Aggregation of Small Loads for Demand Response

Programs - Implementation and Challenges: a Review

Amin Rajabi, Li Li, Jiangfeng Zhang, Jianguo Zhu
School of Electrical, Mechanical and Mechatronic Systems
University of Technology, Sydney
Sydney, Australia
amin.rajabi@student.uts.edu.au

Abstract—The concepts of demand response (DR) and
demand side management have been in practice by power
utilities for many decades. Due to fundamental changes in the
electricity structure in recent years, the provision of DR from
small loads like residential buildings or electric vehicles has
become possible. However, there are still many challenges to the
real implementation of DR programs for such customers. Based
on a detailed survey of the literature, this paper tries to illustrate
the role of aggregators in the implementation and expansion of
DR in future smart grids. Then different technical and
managerial challenges of DR aggregation for residential
customers will be discussed thoroughly.
Keywords—demand response; demand side management; smart
meters; aggregators; smart grids;
I. INTRODUCTION
Demand response (DR) is considered as one of the
fundamental parts of demand side management along with the
energy efficiency and conservation (behavioral change)
programs [1] [2]. The definition of DR by Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or other organizations like
European University Institute enables the adaption of power
demands to time pricing or incentives which consequently can
improve the efficiency and reliability of power networks [3-5].
The great utilization of electric vehicles (EVs), the mass
rollouts of smart metering systems and the huge investment in
renewable generation resources have greatly influenced the DR
research in recent years. Connection of a large number of EVs
to the network may result in significant increase of the peak
load [6] and they can also supply energy back to the grid in the
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) mode. Therefore, EVs can be seen as
flexible loads that consume or store energy, which makes them
a suitable source of DR applications. On the other hand, smart
meters (SMs) as the fundamental part of advanced metering
infrastructures (AMIs) have been deployed vastly in different
parts of the world in recent years. The information provided by
the SMs can be utilized to enhance DR programs [7]. The
significant penetration of renewable resources in electrical
networks, which have inherently intermittent natures and can
jeopardize the system security, makes the use of DR more
sensible. All of these factors have caused an increase in the DR
volume and a tendency to utilize the great potential of
residential loads for DR programs along with large customers
(industrial facilities and commercial buildings) that
traditionally were considered the main sources of DR.
Short or long-term DR applications of small loads are only
possible if they can be “aggregated” properly. Thermostatically
controlled loads (TCLs) of residential dwellings and EVs are
the best examples of small loads that can offer significant DR
to the network when they are aggregated and controlled
collectively. So, recently in different electricity market
structures a new entity called “aggregator” has been introduced
to work along with transmission and distribution system
operators and electricity retailers. However, there are still many
unsolved questions regarding the role of these aggregators, the
interactions of them with customers and system (market)
operators, and the challenges that they in practice face. In this
paper some of these issues is addressed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II is
dedicated to the basic DR concepts. In Section III the
aggregation of loads for DR purposes is discussed. Then based
on a thorough literature survey, the roles of aggregators will be
further clarified in Section IV. Challenges of DR
implementations are analyzed in Section V. Finally, Section VI
summarizes the main outcomes and conclusions.
II. REVIEW OF DR CONCEPTS
A. Flexible demand
Loads are generally divided into two broad categories:
critical loads that cannot be curtailed or shifted and flexible
loads [8-10]. Flexible loads can adjust their typical
consumption patterns in response to variations in the electricity
price, or to incentive payments. They can be categorized by
three different models [9, 10]: basic load shift that needs a
constant power for a specific period however the time of use of
it can be shifted (like washing machines), the interruptible load
shift that has more flexibility and allows the interruptions of
actual load run (like tumble dryer), and continuous switching in
which the load run duration is determined by the upper and
lower setpoints (like air conditioner). Other kinds of flexible
loads can be defined based on other characteristics [11].
B. DR programs
DR programs are generally divided into two main classes:
price (time)-based DR and incentive (event)-based DR [1, 10].
Price-based programs provide users with different electricity
prices at different times. They can also offer customers time
varying prices that are defined based on the cost of electricity
in different time periods [12]. The main price-based DR
programs include time of use pricing and critical peak pricing

978-1-5386-3917-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

which respectively charge users with different prices for
different time of day (on-peak, mid-peak, off-peak) and for
special peak periods when system is under the stress. Real-time
or dynamic pricing is also considered in this category in which
the electricity price for customers usually varies at different
time intervals of a day, hence requiring maximum customer
participation.
Incentive-based programs pay users for demand reduction
during periods of system stress like peak load or system
contingencies. Major incentive-based programs are direct load
control (DLC) and interruptible/curtailable (I/C) load. DLC
loads can be remotely turned off or cycled by the utility, and
can typically be deployed within a relatively short notice [13].
In the I/C program, customers receive a discounted rate for
agreeing to reduce loads when the grid reliability is at risk [14].
There are also various other price-based or incentive-based
programs for DR which mostly have been used by large
customers in industrial and commercial sectors.
III. AGGREGATION OF LOADS
A. DR aggregation concepts
Increasing the number of participating users (or devices) in
DR programs means that it is a higher possibility to have
adjustable loads available when the need arises to reduce or
increase the demand [15]. In other way, more effective DR can
be achieved by having more participants. Besides, current
electricity market structures require a minimum amount of bids
for participation in the market [16]. Therefore, the DR
aggregation can be seen as a promising way for the exposure of
small customers or loads to wholesale electricity markets.
The aggregation of loads can be achieved through an agent
called demand response aggregator (DRA). It can schedule DR
and will be paid at the relevant regional spot price for this
response. It can also offer ancillary services from the load side.
Usually only large users like industrial and commercial
customers have been considered for DR aggregations [17].
However, in recent years more attention has been paid to the
aggregation of residential loads and EVs. The DRAs, on behalf
of residential customers or vehicle owners, can participate in
different markets. Once the market is cleared, the DRAs
receive the DR schedule and require the customers with
accepted offers to reduce loads during the contracted DR
periods. Load reduction can be achieved through load
curtailment, load shifting, utilization of onsite generation and
energy storage systems [16]. A basic structure of DR
mechanism involving DRA is depicted in Fig.1.
Data exchange and DRA
DR Data Exchange Instructions for DR
DRA
Payment for DR DRA Payment for DR
Market
Operator
Customer
Customer Payment
Payment for Energy for Energy
Retailer
Fig. 1. Demand response aggregator model
In practice, aggregators can be connected to other
aggregators at lower and higher levels. So, for instance, a large
building may act as a lower level DRA for its occupants and
then be connected to an upper DRA. As another example [18],
it is possible to have two different DRAs for TCLs and EVs
and at upper level they can be merged by one aggregator.
IV. DR AGGREGATION MODELING AND APPLICATIONS
C. General DR aggregation
A great deal of research conducted on DR assumes that
there are available (and enough) aggregated DR resources to be
utilized for different market/system applications. In this case, it
is presumed that aggregation of small DR loads can be
performed by a DRA; hence, no attention is paid to the real
source of DR, the methodology of aggregation or dynamics of
appliances [16] [19-22] . For example, [16] and [20] consider
the interaction of DRAs in the market and distribution system
respectively. In [16] DRA offers multiple contracts to
customers and seeks to maximize its payoff for participation in
the energy market. However the method does not specify a
special kind of appliance. [20] describes the interaction of
several DRAs in a bi-level leader-follower framework in which
energy scheduling problem for a load serving entity that serves
both inflexible and flexible loads is discussed.
D. Aggregation models and ideas
A limited number of studies present frameworks and ideas
about the aggregation process of a group of residents. In [23] a
conceptual framework called Smartlink is proposed for DR
aggregation purposes. This model includes different nodes
allowing having as many as DRAs in a hierarchical way. For
example, in a system with a two-level hierarchy of nodes, the
top DRA interfaces with the utility and three lower level DRAs
which are responsible for the heaters and HVAC, illumination
and white goods respectively. [24] adopts a multi-agent non-
cooperative game approach to residential DR aggregation
which demonstrates the interaction of self-interested
households with a DRA in order to integrate two separate sub-
problems of home energy management systems (HEMS) with
DR aggregation tasks. The aggregation of just homogenous
appliances using queuing theory is described in [25] in which
the final goal is to determine the aggregation scale that is
needed for a specific amount of load reduction.
E. DR by TCLs and HVAC loads
TCLs like air conditioners and water heaters represent an
exceptional class of equipment for DR purposes due to their
ability to store energy in the form of temperature gradients.
They usually can be deferred without any considerable loss of
end-use function for limited periods of time. However for
longer periods, changes in the settings or ON-OFF schedules of
TCLs can disturb users’ comfort. So, in some research this
comfort has been included in the problem formulation typically
based on a disutility function.
The coordination of a group of TCLs using pricing
incentives is considered in [26] to maximize the social welfare
where the internal dynamics of TCLs are also taken into
account. Each user is assumed to take actions to maximize the
individual utility, while a coordinator makes the collective
choice that achieves various group objectives. In [27] the DA
planning of DRAs of air conditioning loads in a Southern
China region is addressed. The DR is based on a DLC model
which integrates a thermal comfort model to minimize the
disturbance on the residents’ thermal comfort.
F. DR by EVs
EV charging stations is going to be set up in parking areas
of residential and commercial buildings. These charging points
can be controlled by a DRA who take optimal decisions for
charging and discharging of EVs in order to reduce charging
costs and to avoid voltage and congestion problems in the grid
[28-30]. The use of different technologies like RFID, GPRS
and Ethernet makes it possible to link EVs to DRAs to collect
static and dynamic data from batteries to control and reduce the
total energy cost [31]. This data may include the type of
vehicle, electric characteristics, arrival and forecasted
departure, and real time charge/discharge status. The hourly
electricity prices are also considered to manage different
charging and discharging status of EVs. By agreeing to such a
charging management scheme, EV owners benefit from lower
electricity rates for charging or shared revenues by DRAs
which is obtained by offering bids in energy and ancillary
services markets [30].
The authors in [32] propose an algorithm for distributed DR
of the EVs to shape the aggregated daily demand profile of the
system while keeping the peak demand the same as when there
is no EVs in the system, without any changes in the users’
commuting behaviors. In [30] a bi-level problem is formulated
for bidding strategy of a price-maker EV aggregator in the day-
ahead (DA) market with the objective of minimizing charging
costs. To represent the aggregated representation of EVs, a
probabilistic virtual battery model with time varying
constraints is proposed.
G. Provision of Ancillary services
Ancillary services serve a variety of grid balancing and
reliability needs. Such services include spinning and
nonspinning reserves and frequency regulation. While reserves
are provided to offset power shortages, frequency regulation
requires fast injections as well as uptake of electrical power to
keep network frequency within the bounds [2]. As flexible
loads can usually respond very quickly, they are well suited to
providing ancillary services. Based on the Order 719 issued by
FERC in October 2008, independent system operators are
required to allow demand resources to participate in ancillary
services markets [33]. As stated in [33], providing the spinning
reserves with loads can be achieved through curtailment
periods that are short enough, hence it can be considered as a
nondisruptive control which avoids disruption of users’
comfort. Furthermore, it is shown that the highest benefits for
EV owners are expected through participation in the regulation
market [34].
[35] and [36] explore methods to coordinate aggregation of
TCLs to manage frequency and energy imbalances. While the
former uses state estimation techniques for tracking
performance of populations of heterogeneous TCLs, the latter
utilizes a combination of robust and stochastic programming
and then a model predictive controller to determine the TCL
setpoints. [18] extends the secondary frequency control
providers by considering groups of controllable thermal
appliances (TAs) and EVs as well as a CHP unit. Frequency
control signal received from the transmission operator is used
to schedule the EVs, TAs and CHP. An aggregation
formulation for total storage of the EVs and dynamic behavior
of the TA cluster is proposed, allowing the control algorithm to
act on the group without considering each individual EV or
TA. Provision of manual reserve (which differs from the
secondary reserve in the response time, duration, and control
equipment) by a group of EVs is considered in [37]. In this
case, an EV aggregator participates in a DA market for
purchasing energy and in a manual reserve market to offer
manual reserve capacity in upward or downward directions.
H. Uncertainty consideration
The uncertain parameters of power systems such as market
prices, load variations, EV fleet characteristics, and production
level of renewable resources affect the DRA decision making.
Therefore, techniques for considering uncertainty have also
been included in problem formulation of aggregators, among
which most importantly are stochastic programming (SP) and
robust optimization, to improve the DRA’s optimal bidding
strategy. In [19] the concerned uncertainties are wind
production and DA, intra-day and balancing market prices
which are modeled in the form of scenarios in a three-stage SP
problem. A two-stage SP is formulated for an EV aggregator
for participating in DA and regulation markets in [34], and a
risk aversion method by using conditional value-at-risk
(CVaR) is applied to the problem formulation of an EV
aggregator in [38]. The authors in [39] address the uncertainty
by constructing a finite number of scenarios for an EV’s usage
over which a household energy cost is minimized. In both [40]
and [41] uncertainties are taken into account through a robust
optimization model to maximize the utility of DR providers.
Also, information gap decision theory is used to address the
uncertainty of wind generation in a formulation that seeks to
manage the congestion on distribution networks with the help
of DR [22].
I. Benefits of DR for intermittent resources
Because of the uncertain, volatile and undispatchable nature
of renewable resources (mostly wind generation), these
producers can hardly compete with conventional producers in
the markets [19]. It has been suggested that DR resources can
be a flexible and cost-effective option to handle this variability.
Also, there are occasions, such as during windy nights, when
more renewable power can be produced than the amount of
nominal demand. If customers shift some daytime building
loads to such times, greater penetration of renewable
generation could be achieved [2]. [19] evaluates the joint
operation of the loads with a wind farm, to form a hybrid wind-
DR power plant which participates in DA, intra-day and
balancing markets. Also, [42] and [43] investigate the positive
benefits of DR on the wind producer’s short term trading. With
regard of photovoltaic (PV) applications, it is shown that
HVAC fan power control can be used to absorb a great deal of
the intermittency in energy generated by PV panels, during
cloudy days, with very little cost compared to existing methods
[44].
J. Use of DR aggregations for virtual power plants
 The virtual power plant (VPP) concept is also an efficient
way for utilizing DR aggregations. VPP can act as a single
entity to maximize its profit by coordinating different
dispatchable and renewable producers, energy storage systems
and flexible loads [45]. As discussed in [46], the incorporation
of DR of HVAC loads into the optimization model allows the
VPP to manage the renewable variability to its own profit. [47]
considers both the priced-based and incentive-based DR along
with wind and photovoltaic resources as parts of a VPP. In [48]
an incentive-based three-level DR is modeled in a VPP
structure to take part in an energy market. [49] assesses the
action of incorporating a DR into a VPP trading in DA and
balancing markets. The two-stage problem of [50] is more
complicated as it also includes distribution network constraints
in the decision making of a VPP which bids in an intra-day
market.
K. Competition among DRAs
Only limited work has addressed the interaction among the
aggregators. In [21] the focus is on a hierarchal market
structure for the interaction of residential customers, operator
and several aggregator entities. Customers seek to optimize the
trade-off between earnings received from the aggregator and
discomfort from having to modify their pattern (modeled by a
disutility function), and aggregators compete to sell DR
services to the operator. Also, the interaction of several
aggregators for a microgrid scenario is considered for a two-
stage market model [51].
V. DR AGGREGATION CHALLENGES
There are few publications that address the real
requirements and challenges of DR aggregation. Table 1
summarizes some of the main issues related to the DR
aggregation of residential customers and EVs [34, 52-56].
Providing a proper infrastructure for the bidirectional data
transfer between the DRA and system operator and between
DRA’s data center and the customers or EV charging stations
is the fundamental step for DR implementation and imposes
the main costs to DRAs [34]. The use of current Internet
networks has been suggested for command and data transfer
between aggregators and buildings (HEMS or devices).
However as such medium doesn’t belong to power networks
and also with concerns about availability issues, the use of
them is not without problems. With deployment of AMIs, it
can be a proper solution for various purposes including DR
aggregations. However, the cost associated with the investment
in such infrastructures and other necessary equipment that
DRAs need for the DR management should be considered
properly. Besides this, many of the work reported in the
literature requires an extensive message exchange between the
DRA and end-users. Hence, scalability issues may arise in a
large scale deployment [21]. Centralized and de-centralized
approaches that differ in computational complexity,
optimization techniques and execution times may be
considered for these purposes [31]. As suggested in [33], a
promising way to use AMIs will be to broadcast one common
signal to all loads (which can be done on relatively short time
scales). Yet, the choice of properly broadcasted signals is an
important concern.
TABLE I. MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL CHALLENGES OF DR
AGGREGATION. (S: SYSTEM OPERATOR, A: DRA, U: USERS, M: MANAGEMENT,
T: TECHNICAL)
Problem S A U
Design of customer engagement programs 3 3
Investment in AMIs and SMs 3 3
Specifications of contracts between DRAs and users 3 3
DRA participation in energy and ancillary markets 3 3
M Investment in smart appliances 3
Competition among DRAs 3 3 3
Approaches for remunerating customers 3 3
Customer behavioral factors/willingness affecting DR 3 3
Customer clustering 3 3 3
Communication infrastructure with bidirectional data
3 3 3
transfer
Latencies 3 3
DR distribution over the network/voltage violations due
3 3
T to the asymmetric DR balancing between the phases
DRA control over user’s appliances 3 3
Cold load pick-up, lead and rebound effects 3
Customer willingness to participate in DR 3 3
Standards and communication protocols 3 3 3
Those functional quantities, like setpoint deviation of
thermostat, that leave the task of maintaining end-use function
to the local controller may make the most sense. Latencies are
another challenge associated with AMIs as they can affect both
the grid stability and performance [57]. This is particularly the
case when fast response times are required or frequent control
updates are issued, for instance when providing spinning
reserves by DR resources [33]. Eventually, installed AMIs and
SMs in most cases belong to other entities like distribution
system operators or retailers. So, the use of them by DRAs
raises questions about privacy and security issues.
DRAs usually have no concept of the network model and
completely neglect the distribution of DR across the network
and its consequences [53]. One of these problems is the
increased consumption before and after the DR event usually
referred to “lead” and “rebound” effects [2]. Lead effect is
caused by the expectation of a DR event, for example a
building may be precooled to reduce the afternoon air
conditioning load. After the termination of a DR event, the
increase in consumption compared to the baseline shows the
rebound effect. Also, it is possible that phase unbalance arises
during DR periods due to asymmetrical DR distribution on
phases. Another physical challenge is that regulation service
generally must be capable of both supplying and absorbing
power [2].
Beside the system-wide effects, the DRA’s control on
user’s appliances or its interaction with smart appliances and
HEMS (which will be more extensively used in near future) is
an important matter that needs to be addressed.
As far as DR programs are concerned, both incentive- and
price-based DR face challenges if they are to be implemented
in large scale. DR programs usually disturb user’s comfort.
Hence, attractive incentive-based programs are needed to
persuade users to get involved in DR actions. Many existing
peak demand management programs that utilize DLC are
disruptive and can have significant effects on the end users
[33]. For instance, in the hottest days the load is usually the
highest, so, any interruption in the air conditionings means
curtailing them when their services are most in demand.
Moreover, price-based programs generally introduce reliability
issues and may result in new peaks of demand by shifting
power from expensive peak hours to cheaper off-peak hours.
Also, end-users may be hesitant to participate in DR programs
with dynamic pricing due to their complexity [58]. Another
issue arises when calculating the accurate amount of load
reduction based on a baseline, which demands the proper
methods for modeling the baseline.
Customer behavior, usage pattern, and willingness to
participate in DR are other important issues that significantly
affect DR policies. The load patterns of residential customers
usually show high variability and variety, which makes them
different from the industrial and commercial load shapes. In
general, the responsible factors which affect the energy use of a
dwelling or driving pattern of a user can be divided into three
main sets [59, 60]: 1) physical determinants which are based on
building design and environmental factors, 2) time of day,
week or year and 3) behavioral determinants which are habit
driven. So, clustering of customers to different groups that
show similar patterns is a necessary step for DRAs in the
program targeting and costumer engagement which can also
benefit them in the optimal market participation.
Maximizing the profit by offering in different markets is
another challenging task for DRAs. Several sources of
uncertainty add to the problem complexity. They can also incur
penalties if the declared amount of DR cannot be met.
Finally, the high degree of variability of the equipment and
controllers in the user-side and in the network imposes real
challenges for DR aggregation and demands proper standards
and communication platforms which are interoperable among
different equipment and control systems.
In summary, there is a need to define a proper structure for
DR aggregation including suitable standards and protocols to
connect various agents in a hierarchical structure and to enable
transferring of data and commands. The efforts like open
automated demand response (OpenADR) [2] or the structure
proposed in [23] are some of these examples.
VI. CONCLUSION
There are still different managerial and technical challenges
that should be tackled in order to integrate residential
customers and electric vehicles in DR programs. Based on a
detailed review of the role of demand response aggregators,
this paper tried to investigate the challenges they will face for
real aggregation of the customers and the implementation of
demand response for small-scale users.
REFERENCES
[1] J. S. Vardakas, N. Zorba, and C. V. Verikoukis, "A survey on demand
response programs in smart grids: pricing methods and optimization
algorithms," IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, pp.
152-178, 2015.
[2] T. Samad, E. Koch, and P. Stluka, "Automated demand response for
smart buildings and microgrids: The state of the practice and research
challenges," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, pp. 726-744, 2016.
[3] "Benefits of demand response in electricity markets and
recommendations for achieving them," US Dept. Energy, Washington,
DC, USA, Tech. Rep, 2006.
[4] "Assessment of demand-response and advanced metering," ed: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Feb 2011.
[5] W. Labeeuw, J. Stragier, and G. Deconinck, "Potential of active demand
reduction with residential wet appliances: A case study for Belgium,"
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, pp. 315-323, 2015.
[6] J. Zheng, X. Wang, K. Men, C. Zhu, and S. Zhu, "Aggregation model-
based optimization for electric vehicle charging strategy," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, pp. 1058-1066, 2013.
[7] J. Kwac, J. Flora, and R. Rajagopal, "Household energy consumption
segmentation using hourly data," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.
5, pp. 420-430, 2014.
[8] N. U. Hassan, Y. I. Khalid, C. Yuen, and W. Tushar, "Customer
engagement plans for peak load reduction in residential smart grids,"
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, pp. 3029-3041, 2015.
[9] M. C. Vlot, J. D. Knigge, and J. G. Slootweg, "Economical regulation
power through load shifting with smart energy appliances," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, pp. 1705-1712, 2013.
[10] R. Deng, Z. Yang, M.-Y. Chow, and J. Chen, "A survey on demand
response in smart grids: Mathematical models and approaches," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, pp. 570-582, 2015.
[11] M. Kohansal and H. Mohsenian-Rad, "Price-maker economic bidding in
two-settlement pool-based markets: The case of time-shiftable loads,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, pp. 695-705, 2016.
[12] J. Aghaei and M.-I. Alizadeh, "Demand response in smart electricity
grids equipped with renewable energy sources: A review," Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 18, pp. 64-72, 2// 2013.
[13] S. Mohagheghi, J. Stoupis, Z. Wang, Z. Li, and H. Kazemzadeh,
"Demand response architecture: Integration into the distribution
management system," in Smart Grid Communications
(SmartGridComm), 2010 First IEEE International Conference on, 2010,
pp. 501-506.
[14] P. Siano, "Demand response and smart grids—A survey," Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 30, pp. 461-478, 2// 2014.
[15] S.-J. Kim and G. B. Giannakis, "Scalable and robust demand response
with mixed-integer constraints," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.
4, pp. 2089-2099, 2013.
[16] M. Parvania, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Shahidehpour, "Optimal
demand response aggregation in wholesale electricity markets," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, pp. 1957-1965, 2013.
[17] AEMO, "Demand Response Mechanism and Ancillary Services
Unbundling – Detailed Design," 2013.
[18] M. D. Galus, S. Koch, and G. Andersson, "Provision of load frequency
control by PHEVs, controllable loads, and a cogeneration unit," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, pp. 4568-4582, 2011.
[19] J. Aghaei, M. Barani, M. Shafie-Khah, A. A. S. de la Nieta, and J. P.
Catalão, "Risk-Constrained Offering Strategy for Aggregated Hybrid
Power Plant Including Wind Power Producer and Demand Response
Provider," IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, pp. 513-
525, 2016.
[20] D. T. Nguyen, H. T. Nguyen, and L. B. Le, "Dynamic Pricing Design for
Demand Response Integration in Power Distribution Networks," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, pp. 3457-3472, 2016.
[21] L. Gkatzikis, I. Koutsopoulos, and T. Salonidis, "The role of aggregators
in smart grid demand response markets," IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 31, pp. 1247-1257, 2013.
[22] C. Murphy, A. Soroudi, and A. Keane, "Information gap decision
theory-based congestion and voltage management in the presence of
uncertain wind power," IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol.
7, pp. 841-849, 2016.
[23] P. Carreira, R. Nunes, and V. Amaral, "Smartlink: A hierarchical
approach for connecting smart buildings to smart grids," in Electrical
Power Quality and Utilisation (EPQU), 2011 11th International
Conference on, 2011, pp. 1-6.
[24] A. C. Chapman, G. Verbiþ, and D. J. Hill, "Algorithmic and strategic
aspects to integrating demand-side aggregation and energy management
methods," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, pp. 2748-2760,
2016.
[25] G. Di Bella, L. Giarré, M. Ippolito, A. Jean-Marie, G. Neglia, and I.
Tinnirello, "Modeling energy demand aggregators for residential
consumers," in Decision and Control (CDC), 2013 IEEE 52nd Annual
Conference on, 2013, pp. 6280-6285.
[26] S. Li, W. Zhang, J. Lian, and K. Kalsi, "Market-based coordination of
thermostatically controlled loads—Part I: A mechanism design
formulation," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, pp. 1170-
1178, 2016.
[27] F. Luo, J. Zhao, Z. Y. Dong, X. Tong, Y. Chen, H. Yang, et al.,
"Optimal dispatch of air conditioner loads in southern China region by
direct load control," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, pp. 439-
450, 2016.
[28] R. A. Verzijlbergh, M. O. Grond, Z. Lukszo, and J. G. Slootweg,
"Network impacts and cost savings of controlled EV charging," IEEE
transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, pp. 1203-1212, 2012.
[29] J. P. Lopes, F. J. Soares, and P. R. Almeida, "Identifying management
procedures to deal with connection of electric vehicles in the grid," in
Powertech, 2009 IEEE bucharest, 2009, pp. 1-8.
[30] M. G. Vayá and G. Andersson, "Optimal bidding strategy of a plug-in
electric vehicle aggregator in day-ahead electricity markets under
uncertainty," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, pp. 2375-
2385, 2015.
[31] S. Vandael, B. Claessens, M. Hommelberg, T. Holvoet, and G.
Deconinck, "A scalable three-step approach for demand side
management of plug-in hybrid vehicles," IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, vol. 4, pp. 720-728, 2013.
[32] F. Rassaei, W.-S. Soh, and K.-C. Chua, "Demand response for
residential electric vehicles with random usage patterns in smart grids,"
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, pp. 1367-1376, 2015.
[33] D. S. Callaway and I. A. Hiskens, "Achieving controllability of electric
loads," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, pp. 184-199, 2011.
[34] S. I. Vagropoulos and A. G. Bakirtzis, "Optimal bidding strategy for
electric vehicle aggregators in electricity markets," IEEE Transactions
on power systems, vol. 28, pp. 4031-4041, 2013.
[35] J. L. Mathieu, S. Koch, and D. S. Callaway, "State estimation and
control of electric loads to manage real-time energy imbalance," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 430-440, 2013.
[36] E. Vrettos and G. Andersson, "Scheduling and provision of secondary
frequency reserves by aggregations of commercial buildings," IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, pp. 850-864, 2016.
[37] R. J. Bessa and M. A. Matos, "Optimization models for EV aggregator
participation in a manual reserve market," IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 28, pp. 3085-3095, 2013.
[38] I. Momber, A. Siddiqui, T. G. San Román, and L. Söder, "Risk averse
scheduling by a PEV aggregator under uncertainty," IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 30, pp. 882-891, 2015.
[39] E. L. Karfopoulos and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "A multi-agent system for
controlled charging of a large population of electric vehicles," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 1196-1204, 2013.
[40] A. J. Conejo, J. M. Morales, and L. Baringo, "Real-time demand
response model," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, pp. 236-242,
2010.
[41] M. Rahimiyan, L. Baringo, and A. J. Conejo, "Energy management of a
cluster of interconnected price-responsive demands," IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 29, pp. 645-655, 2014.
[42] E. Heydarian-Forushani, M. P. Moghaddam, M. K. Sheikh-El-Eslami,
M. Shafie-khah, and J. P. Catalão, "Risk-constrained offering strategy of
wind power producers considering intraday demand response exchange,"
IEEE Transactions on sustainable energy, vol. 5, pp. 1036-1047, 2014.
[43] J. Mohammadi, A. Rahimi-Kian, and M.-S. Ghazizadeh, "Aggregated
wind power and flexible load offering strategy," IET renewable power
generation, vol. 5, pp. 439-447, 2011.
[44] A. Mammoli, H. Barsun, R. Burnett, J. Hawkins, and J. Simmins,
"Using high-speed demand response of building HVAC systems to
smooth cloud-driven intermittency of distributed solar photovoltaic
generation," in Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition (T&D), 2012 IEEE PES, 2012, pp. 1-10.
[45] S. Ghavidel, L. Li, J. Aghaei, T. Yu, and J. Zhu, "A review on the virtual
power plant: Components and operation systems," in Power System
Technology (POWERCON), 2016 IEEE International Conference on,
2016, pp. 1-6.
[46] E. G. Kardakos, C. K. Simoglou, and A. G. Bakirtzis, "Optimal offering
strategy of a virtual power plant: A stochastic bi-level approach," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, pp. 794-806, 2016.
[47] L. Ju, Z. Tan, J. Yuan, Q. Tan, H. Li, and F. Dong, "A bi-level stochastic
scheduling optimization model for a virtual power plant connected to a
wind–photovoltaic–energy storage system considering the uncertainty
and demand response," Applied Energy, vol. 171, pp. 184-199, 2016.
[48] A. G. Zamani, A. Zakariazadeh, S. Jadid, and A. Kazemi, "Operational
scheduling of Virtual Power Plants in the presence of energy storages
and demand response programs for participating in the energy market,"
in Electrical Power Distribution Networks Conference (EPDC), 2015
20th Conference on, 2015, pp. 218-222.
[49] S. R. Dabbagh and M. K. Sheikh-El-Eslami, "Participation of demand
response resources through virtual power plant: A decision framework
under uncertainty," in Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC),
2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on, 2015, pp. 2045-2049.
[50] H. Nezamabadi and V. Vahidinasab, "Two stage decision making of
technical virtual power plants in electricity market via Nash-SFE
equilibrium," in Smart Grid Congress and Fair (ICSG), 2015 3rd
International Istanbul, 2015, pp. 1-5.
[51] H. Kim and M. Thottan, "A two̺stage market model for microgrid
power transactions via aggregators," Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol.
16, pp. 101-107, 2011.
[52] F. A. Rahiman, H. H. Zeineldin, V. Khadkikar, S. W. Kennedy, and V.
R. Pandi, "Demand Response Mismatch (DRM): Concept, Impact
Analysis, and Solution," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, pp.
1734-1743, 2014.
[53] J. Medina, N. Muller, and I. Roytelman, "Demand response and
distribution grid operations: Opportunities and challenges," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, pp. 193-198, 2010.
[54] P. Cappers, J. MacDonald, J. Page, and J. Potter, "Future Opportunities
and Challenges with Using Demand Response as a Resource in
Distribution System Operation and Planning Activities," 2016.
[55] J. A. Schachter and P. Mancarella, "Demand response contracts as real
options: a probabilistic evaluation framework under short-term and long-
term uncertainties," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, pp. 868-
878, 2016.
[56] J. Solanki, N. Venkatesan, and S. K. Solanki, "Coordination of demand
response and Volt/Var control algorithm using multi agent system," in
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D), 2012
IEEE PES, 2012, pp. 1-4.
[57] S. H. Madaeni and R. Sioshansi, "Measuring the benefits of delayed
price-responsive demand in reducing wind-uncertainty costs," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 4118-4126, 2013.
[58] J. Hansen, J. Knudsen, and A. M. Annaswamy, "Demand response in
smart grids: Participants, challenges, and a taxonomy," in Decision and
Control (CDC), 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conference on, 2014, pp. 4045-
4052.
[59] B. Stephen, A. J. Mutanen, S. Galloway, G. Burt, and P. Järventausta,
"Enhanced load profiling for residential network customers," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, pp. 88-96, 2014.
[60] T. Räsänen and M. Kolehmainen, "Feature-based clustering for
electricity use time series data," in International Conference on Adaptive
and Natural Computing Algorithms, 2009, pp. 401-412.