2004 | A2 |
20040024483 | Holcombe | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040128266 | Yellepeddy et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133529 | Munster | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040140908 | Gladwin et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153330 | Miller et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040254688 | Chassin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015283 | Iino et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050027636 | Gilbert et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065867 | Aisu et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050114255 | Shields et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125243 | Villalobos | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137959 | Yan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050197875 | Kauffman | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228553 | Tryon | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060036357 | Isono et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060241951 | Cynamom et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259199 | Gjerde et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060293980 | Corby et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011080 | Jain et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070061248 | Shavit et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070087756 | Hoffberg | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070124026 | Troxell et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080021628 | Tryon | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027639 | Tryon | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080039980 | Pollack et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046387 | Gopal et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080051977 | Tryon | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080243664 | Shavit et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080243682 | Shavit et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080243719 | Shavit et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080281663 | Hakim | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080297113 | Saeki et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080300907 | Musier et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080300935 | Musier et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080306801 | Musier et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319893 | Mashinsky et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090063228 | Forbes | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090132360 | Arfin et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090177591 | Thorpe et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090195349 | Frader-Thompson et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090228151 | Wang et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090307059 | Young et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090313174 | Hafner et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100010939 | Arfin et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100049371 | Martin | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100057625 | Boss et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076835 | Silverman | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100106332 | Chassin | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100106641 | Chassin et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100107173 | Chassin | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114387 | Chassin | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121700 | Wigder et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100179862 | Pratt et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100216545 | Lange et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217550 | Crabtree et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100218108 | Crabtree et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100256999 | Ghani et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100332373 | Crabtree et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110015801 | Mazzarella | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110016055 | Mazzarella | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110081955 | Lange et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110301964 | Conwell | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120022995 | Lange | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120083930 | Ilic | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120278220 | Chassin et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120278221 | Fuller et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130218743 | Chassin et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130218744 | Chassin et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130254090 | Chassin et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268132 | Pratt et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130325691 | Chassin et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325692 | Chassin et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140172503 | Hammerstrom et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140188689 | Kalsi et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140201018 | Chassin | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20160092978 | Lian et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160092986 | Lian et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20170136889 | Ricci | May 2017 | A1 |
20170136911 | Ricci | May 2017 | A1 |
20170358041 | Forbes et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20190020220 | Lian et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190296577 | Lian et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
107623386 | Jan 2018 | CN |
2008-204073 | Sep 2008 | JP |
WO 1999001822 | Jan 1999 | WO |
WO 2002023693 | Mar 2002 | WO |
WO 2007065135 | Jun 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Philpott et. al., “Optimized Demand-Side Bids in Day-Ahead Electricity Markets”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21, No. 2, 488, 498, (2006) (Year: 2006). |
Xu et al., “A simplified dynamic model forexisting buildings using CTF and thermal network models”, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 47, Issue 9, 1249, 1262, Sep. 2008 (Year: 2008). |
Philpott, Andy B., and Erling Pettersen. “Optimizing demand-side bids in day-ahead electricity markets.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21.2 (2006): 488-498. (Year: 2006). |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/587,000. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/587,006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/587,008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/587,009. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/686,243. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/096,682. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/096,770. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/846,637. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/846,644. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/846,647. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/964,996. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/965,049. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/108,078. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/166,662. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/866,404. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/866,457. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/671,506. |
AEP gridSmart demonstration project, Available: http://www.gridsmartohio.com/, Aug. 2013, 1 page. |
AEP Ohio power company standard tariff, Available: https://www.aepohio.com/account/bills/rates/AEPOhioRatesTariffsOH.aspx, Issued: Aug. 28, 2015, 187 pages. |
Allcott, “Real Time Pricing and Electricity Markets,” Harvard University, Feb. 5, 2009, 77 pages. |
Basar, Lecture Notes on Noncooperative Game Theory, Jul. 26, 2010, 142 pages. |
Bilgin et al., “Smart building real time pricing for offering load-side regulation service reserves,” In 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 4341-4348, 2013. |
Bishop et al., “Pattern recognition and machine learning,” vol. 1, Springer, New York, 2006, 703 pages. |
Borenstein et al., “Diagnosing Market Power in California's Deregulated Wholesale Electricity Market,” University of California Energy Institute, POWER, PWP-064, 54 pp. (Aug. 2000). |
Borenstein et al., “Diagnosing Market Power in California's Deregulated Wholesale Electricity Market,” University of California Energy Institute, Power, PWP-064, 52 pp. (Mar. 2000). |
Borenstein et al., “Dynamic Pricing, Advanced Metering, and Demand Response in Electricity Markets,” Center for the Study of Energy Markets, 2002, 103 pages. |
Boyd et al., “Load Reduction, Demand Response, and Energy Efficient Technologies and Strategies,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-18111, 44 pp. (Nov. 2008). |
Brambley, “Thinking Ahead: Autonomic Buildings,” ACEEE Summer Study on the Energy Efficiency in Buildings, vol. 7, pp. 73-86 (2002). |
Burke et al., “Robust Control of Residential Demand Response Network with Low Bandwidth Input,” In Proceedings of Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 413-415, Oct. 20-22, 2008. |
Cai et al., “Economic Dispatch in Microgrids Using Multi-Agent System,” In North American Power Grid Symposium (NAPS), Sep. 2012, 5 pages. |
Chandley, “How RTOs Set Spot Market Prices (And How It Helps Keep the Lights On),” PJM Interconnection, 23 pp. (Sep. 2007). |
Chang et al., “Modeling and Control of Aggregated Air Conditioning Loads Under Realistic Conditions,” 2013 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), Feb. 2013, 6 pages. |
Chao, “Price-Responsive Demand Management for a Smart Grid World,” The Electricity Journal, vol. 23, No. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 7-20. |
Chassin, “The Abstract Machine Model for Transaction-based System Control,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-14082, 28 pp. (Nov. 2002). |
Chassin et al., “Decentralized Coordination through Digital Technology, Dynamic Pricing, and Customer-Driven Control: The GridWise Testbed Demonstration Project,” The Electricity Journal, vol. 21, pp. 51-59 (Oct. 2008). |
Chassin et al., “Gauss-Seidel Accelerated: Implementing Flow Solvers on Field Programmable Gate Arrays,” IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 5 pp. (Jun. 2006). |
Chassin et al., “GridLAB-D: An Open-source Power Systems Modeling and Simulation Environment,” In IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Aug. 2008, 5 pages. |
Chassin, “GridLAB-D Technical Support Document: Tape Modules Version 1.0,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-17614, 8 pp. (May 2008). |
Chassin, “GridLAB-D Technical Support Document: Commercial Modules Version 1.0,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-17615, 8 pp. (May 2008). |
Chassin, “GridLAB-D Technical Support Document: Network Module Version 1.0,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-17616, 10 pp. (May 2008). |
Chassin et al., “Modeling Power Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-14987, 151 pp. (Dec. 2004). |
Chassin et al., “The pacific northwest demand response market demonstration,” IEEE, 6 pp. (Jul. 2008). |
Chassin et al., “Project 2.6—Enhancement of the Whole-Building Diagnostician,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-14383, 17 pp. (Aug. 2003). |
Chassin, “Statistical Mechanics: A Possible Model for Market-based Electric Power Control”, Proc. of the 37th Hawaii Int'l Conf. on System Sciences, 10 pp. (Jan. 2004). |
Chen et al., “The Influence of Topology Changes on Inter-area Oscillation Modes and Mode Shapes,” IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 7 pp. (Jul. 2011). |
Chen et al., “Real-time power control of data centers for providing regulation service,” In 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 10-13, 2013, pp. 4314-4321. |
Chen et al., “Two Market Models for Demand Response in Power Networks,” In Proceedings of 2010 First IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Oct. 4-6, 2010, pp. 397-402. |
Clearwater et al., “Thermal Markets for Controlling Building Environments,” Energy Engineering, vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 26-56 (1994). |
Collins, “Error Analysis in Scanned Holography,” Oregon State University, Ph.D. thesis, Jun. 1970, 110 pages. |
Conejo et al., “Price-Taker Bidding Strategy Under Price Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 17, No. 4, Nov. 2002, pp. 1081-1088. |
Cong et al., “FlowMap: An Optimal Technology Mapping Algorithm for Delay Optimization in Lookup-Table Based FPGA Designs,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 13, No. 1, Jan. 1994, 12 pages. |
De Ladurantaye et al., “Strategic Bidding for Price-Taker Hydroelectricity Producers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, No. 4, Nov. 2007. |
Denholm et al., “An Evaluation of Utility System Impacts and Benefits of Optimally Dispatched Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-620-40293, 30 pp. (Oct. 2006). |
Denton et al., “Spot Market Mechanism Design and Competitivity Issues in Electric Power,” Proc. of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 48-56 (Jan. 1998). |
Diao et al., “Deriving Optimal Operational Rules for Mitigating Inter-area Oscillations,” IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference & Exposition, 8 pp. (Mar. 2011). |
Dominguez-Garcia et al., “Resilient Networked Control of Distributed Energy Resources,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, No. 6, Jul. 2012, pp. 1137-1148. |
Driesen et al., “Design for Distributed Energy Resources,” IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 30-40, May/Jun. 2008. |
Fahrioglu et al., “Designing Incentive Compatible Contracts for Effective Demand Management,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, No. 4, Nov. 2000, pp. 1255-1260. |
Farhangi, “The Path of the Smart Grid,” IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 18-28, Jan./Feb. 2010. |
Faruqui et al., “The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence,” Energy, vol. 35, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1598-1608. |
Feigenbaum et al., “Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions,” In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications, Sep. 2002, 13 pages. |
Fernandez et al., “Self Correcting HVAC Controls: Algorithms for Sensors and Dampers in Air-Handling Units,” Pacific Northwest Laboratory PNNL-19104, 49 pp. (Dec. 2009). |
Francis et al., “Chortle-crf: Fast Technology Mapping for Lookup Table-Based FPGAs,” 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, Jun. 21, 1991, pp. 227-233. |
Fuller et al., “Analysis of Residential Demand Response and Double-Auction Markets,” In Power and Energy Society General Meeting, IEEE, Jul. 24-29, 2011, 7 pages. |
Fuller et al., “Evaluation of Representative Smart Grid Investment Grant Project Technologies: Demand Response,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-20772, 349 pp. (Feb. 2012). |
Fuller et al., “Modeling of GE Appliances in GridLAB-D: Peak Demand Reduction,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-21358, 157 pp. (Apr. 2012). |
Gatterbauer, “Interdependencies of Electricity Market Characteristics and Bidding Strategies of Power Producers,” Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 33 pp. (May 2002). |
Georgilakis, “Market Clearing Price Forecasting in Deregulated Electricity Markets Using Adaptively Trained Neural Networks,” Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3955, pp. 56-66 (2006). |
Gjerstad et al., “Price Formation in Double Auctions,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 22, article No. GA970576, pp. 1-29 (1998). (Document marked as Received Nov. 30, 1995). |
Green Car Congress, “PG&E and Tesla to Research Smart Recharging Vehicle-to-Grid Technology,” downloaded from http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/pge-and-tesla-t.html, 3 pp. (Sep. 12, 2007). |
GridLAB-D residential module user's guide, Available: http://sourceforeg.net/apps/mediawiki/gridlab-d, last modified on Oct. 22, 2013, 24 pages. |
Guttromson et al., “Residential energy resource models for distribution feeder simulation,” IEEE, vol. 1, pp. 108-113 (Jul. 2003). |
Hammerstrom et al., “Pacific Northwest GridWise™ Testbed Demonstration Projects,” Part I, Olympic Peninsula Project, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oct. 2007, 157 pages. |
Hammerstrom et al., “Pacific Northwest GridWise Testbed demonstration Projects: Part II. Grid Friendly Appliance Project,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-17079, 123 pp. (Oct. 2007). |
Hammerstrom et al., “Standardization of a Hierarchical Transactive Control System,” Grid Interop Conf., 7 pp. (Nov. 2009). |
Han et al., “Development of an Optimal Vehicle-to-Grid Aggregator for Frequency Regulation,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, No. 1, Jun. 2010, pp. 65-72. |
Hao et al., “Aggregate Flexibility of Thermostatically Controlled Loads,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, No. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 189-198. |
Hao et al., “Ancillary Service for the Grid via Control of Commercial Building HVAC Systems,” In 2013 American Control Conference, IEEE, Jun. 17-19, 2013, pp. 467-472. |
Hatley et al., “Energy Management and Control System: Desired Capabilities and Functionality,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-15074, 46 pp. (Apr. 2005). |
Hô et al., “Econophysical Dynamics of Market-Based Electric Power Distribution Systems,” IEEE, pp. 1-6 (Jan. 2006). |
Hsu et al., “Dispatch of Direct Load Control Using Dynamic Programming,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, No. 3, Aug. 1991, pp. 1056-1061. |
Huang et al., “Analytics and Transactive Control Design for the Pacific Northwest Smart Grid Demonstration Project,” In 2010 First IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridCom), IEEE, Oct. 4-6, 2010, pp. 449-454. |
Huang et al., “MANGO—Modal Analysis for Grid Operation: A Method for Damping Improvement through Operating Point Adjustment,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-19890, 92 pp. (Oct. 2010). |
Huang et al., “Transforming Power Grid Operations,” Scientific Computing, vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 22-27 (Apr. 2007). |
Huberman et al., “A Multi-Agent System for Controlling Building Environments,” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, Jun. 12-14, 1995, pp. 171-176. |
Hurwicz, “The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation,” In The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, vol. 63, No. 2, May 1973, 31 pages. |
Kakhbod et al., “Power Allocation and Spectrum Sharing in Wireless Networks: An Implementation Theory Approach,” Mechanisms and Games for Dynamic Spectrum Allocation (Chapter 5), Feb. 2014, 42 pages. |
Kannberg et al., “GridWise: The Benefits of a Transformed Energy System,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-14396, 48 pp. (Sep. 2003). |
Kar et al., “Distributed Robust Economic Dispatch in Power Systems: A Concensus + Innovations Approach,” In Proc. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2012, 8 pages. |
Katipamula et al., “Evaluation of Residential HVAC Control Strategies for Demand Response Programs,” ASHRAE Trans., Symp. on Demand Response Strategies for Building Systems, 12 pp. (Jan. 2006). |
Katipamula et al., “Transactive Controls: A Market-Based GridWise Controls for Building Systems,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-15921, 14 pp. (Jul. 2006). |
Kersting, “Radial Distribution Test Feeders,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 975-985, Aug. 1991. |
Kiesling, “Retail Electricity Deregulation: Prospects and Challenges for Dynamic Pricing and Enabling Technologies,” The Searle Center Annual Review of Regulation, 44 pp. (May 2007). |
Kim et al., “Scheduling Power Consumption With Price Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2, No. 3, Sep. 2011, pp. 519-527. |
Kinter-Meyer et al., “Final Report for the Energy Efficient and Affordable Small Commercial and Residential Buildings Research Program—Project 3.3—Smart Load Control and Grid Friendly Appliances,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-14342, 147 pp. (Jul. 2003). |
Kok et al., “Agent-based Electricity Balancing with Distributed Energy Resources, A Multiperspective Case Study,” Proc. Hawaii Int'l Conf. on System Sciences, 10 pp. (Jan. 2008). |
Kok et al., “Dynamic Pricing by Scalable Energy Management Systems—Field Experiences and Simulation Results using Powermatcher,” In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2012, 8 pages. |
Kok et al., “Intelligence in Electricity Networks for Embedding Renewables and Distributed Generation,” In Intelligent infrastructures, Springer, 2010, pp. 179-209. |
Kok et al., “PowerMatcher: Multiagent Control in the Electricity Infrastructure,” AAMAS, 8 pp. (Jul. 2005). |
Lasseter et al., “Integration of Distributed Energy Resources. The CERTS MicroGrid Concept,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oct. 2013, 32 pages. |
Lemay et al., “An Integrated Architecture for Demand Response Communications and Control,” Hawaii Int'l Conf. on System Sciences, 10 pp. (Jan. 2008). |
Li et al., “Integrated Power Management of Data Centers and Electric Vehicles for Energy and Regulation Market Participation,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, No. 5, Sep. 2014, pp. 2283-2294. |
Li et al., Market-Based Coordination of Thermostatically Controlled Loads—Part I: Mechanism Design Formulation, IEEE Transactions on Power System, Mar. 15, 2015, 11 pages. |
Li et al., Market-Based Coordination of Thermostatically Controlled Loads—Part II: Unknown Parameters and Case Studies IEEE Transactions on Power System, Mar. 15, 2015, 9 pages. |
Li et al., “A Market Mechanism Design Approach for Coordination of Thermostatically Controlled Loads With Unknown Parameters (Part I),” IEEE Transactions on Power System, 2014, 8 pages. |
Li et al., “A Market Mechanism Design Approach for Coordination of Thermostatically Controlled Loads With Unknown Parameters (Part Ii),” IEEE Transactions on Power System, 2014, 8 pages. |
Li et al., “A Mechanism Design Approach for Coordination of Thermostatically Controlled Loads,” Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02705, last updated Jun. 15, 2015, 16 pages. |
Li et al., “Optimal Demand Response Based on Utility Maximization in Power Networks,” In Power and Energy Society General Meeting, IEEE, Jul. 24-29, 2011, 8 pages. |
Liu et al., “Planning and Control of Electric Vehicles Using Dynamic Energy Capacity Models,” In 52nd Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, Dec. 10-13, 2013, pp. 379-384. |
Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User, 255 pages (Prentice Hall 1987). |
Lu et al., “Control Strategies of Thermostatically Controlled Appliances in a Competitive Electricity Market,” IEEE Proc. Power Engineering Society General Meeting, pp. 202-207 (Jun. 2005). |
Lu et al., “Design Considerations for Frequency Responsive Grid Friendly Appliances,” IEEE PES Trans. and Distribution Conference and Exhibition, 6 pp. (May 2006). |
Lu et al., “An Evaluation of the HVAC Load Potential for Providing Load Balance Service,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, No. 3, Sep. 2012, pp. 1263-1270. |
Lu et al., “Grid Friendly Device Model Development and Simulation,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-18998, 52 pp. (Nov. 2009). |
Lu et al., “Modeling Uncertainties in Aggregated Thermostatically Controlled Loads Using a State Queueing Model,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 725-733 (May 2005). |
Lu et al., “Reputation-Aware Transaction Mechanisms in Grid Resource Market,” IEEE Sixth Int'l Conf. on Grid and Cooperative Computing, 6 pp. (Aug. 2007). |
Lu et al., “Simulating Price Responsive Distributed Resources,” IEEE, vol. 3, pp. 1538-1543 (Oct. 2004). |
Lu et al., “A State-Queueing Model of Thermostatically Controlled Appliances,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 1666-1673 (Aug. 2004). |
Marion et al., “User's Manual for TMY2s: Typical Meteorological Years: Derived from the 1961-1990 National Solar Radiation data Base,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Jun. 1995, 55 pages. |
Mas-Colell et al., “Microeconomic Theory,” Oxford University Press, © 1995, 501 pages. |
Maskin, “Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals,” In Les Prix Nobel 2007, pp. 296-307 (2008). |
Mathieu et al., “State Estimation and Control of Electric Loads to Manage Real-Time Energy Imbalance,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 430-440. |
Moeslund, et al., “A Survey of Computer Vision-Based Human Motion Capture,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 81, No. 3, Mar. 2001, pp. 231-268. |
Mohsenian-Rad et al., “Optimal Residential Load Control With Price Prediction in Real-Time Electricity Pricing Environments,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, No. 2, Sep. 2010, pp. 120-133. |
Nanduri et al., “A Methodology for Evaluating Auction Based Pricing Strategies in Deregulated Energy Markets,” Working Paper, 12 pp. (2005). |
Nanduri, et al., “A Reinforcement Learning Model to Assess Market Power Under Auction-Based Energy Pricing,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 85-95 (Feb. 2007). |
Nguyen et al., “Optimal Bidding Strategy for Microgrids Considering Renewable Energy and Building Thermal Dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, No. 4, Jul. 2014, pp. 1608-1620. |
Nicolaisen et al., “Market Power and Efficiency in a Computational Electricity Market With Discriminatory Double-Auction Pricing,” ISU Economic Report No. 52, 26 pp. (Aug. 27, 2000; revised Aug. 24, 2001). |
Non-Final Office Action issued in U.S. Appl. No. 14/866,457, dated Mar. 13, 2018, 18 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/866,457, dated Sep. 4, 2018, 9 pages. |
Ntakou et al., “Price Discovery in Dynamic Power Markets with Low-Voltage Distribution-Network Participants,” In IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Apr. 14-17, 2014, 5 pages. |
O'Neill et al., “Model-Based Thermal Load Estimation in Buildings,” Fourth National Conference of IBPSA-USA, Aug. 2010, 9 pages. |
Palensky et al., “Demand Side Management: Demand Response, Intelligent Energy Systems, and Smart Loads,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 7, No. 3, Aug. 2011, pp. 381-388. |
Pantoja et al., “Dispatch of Distributed Generators under Local-Information Constraints,” In 2014 American Control Conference (ACC), Jun. 4-6, 2014, pp. 2682-2687. |
Papavasilou et al., “Large-Scale Integration of Deferrable Demand and Renwable Energy Sources”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 489-499, Jan. 1, 2014. |
Parkes, “Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Achieving Economic and Computational Efficiency,” PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2000, 115 pages. |
Paschalidis et al., “Demand-Side Management for Regulation Service Provisioning Through Internal Pricing,” IEEE Transactions on Power System, vol. 27, No. 3, Aug. 2012, pp. 1531-1539. |
Pedrasa et al., “Coordinated Scheduling of Residential Distributed Energy Resources to Optimize Smart Home Energy Services,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, No. 2, Sep. 2010, pp. 134-143. |
Philpott et. al., “Optimizing Demand-Side Bids in Day-Ahead Electricity Markets”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 488-498, (May 2006). |
PJM wholesale market energy price, available at: http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/energy.aspx, uploaded Sep. 16, 2015, 3 pages. |
Plott et al., “Instability of Equilibria in Experimental Markets: Upward-sloping Demands, Externalities, and Fad-like Incentives,” Southern Economic Journal, vol. 65 (3), 23 pp. (Jan. 1999). |
Pourebrahimi et al., “Market-based Resource Allocation in Grids,” IEEE Int'l Conf. on e-Science and Grid Computing, 8 pp. (2006). |
Pratt et al., “Potential Impacts of High Penetration of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles on the U.S. Power Grid,” DOE/EERE PHEV Stakeholder Workshop, 14 pp. (Jun. 2007). |
Rahimi et al., “Demand Response as a Market Resource Under the Smart Grid Paradigm,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, No. 1, Jun. 2010, pp. 82-88. |
Rasouli et al., “Electricity Pooling Markets with Strategic Producers Possessing Asymmetric Information I: Elastic Demand,” arXiv:1401.4230, Jan. 17, 2014, 8 pages. |
Reiter, “Information Incentive and Performance in the (new) Welfare Economics,” reprinted from American Economic Review, vol. 67, No. 1, Feb. 1977, 27 pages. |
Sage et al., Estimation Theory with Applications to Communications and Control, 540 pages (1971). |
Salehfar et al., “A Production Costing Methodology for Evaluation of Direct Load Control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, No. 1, Feb. 1991, pp. 278-284. |
Samadi et al., “Advanced Demand Side Management for the Future Smart Grid Using Mechanism Design,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, No. 3, Sep. 2012, pp. 1170-1180. |
Satayapiwat et al., “A Utility-based Double Auction Mechanism for Efficient Grid Resource Allocation,” Int'l Symp. on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA '08), pp. 252-260 (Dec. 10-12, 2008). |
Schneider et al., “Analysis of Distribution Level Residential Demand Response,” IEEE/PES Power System Conference and Exposition, 6 pp. (Mar. 2011). |
Schneider et al., “Detailed End Use Load Modeling for Distribution System Analysis,” IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 7 pp. (Jul. 2010). |
Schneider et al., “Distribution Power Flow for Smart Grid Technologies,” IEEE/PES Power System Conference and Exhibition, 7 pp. (Mar. 2009). |
Schneider et al., “Evaluation of Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) on a National Level,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-19596, 114 pp. (Jul. 2010). |
Schneider et al., “Modern Grid Strategy: Enhanced GridLAB-D Capabilities Final Report,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-18864, 30 pp. (Sep. 2009). |
Schneider et al., “Multi-State Load Models for Distribution System Analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 2425-2433 (Nov. 2011). |
Schneider et al., “A Taxonomy of North American Radial Distribution Feeders,” IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 6 pp. (Jul. 2009). |
Schneider et al., “Voltage Control Devices on the IEEE 8500 Node Test Feeder,” IEEE PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition, 6 pp. (Apr. 2010). |
Sharma et al., “Local public good provisioning in networks: A Nash implementation mechanism,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, No. 11, Dec. 2012, pp. 2105-2116. |
Singh et al., “Effects of Distributed Energy Resources on Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR),” IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 7 pp. (Jul. 2011). |
Sonderegger, “Diagnostic Tests Determining the Thermal Response of a House,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Nov. 1977, 18 pages. |
Sonderegger, “Dynamic models of house heating based on equivalent thermal parameters,” Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, Dec. 1978, 277 pages. |
Steinway, Book Review of “Estimation Theory with Applications to Communication and Control,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Oct. 1971, p. 405. |
Taylor et al., “GridLAB-D Technical Support Document: Residential End-Use Module Version 1.0,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-17694, 30 pp. (Jul. 2008). |
Vandael et al., “A Scalable Three-Step Approach for Demand Side Management of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, No. 2, Jun. 2013, pp. 720-728. |
Vrettos et al., “Demand Response with Moving Horizon Estimation of Individual Thermostatic Load States from Aggregate Power Measurements,” In 2014 American Control Conference (ACC), Jun. 4-6, 2014, pp. 4846-4853. |
Weather History for KOSU, Aug. 2009, 5 pages. |
Weather Underground: Weather History for Ohio State University, OH, downloaded from http://www.wunderground.com, 4 pages. |
Wellman, “A Market-Oriented Programming Environment and its Application to Distributed Multicommodity Flow Problems,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Aug. 1993, 23 pages. |
Widergren et al., “Residential Real-time Price Response Simulation,” IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 3074-3078 (Jul. 2011). |
Wilson et al., “Equivalent Thermal Parameters for an Occupied Gas-Heated House,” ASHRAE Trans.; (United States), 91(CONF-850606-), 1985, pp. 1875-1885. |
Wolak, “Residential Customer Response to Real-Time Pricing: The Anaheim Critical-Peak Pricing Experiment,” document marked May 24, 2006, 49 pages (also published as Wolak, “Residential Customer Response to Real-Time Pricing: The Anaheim Critical-Peak Pricing Experiment,” Center for the Study of Energy Markets (2007)). |
Yang, “Adaptively Robust Kalman Filters with Applications in Navigation,” Chapter 2 of Sciences of Geodesy -1, Jun. 2010, pp. 49-82. |
Yang et al., “Consensus Based Approach for Economic Dispatch Problem in a Smart Grid,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, No. 4, Nov. 2013, pp. 4416-4426. |
Ygge et al., “Decentralized Markets versus Central Control: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 11, Oct. 1999, pp. 301-333. |
Ygge et al., “Making a Case for Multi-Agent Systems,” Research Report 4/97, University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Sweden 23 pages (also published as Ygge et al., “Making a Case for Multi-Agent Systems,” In Multi-Agent Rationality, pp. 156-176, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1997)). |
Ygge, “Market-Oriented Programming and its Application to Power Load Management,” Lund University, Ph.D. Thesis, 1998. |
Ygge et al., “Power Load Management as a Computational Market,” document not dated, 14 pages (published as Ygge et al., “Power Load Management as a Computational Marked,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS '96), pp. 393-400, (1996). |
Yin et al., “A Novel Double Auction Mechanism for Electronic Commerce: Theory and Implementation,” IEEE Proc. of the Third Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 53-58 (Aug. 2004). |
Zhang et al., “Aggregated Modeling and Control of Air Conditioning Loads for Demand Response,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, No. 4, Nov. 2013, pp. 4655-4664. |
Zhang et al., “Convergence Analysis of the Incremental Cost Consensus Algorithm Under Different Communication Network Topologies in a Smart Grid,” IEEE Transactions on Power System, vol. 27, No. 4, Nov. 2012, pp. 1761-1768. |
Zhang et al., “Decentralizing the Economic Dispatch Problem using a Two-Level Incremental Cost Consensus Algorithm in a Smart Grid Environment,” In 2011 North American Power Symposium(NAPS), IEEE, Aug. 4-6, 2011, 7 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200250770 A1 | Aug 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62056212 | Sep 2014 | US | |
62056221 | Sep 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14866404 | Sep 2015 | US |
Child | 16796513 | US |