Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-6
Changing the regulations for regulating the changes: From distribution system operator (DSO) to electricity distribution stakeholders’ organization (EDSO)
Followed by the extensive activation of demand side entities, the anti-competitive and monopolistic aspects of distribution system operator (DSO) is becoming more apparent. The business model of the DSO and its regulations are not capable enough to fully leverage the capacity of emerging technologies and responsive prosumers. This paper criticized the challenges/deficits revolving around the conventional DSO model and proposes an interactive platform based on the sharing economy business model at the network level. The electricity distribution stakeholders’ organization (EDSO) as the substitute of DSO in active distribution networks is developed based on the collaborative governance decision-making model. The EDSO has the privilege to legislate on the platform operation and its main policy is to preserve the public interest as well as the integrity of electric distribution system. The superiority of proposed operation model is its non-monopolistic and non-profit nature which materializes the perfect competition of active customers and guaranties their maximum utilization.
KirschenDSStrbacG. Fundamentals of power system economics. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons, 2018 Jul 2.
2.
ShahidehpourMYaminHLiZ. Market operations in electric power systems: forecasting, scheduling, and risk management. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons, 28 May 2003.
3.
ConejoAJCarriònMMoralesJM. Decision making under uncertainty in electricity markets. 1). New York: Springer, 2010.
4.
Van WervenMJScheepersMJ. The changing role of distribution system operators in liberalised and decentralising electricity markets. In 2005 International Conference on Future Power Systems 18 Nov 2005 (pp. 6-pp). IEEE.
5.
COLLABUK Ofgem. Future Arrangements for the Electricity System Operator: Response to Consultation on SO Separation. London, UK, 2017.
6.
FriedrichsenN. Governing smart grids: the case for an independent system operator. Eur J Law Econ2015 Jun; 39(3): 553–572.
7.
CEER. CEER Benchmarking report on removing barriers to entry for energy suppliers in EU retail energy markets. Brussels, Belgium. 2016. doi:Ref: C15-RMF-70-03.
8.
MIT. Utility of the future: An MIT energy initiative response to an industry in transition. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016.
9.
NYDPS. CASE 14-M-0101 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision: Order Adopting a Regulatory Policy Framework and Implementation Plan. Albany, NY, 2015.
10.
RuesterSSchwenenSBatlleC, et al. From distribution networks to smart distribution systems: Rethinking the regulation of european electricity DSOs. Util Policy1 Dec 2014 ; 31: 229–237.
11.
KoutitasG. The smart grid: Anchor of the Smart City. In Smart Cities (pp. 53–74). Springer, Cham. 2018.
12.
RahimiFAMokhtariS. Distribution management system for the grid of the future: A transactive system compensating for the rise in distributed energy resources. IEEE Electrification Mag2018; 6(2): 84–94.
13.
RahimiFMokhtariS. A new distribution system operator construct. Open Access Technology International (OATI), 2014. Available online: gridwiseac. org/pdfs/workshop_091014/a_new_ dist_sys_optr_
construct_paper. pdf (accessed on 12 October 2018).
14.
De MartiniPKristovLSchwartzL. Distribution systems in a high distributed energy resources future: planning, market design, operation and oversight. Future Electric Utility Regulation series. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2015.
15.
KufeogluSPollittMAnayaK. Electric power distribution in the world: Today and tomorrow. 2018.
16.
Pèrez ArriagaJI. Scenarios. Vision on global energy systems. Is distributed generation a true game changer?, 2013.
17.
BouhourasASSgourasKIGkaidatzisPA, et al. Optimal active and reactive nodal power requirements towards loss minimization under reverse power flow constraint defining DG type. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst2016 Jun 1; 78: 445–454.
18.
NematshahiSRajabi MashhadiH. Application of distribution locational marginal price in optimal simultaneous distributed generation placement and sizing in electricity distribution networks. Int Trans Electr Energy SystMay 2019; 29(5): e2837.
19.
EtherdenNBollenMH. Increasing the hosting capacity of distribution networks by curtailment of renewable energy resources. In2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech 19 Jun 2011 (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
20.
DaneshvarMMohammadi-ivatlooBZareK. Integration of distributed energy resources under the transactive energy structure in the future smart distribution networks. InOperation of distributed energy resources in smart distribution networks 1 Jan 2018 (pp. 349–379). Academic Press.
21.
JalaliMZareKSeyediH. Strategic decision-making of distribution network operator with multi-microgrids considering demand response program. Energy2017; 141: 1059–1071.
22.
LinCCDengDJKuoCC, et al. Optimal charging control of energy storage and electric vehicle of an individual in the internet of energy with energy trading. IEEE Trans Ind Inf13 Dec 2017; 14(6): 2570–2578.
23.
GuanZLuXWangN, et al. Towards secure and efficient energy trading in IIoT-enabled energy internet: A blockchain approach. Future Gener Comput Syst1 Sep 2020; 110: 686–695.
24.
YouSTræholtCPoulsenB. Generic virtual power plants: Management of distributed energy resources under liberalized electricity market. In 8th International Conference on Advances in Power System Control, Operation and Management (APSCOM 2009) 8 Nov 2009 (pp. 1–6). IET.
25.
CapitanescuFOchoaLFMargossianH, et al. Assessing the potential of network reconfiguration to improve distributed generation hosting capacity in active distribution systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst2014 May 19; 30(1): 346–356.
26.
XuXXuZLyuX, et al. Optimal SVC placement for maximizing photovoltaic hosting capacity in distribution network. IFAC-PapersOnLine1 Jan 2018; 51(28): 356–361.
27.
SoroudiARabieeAKeaneA. Distribution networks’ energy losses versus hosting capacity of wind power in the presence of demand flexibility. Renew Energy1 Mar 2017 ; 102: 316–325.
28.
ArshadALehtonenM. A stochastic assessment of PV hosting capacity enhancement in distribution network utilizing voltage support techniques. IEEE Access1 Apr 2019; 7: 46461–46471.
29.
SolatSAminifarFShayanfarH. Distributed generation hosting capacity in electric distribution network in the presence of correlated uncertainties. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2020.
30.
BurgerSJenkinsJDBatlle LòpezC, et al. Restructuring revisited: competition and coordination in electricity distribution systems, 2018.
31.
RitterMSchanzH. The sharing economy: A comprehensive business model framework. J Clean Prod10 Mar 2019; 213: 320–331.
32.
ConstantiouIMartonATuunainenVK. Four models of sharing economy platforms. MIS Quart Exec1 Dec 2017; 16(4): 231–251.
33.
SmithJW. The uber-all economy of the future. Indep Rev1 Jan 2016; 20(3): 383–390.
34.
AnsellCGashA. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory1 Oct 2008; 18(4): 543–571.
MaceyJNovogrodC. Enforcing self-regulatory organization’s penalties and the nature of self-regulation. Hofstra L Rev2011; 40: 963.
38.
UlusoyAOguzF. The privatization of electricity distribution in turkey: a legal and economic analysis. Energy Policy2007; 35(10): 5021–5034.
39.
HansonNW. Economy of scale as a cost factor in financing public schools. Natl Tax J1964; 17(1): 92–95.
40.
WalthoCElhedhliSGzaraF. Green supply chain network design: A review focused on policy adoption and emission quantification. Int J Prod Econ2019; 208: 305–318.
41.
ArgyresNMahoneyJTNickersonJ. Strategic responses to shocks: Comparative adjustment costs, transaction costs, and opportunity costs. Strateg Manage J2019; 40(3): 357–376.
42.
GerardHPuenteEISixD. Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Util Policy1 Feb 2018; 50: 40–48.
