IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00305460.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Fairness of Centralised Decision-Making Strategies in multi-TSO Power Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Yannick Phulpin

    (SUPELEC-Campus Gif - Ecole Supérieure d'Electricité - SUPELEC (FRANCE))

  • M. Begovic

    (Georgia Institute of Technology [Atlanta])

  • Marc Petit

    (SUPELEC-Campus Gif - Ecole Supérieure d'Electricité - SUPELEC (FRANCE))

  • Damien Ernst

    (ULiège - Université de Liège = University of Liège = Universiteit van Luik = Universität Lüttich)

Abstract

In this paper, we consider an interconnected power system, where the different Transmission System Operators (TSOs) have agreed to transferring some of their competences to a Centralised Control Center (CCC). In such a context, a recurrent difficulty for the CCC is to define decision-making strategies which are fair enough to every TSO of the interconnected system. We address this multiobjective problem when the objective of every TSO can be represented by a real-valued function. We propose an algorithm to elect the solution that leads to the minimisation of the distance with the utopian minimum after having normalised the different objectives. We analyse the fairness of this solution in the sense of economics. We illustrate the approach with the IEEE 118 bus system partitioned in 3 areas having as local objective the minimisation of active power losses, the maximisation of reactive power reserves, or a combination of both criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannick Phulpin & M. Begovic & Marc Petit & Damien Ernst, 2008. "On the Fairness of Centralised Decision-Making Strategies in multi-TSO Power Systems," Post-Print hal-00305460, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00305460
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://centralesupelec.hal.science/hal-00305460v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://centralesupelec.hal.science/hal-00305460v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David L. Dickinson & Jill Tiefenthaler, 2002. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 414-428, October.
    2. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
    3. David L. Dickinson & Jill Tiefenthaler, 2002. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 414-428, October.
    4. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2017. "Justice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3739-3759, November.
    2. Xile Yin & Siyu Chen & Dahui Li & Feng Zhang, 2021. "Social norms for fairness and board voting behavior: An experimental investigation," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 110-133, March.
    3. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    4. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2015. "An experimental study of gender differences in distributive justice," Cuadernos de Economía - Spanish Journal of Economics and Finance, Asociación Cuadernos de Economía, vol. 38(106), pages 27-36, Abril.
    5. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    6. Minkler, Lanse, 2004. "Shirking and motivations in firms: survey evidence on worker attitudes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 863-884, June.
    7. Tausch, Franziska & Potters, Jan & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 298-325, July.
    8. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2015. "Desert and inequity aversion in teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 42-54.
    9. Fabio Galeotti & Reuben Kline & Raimondello Orsini, 2014. "When Foul Play Seems Fair: Dishonesty as a Response to Violations of Just Deserts," Post-Print halshs-02467507, HAL.
    10. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    11. David Chavanne & Kevin A. McCabe & Maria Pia Paganelli, 2015. "Are Self-Made Men Made Equally? An Experimental Test of Impartial Redistribution and Perceptions of Self-Determination," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 40, pages 1-3.
    12. Pfeifer, Christian, 2004. "Fairness und Kündigungen : eine theoretische und empirische Analyse (Fairness and layoffs * a theoretical and empirical analysis)," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 37(2), pages 127-145.
    13. Rodriguez-lara, Ismael, 2015. "Equal distribution or equal payoffs? Reciprocity and inequality aversion in the investment game," MPRA Paper 63313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. David Chavanne & Kevin A. McCabe & Maria Pia Paganelli, 2019. "Shared Experience and Third-Party Redistribution," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 446-463, June.
    15. Emin Karagözoglu & Arno Riedl, 2010. "Information, Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," CESifo Working Paper Series 3133, CESifo.
    16. David L. Dickinson & Jill Tiefenthaler, 2002. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 414-428, October.
    17. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Zhuyu Li & Gari Walkowitz, 2024. "Fairness Deliberations and Fair Allocations in Symmetric and Asymmetric Bargaining–An Experimental Study on Group Decisions in Germany and China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 1429-1469, December.
    18. Anand, Paul, 2001. "Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 247-270, April.
    19. Bergh, Andreas, 2008. "A critical note on the theory of inequity aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1789-1796, October.
    20. Ramarao Desiraju & David E. M. Sappington, 2007. "Equity and Adverse Selection," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 285-318, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00305460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.