发表机构
Imperial College London（帝国理工学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文比较七国辅助服务市场设计，揭示五大服务类别及四大趋势，指出协调不足等挑战，主张差异化但协调的框架。
AI 中文摘要
可再生能源发电的快速增长正在改变电力系统的运行方式，并日益凸显辅助服务对系统安全性和可靠性的重要性。随着基于逆变器的资源取代传统同步发电，系统运营商必须采购涵盖五大类别的更广泛服务：频率控制与备用、电压及无功支持、系统稳定性、恢复以及阻塞管理。本文比较了英国、德国、丹麦、意大利、加利福尼亚、得克萨斯和澳大利亚的辅助服务市场设计，考察了这些系统在可变可再生能源发电增加时如何定义、采购、补偿和协调各项服务。该综述建立了一致的按产品分类体系，提供了频率控制和备用产品的可比时间可视化，并绘制了各服务和系统的实施模式。研究揭示了四个趋势：更快、更细粒度的频率响应产品；对包括惯量、系统强度和动态电压支持在内的稳定性能力进行更明确的采购；储能、需求侧资源及其他基于逆变器的资源更广泛的参与；以及更多采用基于位置、针对性和技术中立的采购方式。面临的挑战包括：协调统一有限，对价值取决于位置和运行条件的灵活性和稳定性能力的估值不完整，分布式和新兴资源参与存在障碍，以及市场与运行安排之间协调不足。比较结果显示，各系统并未趋同于单一市场设计，而是支持反映各项服务技术、时间和位置特征的差异化但协调的辅助服务框架。
英文摘要
Rapid growth in renewable generation is changing power-system operation and increasing the importance of ancillary services for security and reliability. As inverter-based resources displace conventional synchronous generation, system operators must procure a broader set of services spanning five categories: frequency control and reserves, voltage and reactive power support, system stability, restoration, and congestion management. This paper compares ancillary-service market design in Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Italy, California, Texas, and Australia. It examines how these systems define, procure, remunerate, and coordinate services as variable renewable generation increases. The review develops a consistent product-level classification, provides comparable timing visualisations of frequency-control and reserve products, and maps implementation modalities across services and systems. Four trends emerge: faster and more granular frequency-response products, more explicit procurement of stability capabilities including inertia, system strength, and dynamic voltage support, broader participation by storage, demand-side resources, and other inverter-based resources, and greater use of locational, targeted, and technology-neutral procurement. Challenges include limited harmonisation, incomplete valuation of flexibility and stability capabilities whose value depends on location and operating conditions, barriers to participation by distributed and emerging resources, and insufficient coordination between market and operational arrangements. The comparison finds no convergence towards a single market design and supports differentiated but coordinated ancillary-service frameworks reflecting each service's technical, temporal, and locational characteristics.
