energies

Article
A New Power Sharing Scheme of Multiple Microgrids
and an Iterative Pairing-Based Scheduling Method
Hong-Chao Gao 1 , Joon-Ho Choi 2 , Sang-Yun Yun 2 and Seon-Ju Ahn 2, *
1 State Key Lab of Power Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
China; hcgao@tsinghua.edu.cn
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77, Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu,
Gwangju 61186, Korea; joono@chonnam.ac.kr (J.-H.C.); drk9034@jnu.ac.kr (S.-Y.Y.)
* Correspondence: sjahn@jnu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-62-530-1738




Received: 25 February 2020; Accepted: 30 March 2020; Published: 1 April 2020


Abstract: As the numbers of microgrids (MGs) and prosumers are increasing, many research efforts
are proposing various power sharing schemes for multiple MGs (MMGs). Power sharing between
MMGs can reduce the investment and operating costs of MGs. However, since MGs exchange power
through distribution lines, this may have an adverse effect on the utility, such as an increase in
peak demand, and cause local overcurrent issues. Therefore, this paper proposes a power sharing
scheme that is beneficial to both MGs and the utility. This research assumes that in an MG, the energy
storage system (ESS) is the major controllable resource. In the proposed power sharing scheme,
an MG that sends power should discharge at least as much power from the ESS as the power it
sends to other MGs, in order to actually decrease the total system demand. With these assumptions,
methods for determining the power sharing schedule are proposed. Firstly, a mixed integer linear
programming (MILP)-based centralized approach is proposed. Although this can provide the optimal
power sharing solution, in practice, this method is very difficult to apply, due to the large calculation
burden. To overcome the significant calculation burden of the centralized optimization method, a new
method for determining the power sharing schedule is proposed. In this approach, the amount of
power sharing is assumed to be a multiple of a unit amount, and the final power sharing schedule is
determined by iteratively finding the best MG pair that exchange this unit amount. Simulation with a
five MG scenario is used to test the proposed power sharing scheme and the scheduling algorithm in
terms of a reduction in the operating cost of MGs, the peak demand of utility, and the calculation
burden. In addition, the interrelationship between power sharing and the system loss is analyzed
when MGs exchange power through the utility network.

Keywords: microgrid; multiple microgrids; power sharing schedule; energy storage system; microgrid
aggregator

1. Introduction
In recent years, as the capacity of renewables integrated into the grid has continued to expand,
the construction of microgrids (MGs) has gradually increased [1]. To improve the energy efficiency
and to ensure the economical operation of MGs, energy management technologies are experiencing
rapid innovation. The energy storage system (ESS) is one of the key components for microgrid control,
and thus optimal scheduling of the ESS is very important for improving the operational performance of
a microgrid [2]. Therefore, increasing the ESS capacity can make the MG operation more efficient and
reliable. However, considering the expensive installation cost and low utilization rate of the ESS, it may
not be the most cost-effective solution. As an alternative, attempts have been made to apply the sharing
economy to the energy sector [3,4]. Reference [3] points out the applicability of the sharing economy in

Energies 2020, 13, 1605; doi:10.3390/en13071605 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 1605 2 of 20

the energy sector, and offers a proper solution to the problem. It demonstrates that the distributed
renewable energies, the ESS, and smart energy management provide an opportunity for increased
peer-to-peer interaction. It also shows that sharing the ESS, which might rarely be used to its full
capacity by the owner, with neighbors or the community can be beneficial. Therefore, power or energy
sharing is an imperative issue for the renewable energy market. As the numbers of prosumers and
MGs in modern distribution systems are increasing, power or energy sharing technologies have been
discussed in a number of studies from different perspectives. A novel power sharing scheme among
multiple microgrids (MMGs) has been proposed for the mitigation of power fluctuation [5]. This aims
to improve the cost-efficiency of the ESS when it is used to compensate for the power fluctuation
caused by renewables in an MG. In order to improve the system stability, active and reactive power
sharing strategies in hierarchical controlled microgrids have been proposed [6].
Herein, the economic operation of MMGs is the main concern. In general, the MG energy
management system (MGEMS) is responsible for the economic operation of each MG; however,
a higher-level control unit is required to coordinate the power exchange among MMGs. In the two-level
energy management system, the goals of MGs and utility are obvious; however, they are rarely
mentioned. An MG with a higher time of use (TOU) price and/or with an extreme peak demand needs
to coordinate with other MGs. Meanwhile, the utility should reduce the peak demand of the system
to mitigate the requirement of infrastructure replacement and investment to meet the highest peak
demand. Therefore, an effective power sharing mechanism for MMGs that can consider the benefit for
the MG owners, as well as the interest of the utility, is necessary.
Previous studies on energy trading with a cost-effective objective can be summarized as follows.
With the objective of maximizing the benefit for MG owners, previous researchers have adopted
the bidding or auction mechanism [7,8]. In order to balance the selling power and buying power,
communication between the MGs and the coordinator is often repeated. Reference [7] develops a
community energy market. The MGEMS should determine the role of the MG, i.e., the seller or buyer,
in accordance with the power flow direction to the grid after the calculation of the economic dispatch
for a single entity. The surplus energy and its price and the insufficient demand can then be identified.
The market operator can find the spot price by intersecting the demand and the ascending price
rates bid. Reference [8] proposes a naïve auction mechanism. The load agent and generator agent
are also determined according to the MG status, e.g., either surplus or deficit generation. Then, the
auction agent implements the symmetrical assignment, and if it is not symmetrical, the main grid is
required to supplement the difference. References [9–13] regard the global profit as the optimization
objective. Reference [9] solves energy trading among interconnected MGs as a Nash bargaining
problem. This problem is decomposed into two sequential sub-problems of energy trading and
scheduling, and trading payment. The first-step problem is used to minimize the social operation cost
and obtain the energy trading amount, while the second-step problem implements the fair allocation
of benefits to each participating MG. All of the steps are solved by dual optimization. For distributed
optimization, a well-known sub-gradient method is commonly adopted for an iterative solution of the
dual problem. However, it is unable to achieve an exact balance between demand and supply with a
small number of iterations. Therefore, Ref. [10] proposes a novel linear function submission-based
double auction method. This method formulates the individual demand or supply of each prosumer
as a linear function by two parameters, where the market-clearing price can be exactly determined
by calculating the point at which the two linear functions intersect. However, one parameter of the
linear function is the price resilience parameter, which is difficult to estimate. Reference [11] proposes
two-level optimal energy management between MMGs with sequentially coordinated operations.
Upper level optimization can perform the trading between MGs with surplus energy and the MGs
with an energy shortage, to reduce the cost of external trading with the utility. Meanwhile, the lower
level implements local optimization of the single MG considering the trading scheduling. Moreover,
reference [12] proposes a coordination strategy for optimal power sharing between MMGs in a two-level
hierarchical system. Similar to other hierarchical energy management systems, the upper-level center
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 3 of 20

implements the coordination strategy to reduce the social cost, while the lower-level MGEMS conducts
local optimal energy management. This strategy drastically reduces the calculation burden of the
centralized optimization with a large number of MGs. However, it is worth noting that the benefits
of the utility are not discussed. Although the stability and economy of the utility are considered,
its power exchange structure still requires the actual physical connection, and it is not suitable for a
large-area MMG, due to the power loss, as elaborated in [13]. Reference [14] also adopts a two-level
energy management system for achieving the goal of the economic operation of MMGs. The difference
is that its objective function includes the power loss induced by the power exchange between MGs.
The advantages and disadvantages of the existing methods are summarized in Table 1.
Previous studies on power sharing among MMGs have mainly focused on the benefit for MGs
only, not for the utility. However, since power sharing between MGs is conducted through distribution
lines, this may have an adverse effect on the utility as the number of MGs that participate in the sharing
increases. Therefore, this research proposes a power sharing scheme that is beneficial to both MGs
and the utility. The two-level hierarchical energy management scheme is adopted, where the power
sharing schedule is coordinated by the MG aggregator. Firstly, a mixed integer linear programming
(MILP)-based centralized approach for optimal power sharing coordination is proposed. This approach
is an extension of the optimal ESS scheduling problem for a single MG, which has previously been
proposed by the authors [15]. Although it can provide the optimal power sharing solution, it lacks
practical feasibility, due to the large calculation burden as the number of MGs increases. To overcome
the significant calculation burden of centralized optimization, a new method for determining the
power sharing schedule is proposed. In this approach, the amount of power sharing is assumed to
be multiples of the unit amount, and the final power sharing schedule is determined by iteratively
finding the best MG pair that exchange a unit amount. The proposed power sharing scheme and the
scheduling algorithm are tested with a five MG scenario, and the effectiveness is verified in terms
of the operating cost of MGs, the peak demand of utility, and the calculation burden. In addition,
the interrelationship between power sharing and the system loss is analyzed when MGs exchange
power through the utility network.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of the existing power sharing methods of multiple microgrids
(MMGs).

References [7,8] References [9–13]

Objective Maximize the benefit for MG owners Maximize the global profit
Ensure the maximal global benefit for all
Guarantee of the maximal benefit for the MG participants;
owners; realization of better energy utilization in a
Advantages
less complexity of the clearing or pairing local region;
method in the market. strong controllability for the operator due to
more abundant information collection.
Only feasible for MGs with surplus Heavy computational burden;
Disadvantages renewable energy generation; high communication cost for information
require exact estimation of the bidding price. exchange between the aggregator and MGs.

2. Power Sharing Scheme and Scheduling Algorithm

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the hierarchical energy management system adopted in this paper.
In a local MG, an MGEMS measures the power, with smart meters, at the point of common coupling
(PCC), as well as the individual devices, such as PV, loads, and the ESS. Based on these measurements
and the forecast, MGEMS determines the operation schedule and controls the devices. The MG
aggregator coordinates the power exchange between MGs to reduce the total operating cost of the
MGs. The MG aggregator communicates with MGEMSs to collect the MG operation data and transmit
the optimal power sharing schedule. If MGs are interconnected through a distribution network,
power exchange between MGs may affect the network operation. Therefore, the utility or distribution
Energies
Energies2020, 13,13,
2020, 1605
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 2020
4 of

distribution system operator (DSO) can review the effect of the power sharing schedules on the
system operator
distribution (DSO) can
network. review theiseffect
If congestion of theinpower
expected sharing
a network, schedules
DSO can askon
thethe
MG distribution
aggregatornetwork.
to adjust
Ifthe
congestion is expected in a network, DSO can ask the MG aggregator to adjust
schedule. DSO can also cooperate with the MG aggregators if necessary for better the schedule. DSO can
system
also cooperate
operation [16].with the MG aggregators if necessary for better system operation [16].

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematicofofthe
theproposed
proposedhierarchical
hierarchicalenergy
energymanagement
managementsystem.
system.
2.1. Local Energy Management by the MGEMS
2.1. Local Energy Management by the MGEMS
Energy management of the individual MG is achieved by optimal ESS scheduling, with the
Energy
objective management
of minimizing of the individual
the operation cost, which MGincludes
is achieved by optimal
the energy ESS scheduling,
cost, demand with
charge, and ESSthe
objective of minimizing the operation cost, which includes the energy cost,
wear cost. This problem is formulated based on mixed integer linear programming (MILP), as follows: demand charge, and ESS
wear cost. This problem is formulated based on mixed integer linear programming (MILP), as
follows: T P+ (t)/ηd +P− (t)·ηc Bprice
{Cr (t)·Pnet f low (t) + 2·SOCb max −SOC b ·B
P
minCMG = ×B }
t=1
min capacity cycle (1)
n 𝑃 (t) o ⁄𝜂 + 𝑃 (𝑡) ∙ 𝜂
contract 𝐵
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐶 = {𝐶 (𝑡) ∙ 𝑃penalty (𝑡) + net f low
+ I·C · [ max P ( t ) − P ] , × }
2 ∙ (𝑆𝑂𝐶 −demand
𝑆𝑂𝐶 ) ∙ 𝐵 𝐵
(1)
where, T is the specified ESS scheduling horizon, which is selected to be 24h herein; Cr (t) is the TOU
price of time t; SOCmax and SOC + 𝐼min∙ 𝐶 represent∙ [𝑚𝑎𝑥
the 𝑃maximum (𝑡) and
− 𝑃 minimum ], SOC limit, respectively;
and ηd and ηc are the efficiency of discharge and charge, respectively. Since the electricity bill will
where, T is the specified ESS scheduling horizon, which is selected to be 24h herein; 𝐶 (𝑡) is the TOU
be charged based on the measurement at the PCC, the scheduled net flow Pnet f low (t) of the PCC
price of time t; 𝑆𝑂𝐶 and 𝑆𝑂𝐶 represent the maximum and minimum SOC limit, respectively;
considering ESS operation can be defined as:
and 𝜂 and 𝜂 are the efficiency of discharge and charge, respectively. Since the electricity bill will
be charged based on the measurement at f orethe PCC, f orethe scheduled net flow 𝑃 (𝑡) of the PCC
Pnet f low (t) = Pload (t) − Ppv (t) − Pb+ (t) + P− b
(t), (2)
considering ESS operation can be defined as:
f ore f ore
where, Pload (t) and Ppv (t𝑃) are the(𝑡)forecasted
=𝑃 (𝑡)load (𝑡)solar
− 𝑃 and − 𝑃 (𝑡) + 𝑃 (𝑡), at time t, respectively,
generation (2)
+ −
while Pb (t) and Pb (t) represent the discharge and charge power.
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 5 of 20

The second term represents the battery wear-cost.  The unit wear-cost price of each discharge cycle
is obtained by dividing the battery installation cost Bprice by the available cycle number (Bcycle ) for the
corresponding depth of discharge (DOD) value. Bcapacity is the rated capacity of the ESS. The reason for
dividing by 2 in this term is that a cycle of the ESS consists of two process: charging and discharging.
The third term of the objective function relates to the demand charge, which is billed at the penalty
price (Cpenalty ) for the improper usage of power when the maximum net flow during any measured
period exceeds the contract power (Pcontract
demand
). The integer variable I is introduced to indicate whether
the penalty is applied, as given in Equation (3):
n o
> Pcontract
(
1 max Pnet f low (t) demand .
I= (3)
0 otherwise

The SOC of the ESS at time t is constrained as follows:

SOCmin ≤ SOC(t) ≤ SOCmax , (4)

where, the SOC of the ESS at any time t can be calculated by the following equation:

Pb+ (t)
 
ηd − P−
b
( t ) ·ηc ·∆t
SOC(t + ∆t) = SOC(t) − × 100. (5)
Bcapactiy

Moreover, the instantaneous discharge/charge power of the ESS depends on the capacity of the
power conditioning system (PCS). The constraint for this physical limit is given as follows:

0 ≤ Pb+ (t) ≤ γ(t)·Pmax

b
(6)

0 ≤ P−
b
(t) ≤ (1 − γ(t))·Pmax
b
, (7)

where, Pmax
b
is the rated power capacity of the PCS and γ(t) is a binary variable that is introduced to
prevent the charge and discharge from occurring simultaneously:
(
1 i f discharge
γ(t) = . (8)
0 i f charge

In order to calculate the demand charge exactly, the power flow at the PCC is measured periodically.
In addition, the maximum net flow at the PCC should be formulated into the problem and recorded.
A detailed process has been presented by the authors in the previous study [15].

2.2. Power Sharing Scheduling among MGs Coordinated by the MG Aggregator

2.2.1. Power Sharing Scheme Adopted in this Research

Power exchange among MMGs can be achieved in a variety of ways. For the MGs with
large-capacity renewable energy sources (RESs), the surplus energy can be sent to the other MGs
through the direct physical connection line, or indirectly through the distribution lines. For the MGs
without adequate RESs but with controllable distributed generations (DGs), the low-cost generation
units will provide the power to the other MGs for the appropriate revenue. This research considered
MGs with small-capacity RESs and ESS, but no other controllable resources. For this type of MG, the
ESS is actively advocated for power sharing, instead of the way in which the MG buys electricity from
the grid, and sells to other MGs directly. It can help the MG owners to achieve benefits in power
trading, similar to other power trading structures; furthermore, it can contribute to reducing the peak
demand for the utility. For this, the MG that sends power should reduce its net flow by as much power
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 6 of 20

as it sends to other MGs by generating additional power, reducing the demand, or discharging the
power from ESS.
In this study, it is assumed that the electricity charges for individual MGs are calculated by taking
into account
Energies 2020, 13,power sharing
x FOR PEER and the physical power consumption. Therefore, the power exchange
REVIEW 6 of 20
between MGs, as well as the net flow of MGs at the PCC, are recorded by the MG aggregator and
and reported
reported to thetoutility.
the utility.
FigureFigure
2 shows 2 shows the schematics
the schematics of twosharing
of two power power schemes.
sharing schemes.
It is assumedIt is
assumed
that that the net
the expected expected
flows ofnetthe
flows
twoof MGsthe are
twotheMGs sameareatthe
100 same
kW, atas100 kW,inasFigure
shown shown2a. in If
Figure 2a.
the total
If the total cost of two MGs can be reduced by transferring 20 kW
cost of two MGs can be reduced by transferring 20 kW of power from MG A to MG B, there are twoof power from MG A to MG B,
there are two different ways to conduct the sharing. Figure 2b shows
different ways to conduct the sharing. Figure 2b shows one way, in which MG A transfers 20 kW to one way, in which MG A
transfers
MG 20 kWcontrolling
B without to MG B without controlling
any resources. any
In this resources.
case, In this charge
the electricity case, the electricity
will charge
be calculated aswill
MGbe A
calculated as MG A used 120 kW and MG B used 80 kW. However, the
used 120 kW and MG B used 80 kW. However, the actual power flows from the utility to the two MGs actual power flows from the
utility
are theto the two
same MGsbefore
as those are thethe
same as those
power before
sharing. the powerinsharing.
Therefore, Therefore,
this scheme, therein is this scheme,for
no benefit there
the
is no benefit
utility, even ifforthethe utility, even
operating if the
cost of MGs operating cost of MGs
can be reduced. Figurecan2cbeshows
reduced.the Figure
other way,2c shows
in whichthe
other way, in which MG A controls its resources to decrease its net flow
MG A controls its resources to decrease its net flow by 20 kW; the same amount as it sends to MG B. by 20 kW; the same amount
as this
In it sends
scheme,to MG B. In this
the power scheme,
sharing the power
between sharingthe
MGs reduces between MGs the
power from reduces
utilitythe power
to 180 kW,from
whichthe is
utility to 180 kW, which is beneficial to the utility, especially in peak hours. In
beneficial to the utility, especially in peak hours. In this study, the latter is adopted for the benefit ofthis study, the latter is
adopted for the benefit of both MGs and the utility. Since it is assumed in this
both MGs and the utility. Since it is assumed in this research that ESS is the only controllable resource research that ESS is the
only
in thecontrollable
MG, the sending resource in the MG,
MG should the sending
discharge power fromMG should
the ESS discharge
by at least power
the same from the ESS
amount by at
of power
least the same amount
as it sends to other MGs. of power as it sends to other MGs.

Figure 2. Power flow and billing information of the two power sharing schemes: (a) without power
Figure 2. Power flow and billing information of the two power sharing schemes: (a) without power
sharing; (b) power sharing without physical control of resources; (c) power sharing with physical
sharing; (b) power sharing without physical control of resources; (c) power sharing with physical
control of resources.
control of resources.
2.2.2. MILP-Based Centralized Power Sharing Scheduling Method
2.2.2. MILP-Based Centralized Power Sharing Scheduling Method
The objective of power sharing is to minimize the total operation cost (CT ) of multiple MGs,
which The
canobjective of power
be represented sharing is to minimize the total operation cost (𝐶 ) of multiple MGs,
as follows:
which can be represented as follows:
N MG
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐶 = ∑ 𝐶 . (9)
X
minCT = CMG,i,. (9)
i=1
The problem can be formulated by MILP similarly to the single MG scheduling problem, with
The problem can The
minor modifications. be formulated by MILP similarly
electricity consumption measuredto theatsingle MG scheduling
the utility’s problem,
meter is the with
same as in
minor modifications.
Equation (2). However, Thetheelectricity consumption
actual operation cost measured at the utility’s
of the individual meter be
MG should is the same as
determined
in Equation not
considering (2).only
However,
the datathe actual operation
recorded costbut
by the meter, ofalso
the the
individual MG should
power sharing be determined
with other MGs. The
considering not the
aggregator has onlyresponsibility
the data recorded by the meter,
of reporting but also the
the information of power sharing with
among other MGs.
MGs, or
The aggregator
between has the
the external responsibility
grid of reporting
and the utility. The final the information
electricity billingofcan
power sharing among
be calculated in the MGs,
same
way as in Equation (1), but the net flow of each MG should be reformulated considering the power
sharing schedule, as follows:

𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) = 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) − 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) − 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) + 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) − 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) + 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡), (10)

where, 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) and 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) are referred to as the receiving power and sending power of MG 𝑖 at
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 7 of 20

or between the external grid and the utility. The final electricity billing can be calculated in the same
way as in Equation (1), but the net flow of each MG should be reformulated considering the power
sharing schedule, as follows:

billing f ore f ore

Pnet f low
(i, t) = Pload (i, t) − Ppv (i, t) − Pb+ (i, t) + P−b (i, t) − P−m (i, t) + Pm
+
(i, t), (10)

+
where, P−m (i, t) and Pm (i, t) are referred to as the receiving power and sending power of MG i at time
t, respectively. The constraints for each MG, presented by Equations (3)–(8), are applied without
modification. In order to support the proposed power sharing scheme, a new constraint for the ESS
discharge power is added as follows:

+
0 ≤ Pm (i, t) ≤ Pb+ (i, t). (11)

In addition, for each MG, the behavior of the sending and receiving power cannot occur
simultaneously. To achieve it, the constraints are added as follows:

+
0 ≤ Pm (i, t) ≤ k(i, t) ∗ Pin f (12)

0 ≤ P−
m (i, t) ≤ (1 − k(i, t)) ∗ Pin f , (13)

where, Pin f is a positive constant that is large enough not to make practical restrictions on power
sharing, and k(i, t) is a binary variable that is defined as follows:
(
1 i f MG i is the sending power at time t
k(i, t) = . (14)
0 i f MG i is the receiving power at time t

Moreover, the sending and receiving power must be balanced at all times, and this can be presented
as follows:
NXMG N
X MG
+
Pm (i, t) = P−
m (i, t). (15)
i=1 i=1

2.2.3. New Power Sharing Scheduling by Iterative Optimal Pairing

Although centralized optimization can provide the optimal power sharing solution, it lacks
practical feasibility, due to the large calculation burden caused by the increased difficulty of
time-dependence between variables. As the number of MGs increases, the optimal solution may not be
found within a limited time. Although distributed optimization may be effective in solving such a
problem, it is difficult to fully consider the time-dependent variables with multiple constraints.
To overcome the significant calculation burden of centralized optimization and the increased
difficulty of the time-dependent variable with multiple constraints, a new method for determining the
power sharing schedule is proposed. In practice, the amount of power sharing schedule does not need
to be precise to the decimal. Therefore, this paper assumes that MGs share power in multiples of a
unit amount. Based on this, the optimal power sharing schedule can be determined by repeatedly
finding the best two MG pairs that exchange the unit amount of power. The concept and detailed
implementation process are as follows.
Firstly, for the MGs that have agreed to participate in the power sharing, the optimal ESS operation
schedule is calculated without considering the power sharing. The operation cost of each MG with the
self-ESS-scheduling is obtained, and is regarded as the base operation cost of each MG. Then, for each
MG, the ESS schedule and associated operating cost are recalculated for the cases in which it sends and
receives the unit amount power, respectively. It is not hard to imagine that the operating cost of the
MG that sends power will be increased, due to the increased electricity billing and additional cost of
efficiency loss and wear cost of the ESS, while the operation cost of the MG that receives power will be
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 8 of 20

decreased. If an MG is assumed to receive a power of unit amount, the net demand is adjusted as
shown in Equation (16) before the calculation of the new ESS schedule. Equation (17) ensures that if the
receiving power exceeds the net demand, the power not consumed by the load is charged into the ESS:

Pnew
netdemand
(i, t) = Pold
netdemand
(i, t) − Punit
sharing
(16)

P−
b
(i, t) = Pnew
netdemand
(i, t) i f Pnew
netdemand
(i, t) < 0, (17)

where, Punit
sharing
is the predetermined unit amount of power sharing; Pold netdemand
(i, t) is the net demand of
MG i at time t considering the forecasted load, forecasted PV generation, and power sharing schedule
determined up to the calculation of the last iteration; and Pnew netdemand
(i, t) is the net demand considering
the assumed receiving power schedule in this calculation iteration.
If an MG is assumed to send power at some time, the net demand will be increased by the unit
amount, as presented in Equation (18). Since the sending power should be from the discharge of the
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
ESS, the discharge schedule at the time should be greater than or equal to the accumulated sending
+
ESS, thePm,assumed
power, discharge (i, tschedule
), as shown in Equation
at the (19):be greater than or equal to the accumulated sending
time should
power, 𝑃 , (𝑖, 𝑡), as shown in Equation (19):
Pnew
netdemand
(i, t) = Pold
netdemand
(i, t) + Punit
sharing
(18)
𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) = 𝑃 (𝑖, 𝑡) + 𝑃 (18)
Pb+(𝑖,
𝑃 (i,𝑡)
t) ≥
≥𝑃 +
Pm,assumed ((𝑖,
i, t)𝑡).
. (19)
(19)
,

After calculating the

After calculating thenew
newoperation
operationcostcost
of of
allall
MGs MGsfor for all possible
all possible scenarios,
scenarios, the deviation
the deviation from
from
the base operation cost will be calculated. Then, one-to-one symmetrical pairing between between
the base operation cost will be calculated. Then, one-to-one symmetrical pairing the
the sending-
sending-power
power MG andMG theand the receiving-power
receiving-power MG isMG is implemented.
implemented. If theIf the number
number of of
MGsMGsisisNN and
and the
the
scheduling time horizon is T, there exist N × ( N − 1 ) × T power sharing pairs. If the
scheduling time horizon is T, there exist 𝑵 × (𝑵 − 𝟏) × 𝑻 power sharing pairs. If the cost reduction cost reduction of a
receiving-power MG is greater than the cost increase of the sending-power
of a receiving-power MG is greater than the cost increase of the sending-power MG, the total MG, the total operation
cost of MGs
operation canofbeMGs
cost decreased. In each calculation
can be decreased. iteration, the
In each calculation sharing the
iteration, pairsharing
that reduces the cost
pair that the
reduces
most will be selected. Since the amounts of sending and receiving power are exactly
the cost the most will be selected. Since the amounts of sending and receiving power are exactly the the same as the
unit
sameamount, balance
as the unit between
amount, the between
balance two is always ensured.
the two is alwaysFigure 3 illustrates
ensured. Figurethe process employed
3 illustrates the processto
select the best power sharing pair in each iteration.
employed to select the best power sharing pair in each iteration.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
The process
process employed to select
employed to select the
the best
best power
power sharing
sharing pair
pair in
in each
each iteration.
iteration.

The net demand of the selected MGs and time are updated as follows:
𝑃 (𝑖 ,𝑡 )=𝑃 (𝑖 ,𝑡 )+𝑃 (20)
𝑃 (𝑖 ,𝑡 )=𝑃 (𝑖 ,𝑡 )−𝑃 , (21)
where, 𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒅 and 𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆 are the selected sending and receiving MG indices, respectively, and 𝒕𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 9 of 20

The net demand of the selected MGs and time are updated as follows:

Pnetdemand (isend , tshare ) = Pnetdemand (isend , tshare ) + Punit

sharing
(20)

Pnetdemand (ireceive , tshare ) = Pnetdemand (ireceive , tshare ) − Punit

sharing
, (21)

where, isend and ireceive are the selected sending and receiving MG indices, respectively, and tshare is
the time index of the selected sharing pair. In the next iteration, the ESS schedule and operating
cost of the two MGs selected are recalculated with the updated net demand, and the best
power sharing pair is then selected. This assumption-selection-update process is repeated until
any sharing pair can no longer reduce the cost, and the whole process is summarized in the Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: Proposed power sharing algorithm for multi-microgrids

Iter=1;
Collect the system information from the local MGEMS.
Implement self-ESS scheduling as Equation (1), and record the base operation cost of each MG.
Repeat
Assume that MG i receives power from other MGs as Equations (16) and (17), solve the problem as Equation
(1), and record the decreased operation cost.
Assume that MG i sends power to other MGs as Equations (18) and (19), solve the problem as Equation (1), and
record the increased operation cost.
Implement one-to-one symmetrical pairing between any two MGs.
Select the best pair and update the net demand
 as Equations (20)
 and (21). 
Update the power sharing schedule Pm isend/receive , tshare = Pm isend/receive , tshare ± Punit
sharing
.
Iter=Iter+1
Until no power sharing pair can reduce the total operation cost any more.
Return Power sharing schedule Pm

If the MG aggregator has detailed operational information for all MGs participating in power
sharing, the above-mentioned process may be performed by the MG aggregator. The proposed
method can also be implemented in a distributed manner, since individual MGs do not require any
information from other MGs to recalculate their operating costs assuming power sharing. In this
distributed approach, the MG aggregator only collects increases and decreases in operating costs from
individual MGs. When the optimal sharing pair is selected by the MG aggregator, only the selected
MGs recalculate the operating costs using the updated net demand. Since only the operating costs of
the two selected MGs need to be recalculated at each iteration, the computation time will not increase
drastically, even if the number of MGs participating in power sharing increases.

2.3. TOU Price Conditions for Power Sharing for Energy Cost Saving Purposes
There are two main cases where power sharing between MGs can occur. The first case is when the
load of a certain MG is expected to exceed the contract demand. Since the penalty cost is generally
much larger than the TOU price, it is clear that, in this case, the power sharing between MGs can
reduce the overall operating cost. The second case is when the TOU prices of MGs are different, so that
the energy cost can be reduced through power sharing. However, power sharing for this purpose
cannot easily occur, unless the TOU difference between the sending and receiving MGs is large enough.
Considering the losses during the charge/discharge process, the MG that sends power to another MG
should charge its ESS at another time, and the required charging energy is as follows:

1
P− (i , t ) =
b send char
P+ (i , t ). (22)
ηd ·ηc m send share
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 10 of 20

In addition, the wear cost for using ESS should also be considered. From the definition in
Equation (1), the wear cost for sending 1kWh of energy (Costinc,ESS ) can be calculated as follows:

1/ηd Bprice
Costinc,ESS = · . (23)
Bcapacity ·(SOCmax − SOCmin ) Bcycle

Therefore, power sharing for energy cost saving purposes can occur when the TOU price of the
receiving MG (TOUR ) is higher than that of the sending MG (TOUS ) by enough to compensate for the
charging cost and the battery wear cost, as follows:

1
TOUR (tshare ) > TOUS (tchar )· + Costinc,ESS . (24)
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW ηd ·ηc 10 of 20

3.
3. Simulation
Simulation Results
Results and
and Discussions
Discussions

3.1.
3.1. Simulation
Simulation Setup
Setup and
and Scenario
Scenario
To
Todemonstrate
demonstratethe the effectiveness
effectivenessof ofpower
powersharing
sharingbetween
between MGs,
MGs, andand to
to verify
verify the
the performance
performance
of
of the proposed power sharing scheduling method, the 5-MG system is considered. The 5-MG
the proposed power sharing scheduling method, the 5-MG system is considered. The 5-MG system
system
adopts
adopts the same power sharing structure described in Figure 1, where the net flow of the MGs is
the same power sharing structure described in Figure 1, where the net flow of the MGs is
measured
measured by smart meters.
by smart meters. ItItis isassumed
assumed that
that each
each microgrid
microgrid hashas
oneoneESSESSandand
a PVa generator.
PV generator.For
For simplicity
simplicity of analysis,
of analysis, thethe size
size of ofthethe
PVPV generator
generator is isassumed
assumedtotobebesmall
smallenough
enough not
not to
to result
result in
in aa
reverse
reverse power
power flow.
flow. In
In other
other words,
words, the the power
power from
from the
the PV PV generator
generator is is assumed
assumed to to be
be consumed
consumed by by
the
the local load in each MG. Figure 4 shows the net demand of five MGs, whose values are
local load in each MG. Figure 4 shows the net demand of five MGs, whose values are based
based onon
the
the actual
actual measurements
measurements of of campus
campus buildings,
buildings, with
with slight
slight modification
modification for for the
the simulation
simulation purpose.
purpose.
Table 2 summarizes the contract demand value and the parameters
Table 2 summarizes the contract demand value and the parameters of the ESS. of the ESS.

350
300
Net demand (kW)

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Net
Net demands
demands of
of the
the microgrids
microgrids (MGs).
(MGs).

Figure 5 shows the TOU price ofTable 2. Simulation

the MGs conditions.
in Korean Won (KRW) per kWh, which is based on the
electricity rate applied to educational customers in Korea [17]. We deliberately adjusted the TOU rate of
Parameter MG 1 MG 2 MG 3 MG 4 MG 5
MG 5 at 3:00 so that it was higher than the actual value, so that power sharing for energy cost savings
𝑃 (kW) 400 200 200 500 400
could occur. If the TOU of MG 5 is high enough, MGs 1 or 4 that have a large ESS may send power
𝐵 (kWh) 500 50 50 500 250
to MG 5 to reduce the overall energy cost. Assuming that MG 1 or 4 charges its ESS at off-peak hours,
𝑃 (kW) 500 50 50 500 250
the minimum value of the TOU of MG 5 at 3:00 required for this power sharing to occur can be calculated
𝐵 (KRW) 30,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000
as shown in Equation (25). Therefore, in this simulation, the TOU of MG 5 at 3:00 was set to 80.
𝐵 3250 3250 3250 3250 3250
𝐶  (KRW)  6090 16090 6090
1/0.95 6090 6090
30, 000, 000
TOUMG5 tsharing = 3 > 49.8 × + × = 79.5 (25)
𝑆𝑂𝐶 (%) 90 0.95 × 80
0.95 500 ×80(0.9 − 0.1) 90 3250 90
𝑆𝑂𝐶 (%) 10 20 20 10 10
𝑆𝑂𝐶 (%) 50 50 50 50 50
𝑆𝑂𝐶 (%) 50 50 50 50 50
𝜂 (p.u.) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
𝜂 (p.u.) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 11 of 20

Table 2. Simulation conditions.

Parameter MG 1 MG 2 MG 3 MG 4 MG 5
Pcontract
400
demand
(kW) 200 200 500 400
Bcapacity (kWh)
500 50 50 500 250
Pmax
500
b
(kW) 50 50 500 250
Bprice (KRW)
30,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000
Bcycle 3250 3250 3250 3250 3250
Cpenalty (KRW) 6090 6090 6090 6090 6090
SOCmax (%) 90 80 80 90 90
SOCmin (%) 10 20 20 10 10
SOCinit (%) 50 50 50 50 50
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
SOCtarget (%) 50 50 50 50 50 11 of 20
ηd (p.u.) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
ηc (p.u.) 𝑇𝑂𝑈 𝑡0.95 0.95×
= 3 > 49.8
⁄ .
+ 0.95 ×
, ,
0.95 = 79.5 0.95 11(25)
of 20
. × . ×( . . ) ,

⁄ . , ,
𝑇𝑂𝑈 𝑡 = 3 > 49.8 ×
. × .
+
×( . . )
×
,
= 79.5 (25)
90
price (KRW/kWh)

80
70
90
TOU(KRW/kWh)

60
80
50
70
40
60
30
50
TOU price

20
40
10
30
0
20
10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 Time (hour)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOU
8 9of MGs 1~4 12 13
10 11 TOU14of MG 5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
15 16
Time (hour)
Figure
Figure 5. 5.
The TOU
Thetime
time ofuse
of
of MGs
use 1~4 prices
(TOU)
(TOU) TOUof
pricesof MG
the
of 5 MGs.
MGs.
the

3.2. MG
3.2.Operation without
MG Operation Power
without Sharing
Power Sharing
Figure 5. The time of use (TOU) prices of the MGs.

First, First, the operational

theOperation
operational results accordingto
results to the
the optimal
optimalschedule of of
thethe
individual MG will
MGbe
3.2. MG without Power according
Sharing schedule individual will be
described, without considering power sharing among MGs.
described, without considering power sharing among MGs. In other words, the ESS in eachIn other words, the ESS in each MG isMG is
First, the
scheduled operational
by only consideringresults according
its own to the
operating optimal
cost. Figureschedule
6 showsof thethe individual
optimal MG will for
ESS schedule be
scheduled by only considering its own operating cost. Figure 6 shows the optimal ESS schedule for
described,
the five MGs, without
whileconsidering
Figure 7 shows powerthe sharing
net flowamong MGs.
of each MG In considering
other words,the theESS
ESSoperation.
in each MG It is
the five MGs, that
scheduled
observed
while
by MGs
onlyFigure 7 shows
considering
1,
the
its own
4, and 5, which have
net flow cost.
operating of battery
a sufficient
each MG
Figure considering
6 shows
capacity, thereduce
can
the
optimal ESS
theESS
operation.
schedule
operating for It is
costs
observed
by that MGs
the discharging
five MGs, while 1, 4,
during and
Figure 5,
high 7TOUwhich
shows have
andthe a sufficient
net load
high flowperiods, battery
of each and capacity,
MG charging
considering can
the ESS
during reduce the
lowoperation. operating
It is
TOU periods.
costs by discharging
observed
However, that
for MGs during
1,
2 4, high
and
and TOU
3,5,the net and
which flow high
have aexceedsload
sufficienttheperiods,
battery and charging
capacity,
contract demand,caneven
reduceduring lowESSTOU
the operating
though the periods.
costs
fully
by discharging
However, for MGs
discharges at the2during
peak 3,high
and load, TOU
theduenet andcapacity
to flow
the high load
exceeds periods, and charging
the contract
limitation. demand,
Therefore, during
without even low
power TOU the
though
sharing,periods.
ESS
MGs 2 fully
However,
and
discharges 3 at theforpeak
would beMGs 2 and
subject
load, 3, the
todue
large net capacity
flow exceeds
topenalties.
the the contract
limitation. demand,without
Therefore, even though
power thesharing,
ESS fullyMGs 2
discharges at the peak load, due to the capacity limitation. Therefore, without power sharing, MGs 2
and 3 would be subject to large penalties.
and 3250
would be subject to large penalties.
200
250
(kW) (kW)

150
200
ESS schedule

100
150
50
ESS schedule

100
0
50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-50
0
-100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-50 Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5
-100
Time (hour)
Figure 6. Optimal energy storage MG1
systemMG2
(ESS) scheduling
MG3 MG4 of each
MG5MG under a single operation.

Figure 6. Optimal energy storage system (ESS) scheduling of each MG under a single operation.
Figure 6. Optimal energy storage system (ESS) scheduling of each MG under a single operation.
 Energies
Energies 2020,
2020, 13,13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1605 1212
ofof
2020
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

300
300
250
(kW)

250
200
(kW)

200
flowflow

150
150
NetNet

100
100
50
50
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Time
11 (hour)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
MG1 MG2 Time (hour) MG4
MG3 MG5
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5

Figure 7. Net flows of the five MGs with the self-ESS-scheduling.

Figure 7. 7.Net
Figure Netflows
flowsofofthe
thefive MGs
five with
MGs the
with self-ESS-scheduling.
the self-ESS-scheduling.
3.3. MMG Operation Considering Power Sharing among MGs
3.3. MMG Operation Considering Power Sharing among MGs
3.3. MMG Operation Considering Power Sharing among MGs
This section describes the ESS scheduling considering the power sharing between MGs, and
This section describes the ESS scheduling considering the power sharing between MGs, and shows
shows the section
This corresponding
describes operation
the ESS results.
scheduling Figure 8 shows the
considering power
the power sharing
sharingschedule
between forMGs,
five MGs
and
the corresponding operation results. Figure 8 shows the power sharing schedule for five MGs
shows the corresponding
determined by the proposed operation
method, results.
where Figure
the unit8 shows
amount the
(𝑃 power
unit
determined by the proposed method, where the unit amount (Psharing ) was chosen to be 20 kWh. ) sharing
was schedule
chosen to be forkWh.
20 five MGs
The
determined
positive
The positive by in
value
valuethein proposed
thethefigure method,
figureindicates
indicates where
the the unitpower,
thesending
sending amountwhile
power, (𝑃 the
while the )negative
was chosen
negative to represents
value
value be 20 kWh.the
represents The
the
receiving
receiving power.
positivepower.
value AsAs
in the expected,
figure MGs
expected, MGs
indicates 2 and
2 and the 3sending
3 will will receive
receive power,power
power fromfrom
while theother
other MGsMGs
negative during
value
during hours
whenwhen
represents
hours the
the
the
net net exceeds
receiving
flow flow exceeds
power. theAs the
contract contract
expected, MGs
demand demand2 and(between
(between 3 will
17:00 17:00
receive
and and 20:00).
power
20:00). from
MGs 2MGs
other
and 32 can
and
MGs 3 during
can penalties
avoid avoid penalties
hours when
with
with
thehelp
the the
net of help
flow ofMGs,
exceeds
other otherthe MGs, resulting
contract
resulting indemand in(between
a reduction a reduction
in the17:00inand
the
overall overallMGs
20:00).
operating operating
cost2of the3cost
and can of
MGs. the
avoid
In MGs. In
penalties
addition,
weaddition,
with
can the we can
help
observe of observe
the other
schedule the
MGs, inschedule
resulting
which MG in
in5which MGpower
areceives
reduction 5 receives
in the
from power
overall 1from
and 4MGs
MGs operating 1 and
cost
at 3:00. As4the
of at MGs.
3:00. As
described In
described
addition, above,
we can the TOU
observe of
the MG 5
scheduleat 3:00
in was
which set very
MG 5 high, compared
receives power
above, the TOU of MG 5 at 3:00 was set very high, compared to the other MGs. Therefore, this power to
from the other
MGs 1 MGs.
and 4 Therefore,
at 3:00. As
this
sharingpower
described
is moresharing
above, is more
the TOU of
advantageous advantageous
inMG
terms5 atof3:00
theinwas
terms
setof
overall thehigh,
very overall
operating operating
compared
cost than MG tocost
5the than
otherMG
purchasing MGs. 5 purchasing
powerTherefore,
from
power
this
the from
power
utility the utility
or sharing
using itsisownor using
more its own
advantageous
ESS, even ESS,in even
considering terms considering theoperating
ofcharge/discharge
the the overall charge/discharge
loss,cost the loss,
andthan MG and
wear 5cost the
of wear
purchasing
the
cost
power of the
from ESSs
the
ESSs of MGs 1 and 4. of MGs
utility 1
or and
using 4.its own ESS, even considering the charge/discharge loss, and the wear
cost of the ESSs of MGs 1 and 4.

200
200
(kWh)

150
(kWh)

150
100
schedule

100
50
schedule

50
0
sharing

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-500
sharing

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-50
-100
Power

-100
Power

-150
-150
-200
Time (hour)
-200
MG1 MG2 Time
MG3(hour)
MG4 MG5
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5
Figure8.8.Power
Figure Powersharing
sharingschedule
scheduledetermined
determinedbybythe
theproposed
proposedmethod.
method.
Figure 8. Power sharing schedule determined by the proposed method.
Once
Oncethethepower
power sharing
sharingschedule
schedule is determined,
is determined, thethe
EMSEMSof each MGMG
of each recalculates the schedule
recalculates the schedule of
the
of ESS accordingly.
theOnce
ESS accordingly.
the power Figure
sharing9 shows
Figure thethe
9 shows
schedule ESS
is operation
ESS schedule
operation
determined, theschedule
EMS of ofeach
thethe
of MGs
MGMGs considering
considering
recalculates the
thethepower
power
schedule
sharing.
sharing. In
of the ESS the case of
Inaccordingly. MG
the case of MG 1, which
1, which
Figure sends
9 showssends the most power
the operation
the ESS most power to other
to other
schedule MGs,
of MGs, the
the MGs discharge
theconsidering schedule
discharge schedule
the powerisis
shifted
shiftedfrom
sharing.from its highest
its case
In the highest TOU period
TOU1,period
of MG of
which of 13:00–16:00
13:00–16:00
sends to
the most 17:00–20:00,
to power
17:00–20:00, when
when
to other MGs
MGs,MGs 2 and 3 require
the2 discharge
and 3 require power.
power.
schedule is
The
TheESSs
ESSs
shifted in MGs
in MGs
from 2 and 3 do
2 and 3TOU
its highest not
do not discharge,
discharge,
period even at their
even at their
of 13:00–16:00 peak load, since
peak load, when
to 17:00–20:00, they
since they can
MGscan receive
receive
2 and power
power
3 require from
from
power.
The ESSs in MGs 2 and 3 do not discharge, even at their peak load, since they can receive power from
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 13 of 20
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
other MGs. It can also be seen that, at 3:00, the ESSs in MGs 1 and 4 discharge to send the power to MG
other MGs. It can also be seen that, at 3:00, the ESSs in MGs 1 and 4 discharge to send the power to
5, other
so thatMGs.
the discharge
alsoofbe
the ESSthat,
in MG 5 decreases accordingly.
MG 5, so thatItthe
candischarge seen
of the ESSatin3:00,
MGthe ESSs in MGs
5 decreases 1 and 4 discharge to send the power to
accordingly.
MG 5, so that the discharge of the ESS in MG 5 decreases accordingly.

300
300
250
250
ESS schedule (kW)

200
ESS schedule (kW)

200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-50
-50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-100
-100 Time (hour)
Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5

Figure 9. ESS scheduling considering the power sharing scheduling.

Figure ESS
9. 9.
Figure scheduling
ESS considering
scheduling thethe
considering power sharing
power scheduling.
sharing scheduling.
Figure10
Figure 10shows
showsthe theequivalent
equivalentnet netflow
flowofofeach
eachMG MGdefined
definedby byEquation
Equation(10), (10),which
whichisisused
usedinin
Figure 10bill shows the equivalent net flow of each MGItdefined by Equation (10), which is MGs
used in
the electricity bill calculation considering power sharing. It can be seen that the net flows of MGs 22
the electricity calculation considering power sharing. can be seen that the net flows of
the electricity
and33arearekept bill
keptbelow calculation
belowthe thecontract considering
contractdemand power
demandatatall sharing.
alltimes.
times.Table It can be
Table33compares seen
comparesthe that the
theoperating net flows
operatingcost of MGs
MGs2
costofofMGs
and
and and
with 3 arewithout
kept below the contract
considering power demand at all
sharing. Thetimes. Tablecosts
operating 3 comparesMGsthe
ofMGs operating cost of MGs
with and without considering power sharing. The operating costs of 22and
and 33were
weredrastically
drastically
with and
decreasedafter without
afterpower considering
power sharing, power
sharing, because, sharing.
because, with The operating costs of MGs 2 and 3 were drastically
decreased with the
the help
helpofofother
otherMGs,MGs,thethepenalty
penaltycould couldbebe avoided.
avoided. In
decreased after power sharing, because, with the help of other MGs, the penalty could be avoided.wasIn
Inthe case
the caseofofMGMG 5, 5,
which
which received
received power
power from other
from otherMGsMGsat its high
at its TOU
high TOUtime, the the
time, operating
operatingcostcost
the case
slightly of MG
reduced. 5, which
In contrast,received power
the operating from other
costscosts MGs
of MGs at its
1 and high TOU
4 increased, time, the
because operating
theirtheir cost
ESSsESSs was
were
was slightly reduced. In contrast, the operating of MGs 1 and 4 increased, because
slightly
usedused reduced.
to send In
the power contrast,
to other the operating
MGs,MGs, instead costs of
of reducingMGs 1 and
theirtheir4 increased,
ownowndemand because
during their ESSs
the highest were
TOU
were to send the power to other instead of reducing demand during the highest
used
period. to send
However, the power to other
it is important MGs,
to note instead of
that that reducing
through their
power own
sharing, demand
the total during the
operating highest TOU
costscosts
were
TOU period. However, it is important to note through power sharing, the total operating
period.
reduced However,
by about it is
38.7%. important
These to
profitsnote that
of power through
sharing power
should sharing,
be be the
distributedtotal operating
to to
MGs costs
according were
were reduced by about 38.7%. These profits of power sharing should distributed MGs accordingto
reduced
their by about 38.7%.
contributions. In other These
words, profits
the of powerMGs
receiving sharing should
should be distributed
compensate the to MGs
sending MGsaccording to
for their
to their contributions. In other words, the receiving MGs should compensate the sending MGs for
their contributions.
sharing. There are manyIn other
wayswords, the receiving
of distributing profits,MGsbutshould
this compensate thethesending MGs for their
their sharing. There are many ways of distributing profits, butmatter is beyond
this matter is beyond scope of
the scopethisof
paper,
this
sharing.
and will There are many ways of distributing profits, but this matter is beyond the scope of this paper,
paper, andnot benot
will discussed
be discussedhere. here.
and will not be discussed here.
300
300
250
250
Net flow (kW)

200
Net flow (kW)

200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(hour)
Time 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
MG1 MG2 Time
MG3(hour) MG4 MG5
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5
Figure 10. Equivalent net flow of the MGs for the electricity bill calculation considering power
Figure
10.10.
sharing.
Figure Equivalent
Equivalent net flow
net flow of theofMGs
the for
MGsthe for the electricity
electricity bill calculation
bill calculation considering
considering power
power sharing.
sharing.
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 14 of 20
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

Table Operating
3. 3.
Table costs
Operating ofof
costs the MGs
the with
MGs and
with without
and considering
without power
considering sharing.
power sharing.
Operating
Operating CostCost (KRW)
(KRW)
MG IndexMG Index
WithoutPower
Without Power Sharing With Power
Sharing With Sharing
Power Sharing
MG 1 MG 1 261,489.5
261,489.5 303,422.3
303,422.3
MG 2 MG 2 723,415.0
723,415.0 272,469.2
272,469.2
MG 3 MG 3 788,480.5
788,480.5 275,884.3
275,884.3
MG 4 319,145.2 325,318.0
MG 4 319,145.2 325,318.0
MG 5 301,811.8 291,757.4
Total MG 5 301,811.8
2,394,342.0 291,757.4
1,468,851.2
Total 2,394,342.0 1,468,851.2

For the utility that supplies electricity to the MGs, power sharing may seem to have no direct benefit;
For the utility that supplies electricity to the MGs, power sharing may seem to have no direct
rather, power sharing between MGs may reduce the sales revenue of the utility. However, power sharing
benefit; rather, power sharing between MGs may reduce the sales revenue of the utility. However,
can help the utility in other ways, by reducing peak loads and flattening load profiles. This allows
power sharing can help the utility in other ways, by reducing peak loads and flattening load profiles.
utilities to defer the construction of transmission and distribution facilities, and avoid the use of
This allows utilities to defer the construction of transmission and distribution facilities, and avoid the
expensive generators.
use of expensive generators.
Figure 11 shows the total power supplied by the utility to the five MGs. First, the peak net demand
Figure 11 shows the total power supplied by the utility to the five MGs. First, the peak net
of the day was 1223 kW at 18:00, assuming that the ESSs were not operating. Next, when the ESSs were
demand of the day was 1223 kW at 18:00, assuming that the ESSs were not operating. Next, when the
operated without considering power sharing, the net demands of 14:00–16:00 were greatly reduced,
ESSs were operated without considering power sharing, the net demands of 14:00–16:00 were greatly
but the peak demand supplied by the utility was still high, being 1166kW at 18:00. This is because,
reduced, but the peak demand supplied by the utility was still high, being 1166kW at 18:00. This is
as explained earlier, the ESS in one MG is not operated, to help reduce the demand of the other MGs.
because, as explained earlier, the ESS in one MG is not operated, to help reduce the demand of the
Finally, when power sharing between MGs was conducted, the net demand at 18:00 was lowered
other MGs. Finally, when power sharing between MGs was conducted, the net demand at 18:00 was
to about 1003 kW. However, in order to discharge the ESS at the peak load hours of MGs 2 and 3,
lowered to about 1003 kW. However, in order to discharge the ESS at the peak load hours of MGs 2
the charges of the ESSs of MGs 1, 4, and 5 at different times were increased, so the maximum demand
and 3, the charges of the ESSs of MGs 1, 4, and 5 at different times were increased, so the maximum
of the day was about 1058 kW at 7:00. In summary, power sharing between MGs could reduce the
demand of the day was about 1058 kW at 7:00. In summary, power sharing between MGs could
peak demand from the utility perspective by about 9.3 %. Although the quantitative effect of peak
reduce the peak demand from the utility perspective by about 9.3 %. Although the quantitative effect
demand reduction may vary with various conditions, such as load patterns, TOU, and ESS capacities,
of peak demand reduction may vary with various conditions, such as load patterns, TOU, and ESS
the simulation results show that power sharing benefits utilities, as well as the MGs.
capacities, the simulation results show that power sharing benefits utilities, as well as the MGs.

1400
Total power from utility (kW)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time (hour)
Without ESS operation ESS operation without power sharing ESS operation with power sharing

Figure
Figure 11.11.Total
Total electricity
electricity supplied
supplied byby the
the utility
utility according
according toto the
the different
different MGMG operation
operation schemes.
schemes.

3.4.
3.4.Comparison
ComparisonofofCentralized
CentralizedOptimization
Optimizationand thethe
and Proposed Power
Proposed Sharing
Power Scheduling
Sharing Method
Scheduling Method
Table
Table4 4compares
comparesthetheresults
resultsof ofthethetwo
twopower
powersharing
sharingscheduling
schedulingmethods—centralized
methods—centralized
optimization
optimizationandandthe
the proposed method—in terms
proposed method—in termsofofthe
thetotal
total operating
operating costcost
andand computation
computation time.
time. With the proposed method, the overall operating cost increased slightly, compared
With the proposed method, the overall operating cost increased slightly, compared to the centralized to the
centralized optimization-based
optimization-based solution.
solution. This This isthe
is because because
powerthe powerschedule
sharing sharing schedule of the proposed
of the proposed method is
method
based is
onbased on multiples
multiples of the
of the unit unit amount.
amount. However, However, the difference
the difference in operating
in operating costs between
costs between the two
methods was only about 1%. This cost difference is acceptable enough, considering the large
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 15 of 20

the two 2020,

Energies methods was
13, x FOR only
PEER about 1%. This cost difference is acceptable enough, considering15the
REVIEW of 20
large reduction in the computation time. In this 5-MG scenario, the computation time of centralized
reduction inwas
optimization thenearly
computation time.
2 h, while withInthethis 5-MG scenario,
proposed method, itthe
wascomputation time
only about 2.4 min.of centralized
optimization was nearly 2 h, while with the proposed method, it was only about 2.4 min.
Table 4. Performance comparison of the two power sharing methods.
Table 4. Performance comparison of the two power sharing methods.
Parameter Centralized Optimization Proposed Method
Parameter Centralized Optimization Proposed Method
Total operating cost (KRW) 1,453,907.2 1,468,851.2
Total operating
Computation time (s)cost (KRW) 1,453,907.2
7180.3 1,468,851.2
205.6
Computation time (s) 7180.3 205.6

In order to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in reducing the calculation
In order to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in reducing the calculation
burden, simulations were conducted based on various scenarios with different numbers of MGs from
burden, simulations were conducted based on various scenarios with different numbers of MGs from
two to ten. The computation time depends not only on the number of MGs, but also on the complexity
two to ten. The computation time depends not only on the number of MGs, but also on the complexity
of the input data, such as the load pattern and TOU of the MGs. Therefore, we carefully selected the
of the input data, such as the load pattern and TOU of the MGs. Therefore, we carefully selected the
input data to avoid a loss of generality, and Figure 12 shows the representative simulation results.
input data to avoid a loss of generality, and Figure 12 shows the representative simulation results.
Considering the practical applicability, we set the simulation to terminate when the computation time
Considering the practical applicability, we set the simulation to terminate when the computation time
exceeded three hours. When the number of MGs was two or three, both methods found a solution
exceeded three hours. When the number of MGs was two or three, both methods found a solution
within 2.5 minutes. However, when the centralized optimization method was used and the number of
within 2.5 minutes. However, when the centralized optimization method was used and the number
MGs was more than four, the computation time increased rapidly. Furthermore, for the cases of more
of MGs was more than four, the computation time increased rapidly. Furthermore, for the cases of
than seven MGs, this method did not even solve the problem within three hours. In contrast, when the
more than seven MGs, this method did not even solve the problem within three hours. In contrast,
proposed method was used, the computation time did not increase significantly, even if the number of
when the proposed method was used, the computation time did not increase significantly, even if the
MGs was increased. For the 10-MG simulation case, the problem could be solved in about 5 min with
number of MGs was increased. For the 10-MG simulation case, the problem could be solved in about
the proposed method. Therefore, in terms of the practical applicability, the proposed method is much
5 min with the proposed method. Therefore, in terms of the practical applicability, the proposed
more useful than centralized optimization.
method is much more useful than centralized optimization.

9052.4
9000
8000 7180.3
Computation time (s)

7000
5680.0
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000 49.5 65.0 145.0 191.0 205.6 211.7 232.5 255.9 275.4 300.7
80.3
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of MGs
Proposed method Centralized optimization

Figure12.
Figure 12.Computation
Computationtime
timeofofthe
thetwo
twopower
powersharing
sharingscheduling
schedulingmethods
methodsaccording
accordingtotothe
thenumber
number
of MGs.
of MGs.

3.5.
3.5.Effect
EffectofofPower
PowerSharing
Sharingononthe
theSystem
SystemLoss
Loss
IfIfthe
thepower
powerisisexchanged
exchangedvia
viathe
theutility
utilitydistribution
distributionnetwork,
network,ititmay
mayincrease
increasethe
thesystem
systemloss.
loss.
Therefore,
Therefore,thetheeffect
effectofofESS
ESSoperation
operationand
andpower
powersharing
sharingononthe
thepower
powerloss
lossofofthe
thesystem
systemisisanalyzed.
analyzed.
InInthis
thisstudy,
study,a asimplified
simplifiedKron’s loss
Kron’s lossformula
formula is is
used, asas
used, follows
follows[18]:
[18]:

𝑃 , (𝑡) =NX ∑
MG 𝛼𝑃 , (𝑡), (26)
Ploss,sys (t) = αi P2net f low, i (t), (26)
where, 𝑃 , (𝑡) is the system total loss at time t, 𝛼 is a loss coefficient of MG i, and 𝑃 , (𝑡)
i=1
is the net flow at the PCC of MG i at time t. Firstly, we define the base value of the loss coefficient (𝛼 )
that satisfies the following equation:

𝑃 , =𝛼 𝑃 , , (27)
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 16 of 20

where, Ploss,sys (t) is the system total loss at time t, αi is a loss coefficient of MG i, and Pnet f low,i (t) is the
net flow at the PCC of MG i at time t. Firstly, we define the base value of the loss coefficient (αb ) that
satisfies the following equation:
 2
avg avg
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW P loss,sys
= α P
b net f low,sys , (27)
16 of 20

avg avg
where,
where, 𝑃 ,is the
Ploss,sys is average system
the average loss of
system a day
loss dayPand
of aand 𝑃
net f low,sys
is the
,
average value ofvalue
is the average the sum of net
of the sum
avg
of net
flows flows
of all MGs.of all MGs.
If the If theaverage
system systemloss
average
is l% loss
of the 𝑙% of the
is system system
average netaverage netf low,sys
flow (Pnet flow ),(𝑃αb can be
, ),
𝛼 can be
calculated calculated
from Equationsfrom Equations
(26) and (27) (26) and (27) as follows:
as follows:

𝛼 =𝑁 l . (28)
αb = NMG avg , . (28)
100Pnet f low,sys
When 𝑙 = 5%, 𝛼 was determined to be 0.00025 for the 5-MG system. Since the contribution of
each
When l = 5%, αb was determined to be 0.00025 forincluding
MG to the system loss depends on many factors, the 5-MGthe location
system. and the
Since linecontribution
resistance, we
of considered
each MG tothree different
the system cases,
loss as summarized
depends in Table
on many factors, 5. In case
including the1,location
it was assumed
and line that all MGs
resistance,
have the same loss coefficient value. In case 2, MGs 1 and 4, which send power to
we considered three different cases, as summarized in Table 5. In case 1, it was assumed that all MGsother MGs, have
higher
have coefficient
the same values, while
loss coefficient MGs
value. 2, 3, 2,
In case andMGs 5, which
1 and 4,receive
whichpower, have to
send power lower
othervalues. Case 3
MGs, have
assumes the opposite situation.
higher coefficient values, while MGs 2, 3, and 5, which receive power, have lower values. Case 3
assumes the opposite situation.
Table 5. Three analysis cases with different loss coefficient values.
Table 5. Three analysis cases with different loss coefficient values.
Loss Coefficient (𝜶𝒊 )
Case No.
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4
Loss Coefficient (αi ) MG5
Case No.
case 1
MG1 𝛼 MG2 𝛼 𝛼
MG3 𝛼 MG4𝛼 MG5
case 1 case
αb 2 1.6𝛼 αb 0.6𝛼 0.6𝛼
αb 1.6𝛼 α0.6𝛼b αb
case 2 caseb 3
1.6α 0.4𝛼0.6αb 1.4𝛼 1.4𝛼
0.6αb 0.4𝛼 1.6α 1.4𝛼
b 0.6αb
case 3 0.4αb 1.4αb 1.4αb 0.4αb 1.4αb
Figure 13 summarizes the total system loss for the three cases according to three different
operation
Figure 13scenarios.
summarizes It wastheobserved thatloss
total system the for
lossthe
was increased
three when thetoESSs
cases according threewere used,operation
different regardless
scenarios. It was observed that the loss was increased when the ESSs were used, regardless of whetherthe
of whether or not power was shared, in all three cases. Therefore, it cannot be said that utilizing
orESS
not for power
power wassharing
shared, increases the loss
in all three more
cases. than the use
Therefore, of the ESS
it cannot for other
be said purposes.the
that utilizing TheESS
increase
for
in loss
power is mainly
sharing due to the
increases the efficiency
loss morelossthan ofthe
the use
ESS of
during the for
the ESS charge
otherand dischargeThe
purposes. process. In other
increase in
words, since the charging energy is greater than the discharging energy, as presented
loss is mainly due to the efficiency loss of the ESS during the charge and discharge process. In other in Equation
(22), operating
words, the ESS increases
since the charging energy is the totalthan
greater net flow of an MG and
the discharging thusasincreases
energy, presentedtheinloss. In the(22),
Equation three
cases, the
operating theincrease in lossthe
ESS increases after power
total sharing
net flow of anwas
MG0.22%, 0.31%,
and thus and 0.12%,
increases respectively.
the loss. In the threeThe loss
cases,
theincreased
increase intheloss
most
afterinpower
case 2, in which
sharing the MGs
was 0.22%, sending
0.31%, powerrespectively.
and 0.12%, to other MGs The had higher loss
loss increased
thecoefficient
most in casevalues.
2, in which the MGs sending power to other MGs had higher loss coefficient values.

5.70

5.50 5.46 5.43

5.37
5.32 5.29
Total loss (%)

5.30 5.21
5.11 5.12 5.09
5.10

4.90

4.70

4.50
case1 case2 case3
Without ESS operation ESS operation without power sharing ESS operation with power sharing

Figure Total
13.13.
Figure system
Total loss
system according
loss to to
according thethe
loss coefficient
loss values
coefficient and
values ESS
and operation
ESS scenarios.
operation scenarios.

3.6. Effect of System Loss on the Power Sharing Schedule

This section discusses how power sharing schedules are affected when the loss is considered in
calculating the operating cost of MGs. If the cost of system loss is included, the objective function is
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 17 of 20

3.6. Effect of System Loss on the Power Sharing Schedule

This section discusses how power sharing schedules are affected when the loss is considered in
calculating the operating cost of MGs. If the cost of system loss is included, the objective function is
modified as follows:
N
 
X MG  T
X 
2
α
 
minCT = C + C ( t ) P ( t ) , (29)


 MG,i loss i net f low, i 

 
i=1 t=1

where, Closs (t) is the price of the loss at time t, and it is assumed that the price is the same as the TOU
rate of MGs 1–4. To analyze the effect of loss, three cases with different average system loss values
(l) were simulated: l = 2%, l = 5%, and l = 15%. In this part, the loss coefficient of case 2 in Table 5
was used because the increase in loss due to the ESS operation was the most significant with this
coefficient value.
Table 6 summarizes the operating cost of MGs according to different power sharing schedules.
The original schedule refers to the power sharing schedule without considering the loss cost, i.e.,
the schedule shown in Figure 8. The modified schedule refers to the power sharing schedule calculated
by using the modified objective function, including the loss cost. The total operating cost consists of
two terms, i.e., the cost calculated by Equation (9) and the loss cost. When l = 2%, the first cost term of
the two schedules was the same, but the loss cost was decreased in the modified schedule. In the cases
where l was increased to 5% and 15%, the total cost was reduced by modifying the schedule to further
reduce the loss cost, despite a slight increase in the other cost term.

Table 6. Operating cost of MGs according to different power sharing schedules.

Operating Cost of MGs (KRW)

Average
Loss Original Schedule Modified Schedule
Except Loss Loss Cost Total Except Loss Loss Cost Total
l = 2% 1,468,851.1 31,107.3 1,499,958.5 1,468,851.1 30,545.0 1,499,396.2
l = 5% 1,468,851.1 77,768.4 1,546,619.5 1,469,236.2 75,486.6 1,544,722.7
l = 15% 1,468,851.1 233,305.1 1,702,156.2 1,469,672.5 226,014.6 1,695,687.1

For a more detailed analysis, Figure 14 shows the power sharing schedules determined by taking
into account the loss cost. The impact of loss on the power sharing schedule can be summarized as
follows. First, power exchange to reduce the energy cost decreased as the system average loss increased.
The amount of power from MGs 1 and 4 to MG 5 at 3:00 decreased from 180 kWh to 100 kWh and
40 kWh, respectively, as l increased from 2% to 5% and 15%. This is because the increase in the lost
cost of the sending MGs outweighs the energy cost saving as the amount of power sharing increases.
Second, power exchange may occur to reduce the loss cost, especially when the loss price is high, such
as at 10:00, 11:00, and 13:00–16:00 in this scenario. If an individual MG operator is able to estimate
the loss, these power sharing schedules may already be reflected in determining the ESS operation
schedule. However, if an individual MG operator cannot estimate the loss, a coordinated operation
by the MG aggregator can help individual MGs change the ESS operation schedule to contribute to
reducing loss costs. Third, even if the loss cost is considered, power sharing schedules between 17:00
and 20:00 to reduce the demand charge were almost not changed. This is evident because the penalty
of exceeding the contract demand is much larger than the loss cost savings.
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 18 of 20
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 20

200
Power sharing schedule (kWh)

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-100

-200
Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5

(a)
200
Power sharing schedule (kWh)

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-100

-200
Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5
(b)
200
Power sharing schedule (kWh)

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-100

-200
Time (hour)
MG1 MG2 MG3 MG4 MG5

(c)

Figure 14. Power sharing schedule considering the loss cost: (a) l = 2%, (b) l = 5%, and (c) l = 15%.
Figure 14. Power sharing schedule considering the loss cost: (a) l = 2%, (b) l = 5%, and (c) l = 15%.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a power sharing scheme for multiple microgrids that is advantageous to both MG
ownersInand thisutility
paper,has been proposed.
a power In thisfor
sharing scheme scheme,
multiplethemicrogrids
MG that sends power
that is is forced to reduce
advantageous both MG
itsowners
net flow andbyutility
as much has power as it sends
been proposed. In to
thisother MGs,
scheme, byMG
the discharging
that sendsthe power
power from the
is forced ESS.
to reduce
Two different
its net flow bymethods
as muchfor power
power as sharing
it sends toscheduling,
other MGs,which is performed
by discharging by the from
the power MG aggregator,
the ESS. Two
were formulated.
different methods Firstly, an MILP-based
for power centralizedwhich
sharing scheduling, approach, which isby
is performed anthe
extension of the single
MG aggregator, were
MG ESS scheduling
formulated. Firstly,problem, was presented.
an MILP-based Although
centralized this approach
approach, which is an can provide of
extension thethe
optimal
single power
MG ESS
scheduling
sharing problem,
solution, it waswasfoundpresented.
that the Although
method lacks this practical
approachfeasibility,
can provideduetheto optimal
the largepower sharing
calculation
solution,
burden. To it was found
overcome thisthat the methodalacks
shortcoming, practical feasibility,
new scheduling algorithmdue wastoproposed
the large calculation
by assuming burden.
that
MGsTo share
overcome
power this shortcoming,
in multiples a new
of a unit scheduling
amount. In thisalgorithm
approach,was proposed
the optimal by assuming
power that MGs
sharing schedule
wasshare power inby
determined multiples of afinding
iteratively unit amount.
the bestIntwo
thisMG
approach, theexchange
pairs that optimal power
the unit sharing
amount schedule was
of power.
Thedetermined by iteratively
proposed power sharing finding
scheme andthe best two MG
scheduling pairs that
methods wereexchange
tested forthe
theunit
5-MG amount
systemofwith
power.
a
The proposed
carefully chosen power
scenario.sharing schemeoperating
The overall and scheduling
cost of methods werecould
the five MGs testedbefor the 5-MG
reduced system40%
by about with
a carefully chosen scenario. The overall operating cost of the five MGs could be reduced by about
40% through the power sharing, which represents a huge benefit for the MG owners. Moreover, the
daily peak demand of the MGs was reduced by 9.3% after the power sharing. This proved that the
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 19 of 20

through the power sharing, which represents a huge benefit for the MG owners. Moreover, the daily
peak demand of the MGs was reduced by 9.3% after the power sharing. This proved that the demand
profile of aggregated MGs can be improved by the proposed scheme. The utility can also coordinate
with the MG aggregators to reduce the peak demand of the distribution system if the proposed power
sharing scheme is realized. A comparison of the two power sharing scheduling methods showed that
the proposed iterative pairing-based approach can significantly reduce the calculation time, while the
operating cost was slightly increased by less than 1%. When the MGs exchanged power through the
utility network, power sharing slightly increased the distribution system loss due to the efficiency loss
of the ESS. If the loss was taken into account in calculating the operating cost of MGs, power sharing
schedules were modified to reduce the loss cost.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.-J.A. and J.-H.C.; methodology, H.-C.G. and S.-J.A.; software, H.-C.G.
and S.-Y.Y.; validation, J.-H.C. and S.-Y.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-C.G; writing—review and
editing, S.-J.A.; supervision, S.-J.A.; project administration, J.-H.C. and S.-Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Korea Electric Power Corporation (Grant number: R18XA04) and the
KEPCO Research Institute grant funded by Korea Electric Power Corporation (R16DA11).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, N.; Chi, Y. A Novel Electricity Transaction Mode of Microgrids Based on Blockchain
and Continuous Double Auction. Energies 2017, 10, 1971. [CrossRef]
2. Lin, W.M.; Tu, C.S.; Tsai, M.T. Energy Management Strategy for Microgrids by Using Enhanced Bee Colony
Optimization. Energies 2016, 9, 5. [CrossRef]
3. Plewnia, F. The Energy System and the Sharing Economy: Interfaces and Overlaps and What to Learn from
Them. Energies 2019, 12, 339. [CrossRef]
4. Kalathil, D.; Wu, C.; Poola, K.; Varaiya, P. The Sharing Economy for the Electricity Storage. IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid 2019, 10, 556–567. [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, J.; Zhang, J.; Cai, X.; Shi, G.; Wang, J.; Zang, J. Design and Analysis of Flexible Multi-Microgrid
Interconnection Scheme for Mitigating Power Fluctuation and Optimizing Storage Capacity. Energies
2019, 12, 2132. [CrossRef]
6. Han, Y.; Li, H.; Shen, P.; Coelho, A.A.E.; Guerrero, M.J. Review of Active and Reactive Power Sharing
Strategies in Hierarchical Controlled Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 32, 2427–2451. [CrossRef]
7. Shamsi, P.; Xie, H.Q.; Longe, A.; Joo, J.Y. Economic Dispatch for an Agent-Based Community Microgrid.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 7, 2317–2324. [CrossRef]
8. Kim, B.; Bae, S.H.; Kim, H.S. Optimal Energy Scheduling and Transaction Mechanism for Multiple Microgrids.
Energies 2017, 10, 566.
9. Wang, H.; Huang, J.W. Incentivizing Energy Trading for Interconnected Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
2018, 9, 2647–2657. [CrossRef]
10. Taniguchi, T.; Kawasaki, K.; Fukui, Y.; Takata, T.; Yano, S. Automated Linear Function Submission-Based
Double Auction as Bottom-up Real Time Pricing in a Regional Prosumers’ Electricity Network. Energies
2015, 8, 7381–7406. [CrossRef]
11. Song, N.O.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, H.M.; Im, T.H.; Lee, J.Y. Optimal Energy Management of Multi-Microgrids with
Sequentially Coordinated Operations. Energies 2015, 8, 8371–8390. [CrossRef]
12. Lee, W.P.; Choi, J.Y.; Won, D.J. Coordination Strategy for Optimal Scheduling of Multiple Microgrids Based
on Hierarchical System. Energies 2017, 10, 1336. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, X.; He, H.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Weng, G. Interactive Energy Management for Enhancing Power
Balances in Multi-Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2019, 10, 6055–6069. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, N.; Wang, J. Energy Sharing for Interconnected Microgrids with a Battery Storage System and Renwable
Energy Sources Based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 1605 20 of 20

15. Gao, H.C.; Choi, J.H.; Yun, S.Y.; Lee, H.J.; Ahn, S.J. Optimal Scheduling and Real Time Control Schemes
of Battery Energy Storage System for Microgrids Considering Contract Demand and Forecast Uncertainty.
Energies 2018, 11, 1371. [CrossRef]
16. Gerard, H.; Rivero, E.; Six, D. Basic Schemes for TSO-DSO Coordination and Ancillary Services Provision,
SmartNet Projcet Report. Available online: http://smartnet-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/D1.3_
20161202_V1.0.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
17. Website of KEPCO. Available online: http://cyber.kepco.co.kr/ckepco/front/jsp/CY/E/E/CYEEHP00204.jsp
(accessed on 20 October 2019).
18. Saadat, H. Power System Analysis, 2nd ed.; Mc Graw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).