# DSO-Aggregator Demand Response Cooperation Framework towards Reliable, Fair and Secure Flexibility Dispatch

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. DR Framework Assumptions

#### 2.2. First Optimisation Level—Cost and Performance

#### 2.3. Second Optimisation Level—Technical

#### 2.4. Optimisation Function Model Formulation

_{k,0}(t) [kWh] (initial value) to d

_{k}(t) [kWh] during the tth hour where a DR event occurs based on the value which is considered for the incentive and the penalty included in the contract. Then, the change in the demand, or equally the estimated flexibility provided by each customer, is calculated using:

_{k}(t) [€/kWh], then the potential total penalty cost is equal to the difference between the requested flexibility for the current DR event, Δd

_{k}(t), and the average flexibility volume (AvgFlex

_{k}(t − 1)) that the customer k offered in all previous events (t − 1).

_{k}(t − 1) [kWh] is the last requested flexibility volume, PI is a binary indicator used for identifying if the customer participated in the last DR event, while TotalFlex(t − 1) [kWh] is the total flexibility volume provided by all N customers for all past DR requests and can be estimated by:

#### 2.4.1. First Level Optimisation

_{k}(t).

#### 2.4.2. Second Level Optimisation

_{i}(t), QD

_{i}(t)] with the respective changes that resulted due to the flexibility provision [PC

_{i}(t), QC

_{i}(t)]. The total active load, PD

_{i}(t), at bus i is equal to the total consumption of all customers connected to that bus:

_{i}(t), at bus i is equal to the total flexibility (upwards or downwards) provided by all customers connected to that bus:

_{i,i′}and B

_{i,i′}represent the real and imaginary parts, between the bus i and i′, of the respective element in the bus admittance matrix. The voltage magnitude and phase angle at bus i and time t are described by V

_{i}

^{t}and δ

_{i}

^{t}, respectively. The real and imaginary parts G

_{i,i′}and B

_{i,i′}, as well as the voltage magnitude and phase angle at bus i, are estimated based on the inputs provided through the network topology.

_{i}

^{t}is the voltage magnitude of the ith bus, while $\underline{V}$ and $\overline{V}$ are the allowed lower and upper voltage magnitudes, respectively. All utilised voltage values are in p.u.

_{P$\theta $}, J

_{P$\upsilon $}, J

_{Q$\theta $}, J

_{Q$\upsilon $}). For example, if P is set to 0 (constant), the sensitivities of the type $\partial \upsilon /\partial Q$ are calculated using:

_{i1}of S represent the voltage variation at bus i due to a variation of the reactive power at the same point. The non-diagonal elements S

_{ij}describe the voltage variation at busbar i due to the variation in reactive power at a different point in the network. Positive $\partial \upsilon /\partial Q$ sensitivity indicates stable operation of the investigated network. High sensitivity means that even small changes in reactive power cause large changes in the voltage magnitude, thus the more stable the system, the lower the sensitivity. High voltage sensitivities are indicative of weak areas of the network. By applying a modal transformation to (22), the $\partial \upsilon /\partial Q$ sensitivity can be expressed as an uncoupled system of the form:

_{$\upsilon $Q}correspond to the matrix $T=[{\upsilon}_{1}\dots {\upsilon}_{n}]$, while ${T}^{-1}=[{\omega}_{1}^{T}\dots {\omega}_{n}^{T}]$ corresponds to the left eigenvectors matrix. The participation factor of bus k to mode i is defined by the product of the kth component of the left and right eigenvector of mode i:

_{i}(t) should be equal to the estimated active power P

_{ik}.

_{i,i′}(t) is the load percentage of the line between the bus i and i′ and is calculated based on the network topology inputs. Subsequently, to avoid a line violation event, the aggregated flexibility of bus i, PC

_{i}(t) should be equal to the TotalFlex

_{i,i′}(t).

#### 2.5. Horizontal Complementary Functionalities

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Test Case Description

#### 3.2. Test Case Modelling Parameters and Assumptions

#### 3.3. Test Case Scenario and Results

#### 3.4. Computational Performance Evaluation

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

AFI | Absolute Fairness Index |

BESS | Battery Energy Storage System |

CBA | Cost Benefit Analysis |

CIC | Customer Interruption Cost |

DER | Distributed Energy Resourse |

DR | Demand Response |

DRA | Demand Response Aggregator |

DSO | Distribution System Operator |

EV | Electric Vehicle |

EVPLA | Electric Vehicle Parking Lot Aggregators |

FI | Fairness Index |

IES | Integrated Energy System |

MG | Microgrid |

NG | Nanogrid |

OPF | Optimal Power Flow |

PPIS | Python Programmed Integrating Script |

PV | Photovoltaic |

RI | Reliability Index |

RES | Renewable Energy Sources |

UFTP | USEF Flexibility Transfer Protocol |

## References

- IEA. A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas, IEA, Paris, License: CC BY 4.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-european-unions-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas (accessed on 1 April 2022).
- Ali Sajjad, I.; Gianfranco Chicco, R.N. Definitions of Demand Flexibility for Aggregate Residential Loads. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2016**, 7, 2633–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dorahaki, S.; Rashidinejad, M.; Abdollahi, A.; Mollahassani-pour, M. A novel two-stage structure for coordination of energy efficiency and demand response in the smart grid environment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
**2018**, 97, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Muthirayan, D.; Kalathil, D.; Li, S.; Poolla, K.; Varaiya, P. Selling Demand Response Using Options, early access. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 12, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ding, T.; Qu, M.; Amjady, N.; Wang, F.; Bo, R.; Shahidehpour, M. Tracking Equilibrium Point under Real-time Price-Based Residential Demand Response, early access. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 12, 2736–2740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lu, T.; Chen, X.; McElroy, M.B.; Nielsen, C.P.; Wu, Q.; He, H.; Ai, Q. A Reinforcement Learning-Based Decision System For Electricity Pricing Plan Selection by Smart Grid End Users. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 12, 2176–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, S.; Sun, Y.; Li, B.; Qi, B.; Shi, K.; Li, Y.; Tu, X. Incentive-Based Integrated Demand Response for Multiple Energy Carriers Considering Behavioral Coupling Effect of Consumers. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 11, 3231–3245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Asrari, A.; Ansari, M.; Khazaei, J.; Fajri, P. A Market Framework for Decentralized Congestion Management in Smart Distribution Grids Considering Collaboration Among Electric Vehicle Aggregators. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 11, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kou, X.; Li, F.; Dong, J.; Starke, M.; Munk, J.; Xue, Y.; Olama, M.; Zandi, H. A Scalable and Distributed Algorithm for Managing Residential Demand Response Programs Using Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM). IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 11, 4871–4882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Du, Y.; Li, F. A Hierarchical Real-Time Balancing Market Considering Multi-Microgrids With Distributed Sustainable Resources. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy
**2020**, 11, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, H.; Li, C.; Huang, R.; Wang, F.; Hao, L.; Wu, Q.; Zhou, L. Bi-level Energy Trading Model Incorporating Large-scale Biogas Plant and Demand Response Aggregator. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy
**2022**, 8, 9871–9888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.; Zhang, L.; Nie, L.; Wang, J. Trading strategy and benefit optimization of load aggregators in integrated energy systems considering integrated demand response: A hierarchical Stackelberg game. Energy
**2022**, 249, 123678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zakernezhad, H.; Setayesh Nazar, M.; Shafie-khah, M.; Catalão, J.P. Optimal scheduling of an active distribution system considering distributed energy resources, demand response aggregators and electrical energy storage. Appl. Energy
**2022**, 314, 118865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tsaousoglou, G.; Giraldo, J.S.; Pinson, P.; Paterakis, N.G. Mechanism Design for Fair and Efficient DSO Flexibility Markets, early access. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2020**, 12, 2249–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Silva, C.; Faria, P.; Vale, Z. Rating the Participation in Demand Response Programs for a More Accurate Aggregated Schedule of Consumers after Enrolment Period. Electronics
**2020**, 9, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gonzalez-Cabrera, N.; Gutierrez-Alcaraz, G. Nodal user’s demand response based on incentive based programs. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy
**2017**, 5, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Eurelectric. EURELECTRIC’s Vision about the Role of Distribution System Operators (DSOs). 2016. Available online: https://www.eurelectric.org/media/2000/dso_vision_final_100216_web-2016-030-0092-01-e.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Eid, C.; Bollinger, L.A.; Koirala, B.; Scholten, D.; Facchinetti, E.; Lilliestam, J.; Hakvoort, R. Market integration of local energy systems: Is local energy management compatible with European regulation for retail competition? Energy
**2016**, 114, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - USEF: The Framework Explained. 2015. Available online: https://www.usef.energy/app/uploads/2016/12/USEF_TheFrameworkExplained-18nov15.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- USEF: White Paper-Flexibility Platforms. 2018. Available online: https://www.usef.energy/app/uploads/2018/11/USEF-White-Paper-Flexibility-Platforms-version-1.0_Nov2018.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- Hanif, S.; Creutzburg, P.; Gooi, H.B.; Hamacher, T. Pricing Mechanism for Flexible Loads Using Distribution Grid Hedging Rights. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2019**, 34, 4048–4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gazafroudi, A.S.; Shafie-Khah, M.; Prieto-Castrillo, F.; Corchado, J.M.; Catalão, J.P.S. Monopolistic and Game-Based Approaches to Transact Energy Flexibility. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2020**, 35, 1075–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ross, S.; Mathieu, J. Strategies for Network-Safe Load Control With a Third-Party Aggregator and a Distribution Operator. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2021**, 36, 3329–3339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rigoni, V.; Flynn, D.; Keane, A. Coordinating Demand Response Aggregation With LV Network Operational Constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2021**, 36, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Di Silvestre, M.L.; Gallo, P.; Guerrero, J.M.; Musca, R.; Sanseverino, E.R.; Sciumè, G.; Vásquez, J.C.; Zizzo, G. Blockchain for power systems: Current trends and future applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2020**, 119, 109585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Andoni, M.; Robu, V.; Flynn, D.; Abram, S.; Geach, D.; Jenkins, D.; McCallum, P.; Peacock, A. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2019**, 100, 143–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alliance, O. OpenADR 2.0 Specifications. 2013. Available online: https://www.openadr.org/specification (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Fernández-Izquierdo, A.; Cimmino, A.; Patsonakis, C.; Tsolakis, A.C.; García-Castro, R.; Ioannidis, D.; Tzovaras, D. OpenADR Ontology: Semantic Enrichment of Demand Response Strategies in Smart Grids. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST), Istanbul, Turkey, 7–9 September 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Cimmino, A.; Andreadou, N.; Fernández-Izquierdo, A.; Patsonakis, C.; Tsolakis, A.C.; Lucas, A.; Ioannidis, D.; Kotsakis, E.; Tzovaras, D.; García-Castro, R. Semantic Interoperability for DR Schemes Employing the SGAM Framework. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST), Istanbul, Turkey, 7–9 September 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Fabric, H. Key Concepts—Blockchain Network. Available online: https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.4/network/network.html (accessed on 17 May 2020).
- Patsonakis, C.; Terzi, S.; Moschos, I.; Ioannidis, D.; Votis, K.; Tzovaras, D. Permissioned Blockchains and Virtual Nodes for Reinforcing Trust Between Aggregators and Prosumers in Energy Demand Response Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2019 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), Genova, Italy, 11–14 June 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Venizelou, V.; Philippou, N.; Hadjipanayi, M.; Makrides, G.; Efthymiou, V.; Georghiou, G.E. Development of a novel time-of-use tariff algorithm for residential prosumer price-based demand side management. Energy
**2018**, 142, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Venizelou, V.; Makrides, G.; Efthymiou, V.; Georghiou, G.E. Methodology for deploying cost-optimum price-based demand side management for residential prosumers. Renew. Energy
**2020**, 153, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Papageorgiou, I.; Therapontos, P.; Charalambides, D.; Efthymiou, V. Generalized Operational FLEXibility for Integrating Renewables in the Distribution Grid: D7.4 Report on Demonstration Results Evaluation—Use Case 1. 2020. Available online: https://www.goflex-project.eu/Deliverables.htmlf (accessed on 13 April 2021).
- Hyperledger. Hyperledger Explorer. 2020. Available online: https://github.com/hyperledger/blockchain-explorer (accessed on 10 January 2021).

**Figure 4.**Issuance transaction of a DR event originating from the aggregator and in which Energy Center 3 is specified as the target.

**Figure 5.**The combination of customers selected by the proposed DR framework restoring the line loading level of Feeder 2 back to normal operating limits.

Flexibility Level | Feeder Congestion (of Nominal Capacity) | Occurrence Frequency | Price (EUR/MWh) |
---|---|---|---|

Critical Flexibility | 120% | 10% | 157.99 |

Normal Flexibility | 105–119% | 40% | 110.67 |

Non-critical Flexibility | 95–104% | 50% | 94.54 |

Performance Indices (%) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Asset ID | Normal Flexibility Price [€/kWh] | Penalty [EUR/kWh] | Minimum Flexibility Volume [kWh] | Maximum Flexibility Volume [kWh] | Average Flexibility Volume [kWh] | Reliability | Absolute Fairness | Capacity Fairness |

121CA | 0.0926 | 0.0154 | 28 | 32 | 32 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.82 |

122CA | 0.0760 | 0.0127 | 25 | 30 | 29 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.72 |

123CA | 0.0841 | 0.0147 | 41 | 45 | 43 | 0.73 | 0.69 | 0.73 |

124CA | 0.0777 | 0.0130 | 38 | 44 | 42 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.69 |

124CB | 0.1013 | 0.0169 | 52 | 59 | 58 | 0.59 | 0.81 | 0.53 |

125CA | 0.0976 | 0.0163 | 25 | 27 | 26 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.52 |

126CA | 0.0768 | 0.0128 | 33 | 37 | 33 | 0.71 | 0.79 | 0.69 |

127CA | 0.0890 | 0.0148 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 0.68 | 0.83 | 0.72 |

No. | Combination of Assets | Flexibility Volume per Asset [kWh] | Total Cost [EUR] | Optimisation Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 122CA, 124CA, 126CA, 127CA | 29, 44, 37, 28 | 10.95 | 27.3924 |

2 | 121CA, 124CA, 126CA, 127CA | 29, 44, 37, 28 | 11.43 | 27.5839 |

3 | 122CA, 123CA, 124CA, 126CA | 25, 41, 38, 34 | 10.91 | 27.9267 |

4 | 121CA, 122CA, 124CA, 126CA | 28, 29, 44, 37 | 11.05 | 28.4938 |

5 | 122CA, 123CA, 126CA, 127CA | 28, 45, 37, 28 | 11.24 | 28.8458 |

Low Voltage | Medium Voltage | ||
---|---|---|---|

IEEE 33 | 33 | - | |

UCY micorgrid | 13 | 13 | |

UCY nanogrid | 10 | - | |

Total | 56 | 13 | 69 |

Consumption | Production | Storage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

IEEE 33 | 17 | 16 | ||

UCY micorgrid | 16 | 16 | ||

UCY nanogrid | 12 | 2 | 1 | |

Total | 45 | 34 | 1 | 80 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Venizelou, V.; Tsolakis, A.C.; Evagorou, D.; Patsonakis, C.; Koskinas, I.; Therapontos, P.; Zyglakis, L.; Ioannidis, D.; Makrides, G.; Tzovaras, D.;
et al. DSO-Aggregator Demand Response Cooperation Framework towards Reliable, Fair and Secure Flexibility Dispatch. *Energies* **2023**, *16*, 2815.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062815

**AMA Style**

Venizelou V, Tsolakis AC, Evagorou D, Patsonakis C, Koskinas I, Therapontos P, Zyglakis L, Ioannidis D, Makrides G, Tzovaras D,
et al. DSO-Aggregator Demand Response Cooperation Framework towards Reliable, Fair and Secure Flexibility Dispatch. *Energies*. 2023; 16(6):2815.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062815

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Venizelou, Venizelos, Apostolos C. Tsolakis, Demetres Evagorou, Christos Patsonakis, Ioannis Koskinas, Phivos Therapontos, Lampros Zyglakis, Dimosthenis Ioannidis, George Makrides, Dimitrios Tzovaras,
and et al. 2023. "DSO-Aggregator Demand Response Cooperation Framework towards Reliable, Fair and Secure Flexibility Dispatch" *Energies* 16, no. 6: 2815.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062815