Risk-Averse Co-Bidding of Hybrid Pumped-Hydro and Compressed-Air Long-Duration Energy Storage Under Shared Grid-Connection Constraints

High penetrations of renewable generation are increasing the need for long-duration energy storage capable of intertemporal balancing and reserve provision. However, the market value of heterogeneous storage portfolios under shared grid-connection constraints remains insufficiently quantified. This study develops a risk-averse day-ahead co-bidding model for a hybrid pumped-hydro and compressed-air energy storage (CAES) portfolio participating jointly in energy and spinning-reserve markets. Monte Carlo sampling and scenario reduction are used to represent price uncertainty, while conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) captures downside-profit risk. Shared point-of-common-coupling (PCC) constraints explicitly couple electricity sales, purchases, and reserve offers. Compared with homogeneous pumped-hydro expansion, replacing the equivalent incremental pumped-hydro capacity with CAES increases the cumulative reserve bid by 65.71%, while expected profit decreases by 1.17% and raw-scenario back-test CVaR remains nearly unchanged, decreasing by only 0.05%. Relative to the unconstrained hybrid-storage case, the shared PCC constraints reduce expected profit, raw-scenario back-test CVaR, and reserve bids by 1.01%, 1.34%, and 18.62%, respectively. Scenario-reduction sensitivity and synthetic price–spread analyses indicate that the main operating mechanisms remain stable within the assumed scenario-generation framework, while sensitivity analyses reveal diminishing returns from CAES expansion and saturation of PCC-related profit gains near 5000 MW. Because all price scenarios are synthetic and neither historical nor independent out-of-sample market data are used, these analyses constitute model-based robustness tests rather than seasonal or real-market validation. The findings support the coordinated configuration of heterogeneous storage, grid-interface capacity, and risk preferences, but should be interpreted as market-bidding-level comparative evidence under the adopted equivalent CAES representation rather than as market-specific profitability forecasts.