AI 中文总结
本文通过模拟比较斜坡产品结算、前瞻结算等方法，发现斜坡产品结算的机会成本损失更高，集中于反复受斜坡约束的机组，而前瞻结算可缓解该问题，但预测误差会改变这一排序。
AI 中文摘要
本文研究斜坡产品结算是否能像前瞻经济调度一样，有效补偿那些承受跨期斜坡稀缺的发电机。我们通过比较每种方法引发的机会成本损失（LOC）来评估该问题。我们在10发电机系统和改进的RTS-GMLC系统上进行滚动时域模拟，比较了斜坡产品结算（RP-LMP）、前瞻结算（LA-LMP）和时段节点边际电价（TLMP）。在特定的确定性斜坡应力案例中，RP-LMP下的总LOC高于LA-LMP。主要贡献是对斜坡产品结算的发电机级关键评估：我们确定了RP-LMP下哪些机组存在未得到补偿的跨期机会成本，以及该负担在LA-LMP下如何变化。RP-LMP的LOC集中在反复面临斜坡约束的机组，而LA-LMP主要缓解这些相同机组的负担，在其他机组上留下较小的剩余LOC。在更大的测试系统中，完美预见下的多天测试保持了这种排序，但显示在预测误差下该排序不一定成立。
英文摘要
This paper studies whether ramp-product settlement compensates generators that absorb intertemporal ramp scarcity as effectively as look-ahead economic dispatch. We evaluate this question by comparing the lost opportunity cost (LOC) induced by each approach. Using rolling-horizon simulations on a 10-generator system and a modified RTS-GMLC system, we compare ramp-product settlement (RP-LMP), look-ahead settlement (LA-LMP), and temporal locational marginal pricing (TLMP). In the featured deterministic ramp stressed cases, aggregate LOC is higher under RP-LMP than under LA-LMP. The main contribution is a generator-level critical assessment for ramp-product settlement: we identify which units are left with uncompensated intertemporal opportunity cost under RP-LMP and how that burden changes under LA-LMP. RP-LMP LOC is concentrated on units with repeated ramp-binding exposure, while LA-LMP mainly relieves those same units and leaves smaller residual LOC on other units. Multi-day tests preserve this ordering under perfect foresight in the larger test system, but show that it need not hold under forecast error.
Comments6 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables. Accepted by the North American Power Symposium (NAPS) 2026
