论文标题
一项数据驱动的研究,以发现,表征和分类加利福尼亚ISO能源市场的收敛招标策略
A Data-Driven Study to Discover, Characterize, and Classify Convergence Bidding Strategies in California ISO Energy Market
论文作者
论文摘要
近年来,美国大多数独立系统运营商(ISO)通过收敛招标作为提高市场效率的相对较新的市场机制。融合竞标会影响电力市场运营的许多方面,目前,文献中存在一个差距,了解市场参与者如何在实践中如何战略性地选择其融合出价。为了解决这个开放问题,在本文中,我们研究了加利福尼亚ISO能源市场的三年现实市场数据。首先,我们根据提交的CBS的数量,将CBS的位置数量,提交的供应或需求CBS的百分比,清除的CBS的数量,已清理的CBS的数量以及他们的损益分析了所有提交的收敛投标(CBS)的数据驱动概述,并根据其提交的CBS的数量分析每个单独的收敛竞标者的性能。接下来,我们仔细检查了13个最大市场参与者的投标策略,这些策略占加利福尼亚ISO市场中所有CB的75%。我们确定定量特征以表征和区分其不同的收敛招标策略。该分析导致揭示了在实践中使用的三种不同类别的CB策略。我们确定这些战略招标类别之间的差异,并比较它们的优势和缺点。我们还解释了一些最活跃的市场参与者如何使用招标策略,这些策略与文献中当前存在的任何战略招标方法不符。
Convergence bidding has been adopted in recent years by most Independent System Operators (ISOs) in the United States as a relatively new market mechanism to enhance market efficiency. Convergence bidding affects many aspects of the operation of the electricity markets and there is currently a gap in the literature on understanding how the market participants strategically select their convergence bids in practice. To address this open problem, in this paper, we study three years of real-world market data from the California ISO energy market. First, we provide a data-driven overview of all submitted convergence bids (CBs) and analyze the performance of each individual convergence bidder based on the number of their submitted CBs, the number of locations that they placed the CBs, the percentage of submitted supply or demand CBs, the amount of cleared CBs, and their gained profit or loss. Next, we scrutinize the bidding strategies of the 13 largest market players that account for 75\% of all CBs in the California ISO market. We identify quantitative features to characterize and distinguish their different convergence bidding strategies. This analysis results in revealing three different classes of CB strategies that are used in practice. We identify the differences between these strategic bidding classes and compare their advantages and disadvantages. We also explain how some of the most active market participants are using bidding strategies that do not match any of the strategic bidding methods that currently exist in the literature.