Case studies demonstrate significant multi-dimensional benefits of virtual power plants in electricity market mechanisms, highlighting economic and security advantages.
Virtual power plants (VPPs) provide essential regulation capabilities by aggregating diverse distributed energy resources (DERs). Accurately assessing the value of VPPs from the grid’s side is essential for improving market mechanism design and, in turn, encouraging participation of VPPs. However, existing assessment methods neglect the refined evaluations integrating Automatic Generation Control (AGC)-based operational simulations derived from economic dispatch results, thereby failing to comprehensively capture the multi-dimensional benefits VPPs contribute to the grid. To bridge this gap, this study proposes a multi-dimensional benefit assessment method of VPPs and a simulation method from the grid’s perspective. First, the environmental, security, and economic benefits of VPPs are characterized. A decoupled quantitative assessment framework based on the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism is then established to evaluate these benefits by analyzing system cost variations induced by VPP aggregation. Next, the method of actual operation simulation based on scheduling outcomes is discussed. The corresponding system operation costs are obtained under various scenarios. Case studies utilizing real-world data from a provincial power grid in China analyzed the benefits of VPPs across multiple scenarios defined by varying renewable energy penetration rates, aggregation sizes, and output stability. Notably, the value of the VPP differs significantly across renewable energy penetration levels. Under high penetration, its value increases by 18.5% compared with the low-penetration case, and the value of security and ancillary services accounts for the largest share (50.3%), a component frequently overlooked in existing literature. These findings offer valuable insights for optimizing electricity market mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: