MATREM: An Agent-Based Simulation Tool for Electricity Markets

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 144)

Abstract

This chapter presents the key features of an agent-based simulation tool, called MATREM (for Multi-Agent TRading in Electricity Markets). The tool allows the user to conduct a wide range of simulations regarding the behavior and outcomes of electricity markets (EMs), including markets with large penetrations of renewable energy. In each simulation, different autonomous software agents are used to capture the heterogeneity of EMs, notably generating companies (GenCos), retailers (RetailCos), aggregators, consumers, market operators (MOs) and system operators (SOs). The agents are essentially computer systems capable of flexible, autonomous action and able to interact, when appropriate, with other agents to meet their design objectives. They are able to generate plans and execute actions according to a well-known practical reasoning model—the belief-desire-intention (BDI) model. MATREM supports two centralized markets (a day-ahead market and an intra-day market), a bilateral market for trading standardized future contracts (a futures market), and a marketplace for negotiating the terms and conditions of two types of tailored (or customized) long-term bilateral contracts: forward contracts and contracts for difference. The tool is currently being developed using both JADE—the JAVA Agent DEvelopment framework—and Jadex—the BDI reasoning engine that runs over JADE, enabling the development of BDI agents. A graphical interface allows the user to specify, monitor and steer all simulations. The human-computer interaction paradigm is based on a creative integration of direct manipulation interface techniques with intelligent assistant agents. The target platform for the system is a 32/64-bit computer running Microsoft Windows.

Notes

Acknowledgements

For the most part, the work described in this chapter was performed under the project MAN-REM (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-020397), supported by both FEDER Funds, through the program COMPETE (“Programa Operacional Temático Factores de Competividade”), and National Funds, through FCT (“Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia”). Some parts of the work, notably the improvements in the day-ahead market and the current developments in the real-time market, were performed under the project IRPWind: Integrated Research Programme on Wind Energy, funded by the European Union’s seventh programme for research, technological development and demonstration, under grant agreement 609795. The author also wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions made by a number of Ph.D. and M.Sc. students to the agent-based simulation tool, notably students from the NOVA University of Lisbon, University of Lisbon, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE) and Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon (ISEL).

References

  1. 1.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macal, C., North, M.: Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. J. Simul. 4, 151–162 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education Inc, New Jersey (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wood, A., Wollenberg, B., Sheblé, G.: Power Generation, Operation, and Control. Wiley, New Jersey (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sioshansi, F.P. (ed.): Distributed Generation and its Implications for the Utility Industry. Academic Press, Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harp, S.A., Brignone, S., Wollenberg, B.F., Samad, T.: SEPIA: a simulator for the electric power industry agents. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 20(4), 53–69 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koritarov, V.: Real-world market representation with agents: modeling the electricity market as a complex adaptive system with an agent-based approach. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2(4), 39–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batten, D., George Grozev, G.: NEMSIM: finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using multi-agent electricity modelling. In: Perez, P., Batten, D. (eds.) Complex Science for a Complex World Exploring Human Ecosystems with Agents, pp. 227–252. Australian National University Press, Canberra (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, J., Tesfatsion, L.: Dynamic testing of wholesale power market designs: an open-source agent-based framework. Comput. Econ. 30, 291–327 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sensfuß, F.: Assessment of the impact of renewable electricity generation on the german electricity sector: an agent-based simulation approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Karlsruhe University (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Praça, I., Ramos, C., Vale, Z.: MASCEM: a multiagent system that simulates competitive electricity markets. IEEE Intell. Syst. 18(6), 54–60 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vale, Z., Pinto, T., Praça, I., Morais, H.: MASCEM - electricity markets simulation with strategically acting players. IEEE Intell. Syst. 26(2), 9–17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cincotti, S., Santana, Gallo, G.: The Genoa artificial power-exchange. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds.) Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2012), pp. 348–363. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou, Z.Z., Chan, W.K., Chow, J.H.: Agent-based simulation of electricity markets: a survey of tools. Artif. Intell. Rev. 28, 305–342 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sensfuß, F., Genoese, M., Ragwitz, M., Möst, D.: Agent-based simulation of electricity markets - a literature review. Energy Stud. Rev. 15(2), 1–29 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weidlich, A., Veit, D.: A critical survey of agent-based wholesale electricity market models. Energy Econ. 30, 1728–1759 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guerci, E., Rastegar, M., Cincotti, S.: Agent-based modeling and simulation of competitive wholesale electricity markets. In: Rebennack, S., Pardalos, P., Pereira, M., Iliadis, N. (eds.) Handbook of Power Systems II, pp. 241–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Union: Renewable Energy Road Map Renewable Energies in the 21st Century: Building a more Sustainable Future. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2006) 848 (10 January 2007) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0848&from=EN (Cited 11 Feb 2017)
  19. 19.
    European Union: Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (23 April 2009) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028 (Cited 11 Feb 2017)
  20. 20.
    Jones, E.L. (ed.): Renewable Energy Integration: Practical Management of Variability, Uncertainty, and Flexibility in Power Grids. Academic Press, London (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellifemine, F., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-agent Systems with JADE. Wiley, Chichester (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Algarvio, H.F., Lopes, F., Santana, J.: Multi-agent retail energy markets: bilateral contracting and coalitions of end-use customers. In: 12th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM 2015), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Algarvio, H., Lopes, F., Santana, J.: Multi-agent retail energy markets: contract negotiation, customer coalitions and a real-world case study. In: Demazeau, Y., Takayuki, I., Bajo, J., Escalona M. (eds.) Advances in Practical Applications of Scalable Multi-agent Systems: The PAAMS Collection, pp. 13–23. Springer International Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vidigal, D., Lopes, F., Pronto, A., Santana, J.: Agent-based simulation of wholesale energy markets: a case study on renewable generation. In: Spies, M., Wagner, R., Tjoa, A. (eds.) 26th Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2015), pp. 81–85. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Algarvio, H., Couto, A., Lopes, F., Estanqueiro, A., Santana, J.: Multi-agent energy markets with high levels of renewable generation: a case-study on forecast uncertainty and market closing time. In: Omatu, S., et al. (eds.) 13th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 339–347. Springer International Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirschen, D., Strbac, G.: Fundamentals of Power System Economics. Wiley, Chichester (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OMIP: Trading RuleBook. MIBEL Derivatives Market, Lisbon, Portugal (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMIP: General Contractual Terms: MIBEL PTEL Base Load Financial Futures Contracts. MIBEL Derivatives Market, Lisbon, Portugal (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMIP: Rules for Determining Electricity Indexes. MIBEL Derivatives Market, Notice 6/2006, Lisbon, Portugal (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lopes, F., Rodrigues, T., Sousa, J.: Negotiating bilateral contracts in a multi-agent electricity market: a case study. In: Hameurlain, A., Tjoa, A., Wagner, R. (eds.) 23rd Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2012), pp. 326–330. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Algarvio, H., Lopes, F., Santana, J.: Bilateral contracting in multi-agent energy markets: forward contracts and risk management. In: Bajo, J., et al. (eds.) Highlights of Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Sustainability: The PAAMS Collection (PAAMS 2015), pp. 260–269. Springer International Publishing (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sousa, F., Lopes, F., Santana, J.: Contracts for difference and risk management in multi-agent energy markets. In: Demazeau, Y., Decker, K., Pérez, J., De la Prieta, F. (eds.) Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Sustainability: The PAAMS Collection (PAAMS 2015), pp. 339–347. Springer International Publishing (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sousa, F., Lopes, F., Santana, J.: Multi-agent electricity markets: a case study on contracts for difference. In: Spies, M., Wagner, R., Tjoa, A. (eds.) 26th Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2015), pp. 88–90. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Department for Energy and Climate Change: Implementing Electricity Market Reform (June 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-electricity-market-reform-emr (Cited 11 Feb 2017)
  35. 35.
    Lopes, F., Mamede, N., Novais, A.Q., Coelho, H.: Negotiation in a multi-agent supply chain system. In: Third Int. Workshop of the IFIP WG 5.7 Special Interest Group on Advanced Techniques in Production Planning and Control, Firenze University Press, pp. 153–168 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lopes, F., Coelho, H.: Concession strategies for negotiating bilateral contracts in multi-agent electricity markets. In: 23rd Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2012), pp. 321–325. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lopes, F., Algarvio, H., Coelho, H.: Bilateral contracting in multi-agent electricity markets: negotiation strategies and a case study. In: International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM-13), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jaquero, V., Montero, F., Molina, J., González, P.: Intelligent user interfaces: past, present and future. In: Redondo, M., Bravo, C., Ortega, M. (eds.) Engineering the User Interface: From Research to Practice, pp. 259–270. Springer, London (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson Education Inc, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shneiderman, B.: The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1(3), 237–256 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shneiderman, B.: Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. IEEE Comput. 16(8), 57–69 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kay, A.: User interface: a personal view. In: Packer, R., Jordan, K. (eds.) Multi-Media: From Wagner to Virtual Reality, pp. 121–131. W. W. Norton & Company Inc, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maes, P.: Agents that reduce work and information overload. Commun. ACM 37(7), 31–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maes, P., Kozierok, R.: Learning: interface agents. In: 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), pp. 459–465. AAAI Press, California (1993)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lieberman, H.: Autonomous interface agents. In: Pemberton, S. (ed.) ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI-97), pp. 67–74. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rich, C., Sidner, C.: DiamondHelp: a generic collaborative task guidance system. AI Mag. 28(2), 33–46 (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Myers, K., Berry, P., Blyth, J., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., McGuinness, D., Morley, D., Pfeffer, A., Pollack, M., Tambe, M.: An intelligent personal assistant for task and time management. AI Mag. 28(2), 47–61 (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Birnbaum, L., Horvitz, E., Kurlander, D., Lieberman, H., Marks, J., Roth, S.: Compelling intelligent user interfaces: how much AI? In: Moore, J., Edmonds, E., Puerta, A. (eds.) 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI-97), pp. 173–175. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Horvitz, E.: Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In: Williams, M., Altom, M. (eds.) SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI-99), pp. 159–166. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schiaffino, S., Amandi, A.: User-interface agent interaction: personalization issues. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 60, 129–148 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shneiderman, B., Maes, P.: Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions 6(6), 41–61 (1997)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Armentano, M., Daniela, G., Amandi, A.: Personal assistants: direct manipulation vs. mixed initiative interfaces. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 27–35 (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: a BDI-agent system combining middleware and reasoning. In: Unland, R., Klusch, M., Calisti, M. (eds.) Software Agent-Based Applications, Platforms and Development Kits, pp. 143–168. Birkhäuser Verlag, part of Springer Science+Business Media, Basel, Switzerland (2005)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley Longman Inc, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Decision procedures of BDI logics. J. Log. Comput. 8(3), 293–344 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ingrand, F., Georgeff, M., Rao, A.: An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control. IEEE Expert 7(6), 34–44 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Georgeff, M., Rao, A.: A profile of the Australian AI institute. IEEE Expert 11(6), 89–92 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Haddadi, A.: Belief-desire-intention agent architectures. In: O’Hare, G., Jennings, N. (eds.) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 169–185. Wiley, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shoham, Y.: Agent-oriented programming. Artif. Intell. 60, 51–92 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cogn. Sci. Q. 2(3–4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LNEG–National Laboratory of Energy and GeologyLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations