基于第三方聚合器和分发操作器的网络安全负载控制策略
Strategies for Network-Safe Load Control with a Third-Party Aggregator and a Distribution Operator
摘要：
在提供批量电力系统服务时，第三方聚合器可能会无意中导致配电层的操作问题。我们提出了一个协调架构，其中聚合器和分销运营商协调，以避免违反分销网络约束，同时保留私人信息。聚合器控制电力负荷以提供频率调节，而配电运营商在必要时覆盖聚合器的控制动作以确保网络安全运行。使用这种架构，我们提出了两种控制策略，这两种控制策略在测量和通信要求，以及模型的复杂性和可扩展性方面有所不同。第一个使用聚合模型和阻塞控制器，而第二个使用单独的负载模型和模式计数控制器。两者在跟踪准确性方面都优于基准策略。此外，第二种策略的性能优于第一种策略，平均RMS误差仅为0.10%（与0.70%相比）。第二种策略也能够保持配电网络的安全运行，同时覆盖不到1%的聚合器控制动作（相比之下，第一种策略的控制动作约为15%）。然而，第二种策略具有明显更多的测量、通信和计算要求，因此实施起来将比第一种策略更复杂和昂贵。
英文摘要：
When providing bulk power system services, a third-party aggregator could inadvertently cause operational issues at the distribution level. We propose a coordination architecture in which an aggregator and distribution operator coordinate to avoid distribution network constraint violations, while preserving private information. The aggregator controls thermostatic loads to provide frequency regulation, while the distribution operator overrides the aggregator's control actions when necessary to ensure safe network operation. Using this architecture, we propose two control strategies, which differ in terms of measurement and communication requirements, as well as model complexity and scalability. The first uses an aggregate model and blocking controller, while the second uses individual load models and a mode-count controller. Both outperform a benchmark strategy in terms of tracking accuracy. Furthermore, the second strategy performs better than the first, with only 0.10% average RMS error (compared to 0.70%). The second is also able to maintain safe operation of the distribution network while overriding less than 1% of the aggregator's control actions (compared to approximately 15% by the first strategy). However, the second strategy has significantly more measurement, communication, and computational requirements, and therefore would be more complex and expensive to implement than the first strategy.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
