A COMPARISON OF MARKET CLEARING TOOLS IN ELECTRICITY SYSTEMS

To maintain a strict balance between demand and supply in the US power systems, the Independent System Operators (ISOs) schedule power plants and determine electricity prices using a market clearing model. This model determines for each time period and power plant, the times of startup, shutdown, the amount of power production, and the provisioning of spinning and non-spinning power generation reserves, etc. Such a deterministic optimization model takes as input the characteristics of all the generating units such as their power generation installed capacity, ramp rates, minimum up and down time requirements, and marginal costs for production, as well as the forecast of intermittent energy such as wind and solar, along with the minimum reserve requirement of the whole system. This reserve requirement is determined based on the likelihood of outages on the supply side and on the levels of error forecasts in demand and intermittent generation. With increased installed capacity of intermittent renewable energy, determining the appropriate level of reserve requirements has become harder. Stochastic market clearing models have been proposed as an alternative to deterministic market clearing models. Rather than using a fixed reserve targets as an input, stochastic market clearing models take different scenarios of wind power into consideration and determine reserves schedule as output. Using a scaled version of the power generation system of PJM, a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, and wind scenarios generated from BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) data, this paper explores a comparison of the performance between a stochastic and deterministic model in market clearing. The two models are compared in their ability to contribute to the affordability, reliability and sustainability of the electricity system, measured in terms of total operational costs, load shedding and air emissions. The process of building the models and running for tests indicate that a fair comparison is difficult to obtain due to the multi-dimensional performance metrics considered here, and the difficulty in setting up the parameters of the models in a way that does not advantage or disadvantage one modeling framework. Along these lines, this study explores the effect that model assumptions such as reserve requirements, value of lost load (VOLL) and wind spillage costs have on the comparison of the performance of stochastic vs deterministic market clearing models.

Game-Theoretically Allocating Resources to Catch Evaders and Payments to Stabilize Teams

Allocating resources optimally is a nontrivial task, especially when multiple

self-interested agents with conflicting goals are involved. This dissertation

uses techniques from game theory to study two classes of such problems:

allocating resources to catch agents that attempt to evade them, and allocating

payments to agents in a team in order to stabilize it. Besides discussing what

allocations are optimal from various game-theoretic perspectives, we also study

how to efficiently compute them, and if no such algorithms are found, what

computational hardness results can be proved.

The first class of problems is inspired by real-world applications such as the

TOEFL iBT test, course final exams, driver's license tests, and airport security

patrols. We call them test games and security games. This dissertation first

studies test games separately, and then proposes a framework of Catcher-Evader

games (CE games) that generalizes both test games and security games. We show

that the optimal test strategy can be efficiently computed for scored test

games, but it is hard to compute for many binary test games. Optimal Stackelberg

strategies are hard to compute for CE games, but we give an empirically

efficient algorithm for computing their Nash equilibria. We also prove that the

Nash equilibria of a CE game are interchangeable.

The second class of problems involves how to split a reward that is collectively

obtained by a team. For example, how should a startup distribute its shares, and

what salary should an enterprise pay to its employees. Several stability-based

solution concepts in cooperative game theory, such as the core, the least core,

and the nucleolus, are well suited to this purpose when the goal is to avoid

coalitions of agents breaking off. We show that some of these solution concepts

can be justified as the most stable payments under noise. Moreover, by adjusting

the noise models (to be arguably more realistic), we obtain new solution

concepts including the partial nucleolus, the multiplicative least core, and the

multiplicative nucleolus. We then study the computational complexity of those

solution concepts under the constraint of superadditivity. Our result is based

on what we call Small-Issues-Large-Team games and it applies to popular

representation schemes such as MC-nets.