Manipulability of Cost and Benefit Allocation in Cross-border Electrical Interconnection Projects

Cross-border electrical interconnection projects are getting more attention all over the world. In this context, cost-benefit allocation is especially important due to the need for fair sharing of power trading benefits among the countries as well as allocating the investments in capital-intensive power lines. One convenient way of dealing with these issues is using cooperative game theory. However, even fair allocation methods, such as the Shapley value, do not guarantee the stability of negotiations on cross-border interconnection projects. The result of the allocation process strongly depends on the individual system’s data provided by each party involved. In this regard, the parties could have incentives to strategically provide data that would benefit themselves in the cost-benefit allocation process, potentially hindering the stability of the coalition. In this paper, we address the negotiation stability issues in terms of players strategic behavior and manipulability of cost-benefit allocation rules.

[1]  Enzo Sauma,et al.  Reliable Renewable Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning: Co-Optimizing System's Resources for Meeting Renewable Targets , 2018, 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM).

[2]  S. Oren,et al.  A Mechanism for Allocating Benefits and Costs from Transmission Interconnections under Cooperation: A Case Study of the North Sea Offshore Grid , 2018, The Energy Journal.

[3]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Estimation and allocation of cost savings from collaborative CO2 abatement in China , 2018 .

[4]  Luis Baringo,et al.  A Stochastic Adaptive Robust Optimization Approach for the Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[5]  D. Sabolic On economic inefficiency of European Inter-TSO compensation mechanism , 2017 .

[6]  Sara Lumbreras,et al.  Optimal transmission network expansion planning in real-sized power systems with high renewable penetration , 2017 .

[7]  James D. McCalley,et al.  What are the Benefits of Co-Optimizing Transmission and Generation Investment? Eastern Interconnection Case Study , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[8]  Wei Qiao,et al.  Finding Equilibria in the Pool-Based Electricity Market With Strategic Wind Power Producers and Network Constraints , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[9]  Aishah Mohd Isa,et al.  Electric Power Grid Interconnections in Northeast Asia: A Quantitative Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges , 2016 .

[10]  Kurt Jörnsten,et al.  Common mistakes in computing the nucleolus , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Planing for energy futures: The WECC Interconnection-wide Transmision expansion experience , 2014, 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting | Conference & Exposition.

[12]  Masahide Horita,et al.  A network game analysis of strategic interactions in the international trade of Russian natural gas through Ukraine and Belarus , 2014 .

[13]  Jonathan L. Ho,et al.  An Engineering-Economic Approach to Transmission Planning Under Market and Regulatory Uncertainties: WECC Case Study , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[14]  Eefje Cuppen,et al.  The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project , 2013 .

[15]  Y. Molina,et al.  Transmission Network Cost Allocation Based on Circuit Theory and the Aumann-Shapley Method , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[16]  T. Aigner,et al.  The Effect of Large-Scale Wind Power on System Balancing in Northern Europe , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy.

[17]  G. Andersson,et al.  Impacts of grid reinforcements on the strategic behavior of power market participants , 2012, 2012 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market.

[18]  Svetlana Ikonnikova,et al.  Investment Options and Bargaining Power: The Eurasian Supply Chain for Natural Gas , 2011 .

[19]  Hans Peters,et al.  Game Theory: A Multi-Leveled Approach , 2008 .

[20]  H. Moulin The price of anarchy of serial, average and incremental cost sharing , 2008 .

[21]  M. Pereira,et al.  An Aumann-Shapley Approach to Allocate Transmission Service Cost Among Network Users in Electricity Markets , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[22]  J. Contreras,et al.  An Effective Transmission Network Expansion Cost Allocation Based on Game Theory , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[23]  C. Batlle,et al.  A strategic production costing model for electricity market price analysis , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[24]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing Shapley Values, Manipulating Value Division Schemes, and Checking Core Membership in Multi-Issue Domains , 2004, AAAI.

[25]  I. Erlich,et al.  Use of cooperative game theory in power system fixed-cost allocation , 2004 .

[26]  T. Lie,et al.  Application of the Shapley Value on transmission cost allocation in the competitive power market environment , 2002 .

[27]  J. Pang,et al.  Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: an MPEC approach , 2000 .

[28]  D. Kirschen,et al.  Fundamentals of power system economics , 1991 .

[29]  William Thomson,et al.  The manipulability of the Shapley-value , 1988 .