Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 38 references

The Welfare Gap of Strategic Storage: Universal Bounds and Price Non-Linearity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that under linear price functions the welfare gap between central-planner and profit-maximizing battery operation is exactly 4/3, regardless of demand randomness or operational constraints—and that under general convex pri

desk verdict The 4/3 bound for linear prices is real and cleanly proven; the abstract's n-battery claim is absent from the body — fix that overclaim and this is a solid, citable paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.19660 v3 pith:URNQ4BWM submitted 2026-02-23 cs.GT econ.TH

Zhile Jiang , Xinhao Nie , Stratis Skoulakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTecon.TH
keywords batterystoragepriceofanarchystrategicelectricitymarketslinearfunctionsconvexwelfaregapmonomial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how much social value is lost when a battery that stores energy to maximize its own profit is used instead of a battery run by a social planner. For linear pricing—price equal to a constant times net demand plus a constant—it proves the loss is exactly 4/3: the planner's welfare gain can be up to a third larger than the profit-maximizer's, and no more. The ratio is the same for every stochastic demand process and every convex operating constraint that includes doing nothing, so the bound is a structural property of linear pricing rather than a feature of any particular market. The paper also shows this linear-case stability is fragile: with general convex price curves the ratio can be infinite, while for monomial price curves of degree d it stays between a degree-dependent lower bound and 2.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the variational inequality characterizing maximizers of concave, Fréchet-differentiable functionals over convex feasible sets: if B* is optimal, then ⟨∇f(B*), B − B*⟩ ≤ 0 for all feasible B. Applied to the profit-maximizer's objective and evaluated at B=0 and at the planner's optimum, it produces an algebraic inequality that directly bounds the welfare ratio by 4/3. That evaluation at B=0 is why the feasible set must be convex and contain the zero policy. In the nonlinear analysis, the two-step demand model is compressed into a single scalar k—the charging level in the peak half—so battery policy, revenue, and welfare become one-dimensional polynomials, and the proof

What would settle it

Run a linear-price instance with a two-level deterministic demand and a convex feasible set that excludes the zero policy, for example requiring |B(t)| ≥ ε during the peak interval while preserving energy balance; if the numerically computed ratio of planner gain to profit-maximizer gain exceeds 4/3 for any ε>0, the universality claim of Theorem 1 fails for that model. Alternatively, search the unconstrained two-step linear-price family over all demand levels; any ratio above 4/3 would falsify the theorem, while the proof shows none exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for any linear price P(z)=az+b with a>0, b≥0, any stochastic demand process, and any convex constraint set Ω that contains the zero policy, the Price of Anarchy of battery storage is exactly 4/3. Here the Price of Anarchy is the ratio of the best expected reduction in social generation cost achieved by a central planner to the reduction achieved by a profit-maximizing storage operator. The proof rewrites both objectives in the inner-product form ⟨D,B⟩; a variational-inequality optimality condition applied at the profit-maximizer, with the do-nothing policy substituted, forces the ratio below 4/3, and an explicit example shows the bound is tight. The paper furt

Load-bearing premise

The 4/3 bound collapses if the feasible policy set is not convex or does not contain the do-nothing policy, because the proof's decisive step substitutes B=0 into the profit-maximizer's variational inequality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under linear pricing, market designers can count on a 4/3 worst-case efficiency ratio for a single storage facility no matter how demand uncertainty or physical limits such as power, energy, and ramp-rate constraints are modeled, as long as the idle policy is allowed.
  • Linearity is a genuine boundary: with general convex price curves, even the simplest deterministic peak/off-peak market can have no finite worst-case bound, so steep supply curves require regulatory attention.
  • For monomial price curves, inefficiency grows with algebraic degree but never exceeds a factor of 2; the quadratic case is exactly 27/19, giving a concrete benchmark for empirical price-response estimates.
  • Because the 4/3 bound is independent of the constraint set Ω, adding operational constraints cannot worsen the ratio; the worst case already occurs when constraints are non-binding.
  • The unbounded convex-price construction extends to convex polynomials, so simply restricting price functions to polynomials does not restore bounded efficiency.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural test of the true bottleneck is to re-run the linear proof with a constraint such as |B(t)| ≥ ε on some subinterval, which breaks the admissibility of doing nothing; if the 4/3 ceiling lifts, the zero-policy assumption, not convexity, is the operative condition.
  • The paper's conjecture that its monomial lower bound is tight for every degree suggests a concrete numerical program: compute the exact Price of Anarchy for degrees 3, 4, and 5 in the two-step model and compare with 1/(1−(d/(d+1))^{d+1}).
  • The abstract announces an n-battery potential-game extension in which the efficiency loss tends to 1 as the number of batteries grows, but the body text contains no proof of that statement; as printed, that result rests on the abstract alone.
  • A practical reading for grid operators: in near-linear price regions, profit-seeking storage is a comparatively safe workhorse, whereas in high-curvature regions near supply limits the same storage can in theory be arbitrarily damaging, so quantity-based or price-cap interventions matter more than fine-tuning operational constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the efficiency loss of strategic (profit-maximizing) battery storage relative to a welfare-maximizing central planner, measured by a Price of Anarchy defined as the ratio of welfare improvements. The main results are: (i) for linear price functions P(z)=az+b, the PoA is exactly 4/3 under arbitrary stochastic demand and any convex operational constraint set containing the zero policy (Theorem 1); (ii) for general convex price functions, the PoA can be unbounded even in the simplest deterministic two-step demand model (Theorem 2), with a polynomial extension in Corollary 8; (iii) for monomial price functions in the two-step benchmark, the PoA is at most 2 (Theorem 3), exactly 27/19 in the quadratic case (Theorem 4), and at least 1/(1-(d/(d+1))^{d+1}) for degree d, tending to e/(e-1) as d grows (Theorem 5). The variational-inequality core of Theorem 1 is sound and the tightness example is explicit; the convex counterexample works in the δ→0 limit. However, the written proof of Theorem 1 contains an incorrect case split, and the abstract claims an n-battery potential-game result that does not appear in the body.

Significance. If the issues identified below are repaired, the paper is a substantial contribution. Theorem 1 resolves an open question from Anunrojwong et al. [4] in a strong sense: the 4/3 bound for linear prices is shown to be independent of the demand distribution and of the geometry of convex operational constraints, with an explicit tightness example. This is a clean, self-contained result. The impossibility result for general convex prices and the quantitative monomial analysis are also valuable: they give a refined picture of how price curvature degrades market efficiency and provide falsifiable, instance-based bounds. The paper contains no fitted parameters; the central derivations are checkable from the stated assumptions. The main weaknesses are presentation-level and local, except for the incorrect case split in the proof of Theorem 1 and the unsupported n-battery claim in the abstract, both of which must be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, proof of Theorem 1, after Inequality (9)] The proof contains an incorrect case split. The text asserts that \(\langle D,B^{CB}\rangle-\|B^{CB}\|^2\ge 0\) and then splits into Case 1 where \(\langle D,B^{DCB}\rangle-\|B^{DCB}\|^2 = \langle D,B^{CB}\rangle-\|B^{CB}\|^2=0\) and Case 2 where the first quantity is positive. From optimality of \(B^{CB}\) and feasibility of the zero policy one only obtains \(2\langle D,B^{CB}\rangle-\|B^{CB}\|^2\ge0\), which does not imply \(\langle D,B^{CB}\rangle\ge\|B^{CB}\|^2\). Moreover, the denominator of the PoA in the relevant case is \(2\langle D,B^{DCB}\rangle-\|B^{DCB}\|^2\), not the quantity used in the case split. The argument is repairable: split on whether \(2\langle D,B^{DCB}\rangle-\|B^{DCB}\|^2\) is zero or positive. If it is zero, Inequality (9), together with the optimality condition for the centralized battery, forces \(2\langle D,B^{CB}\rangle-\|B^{CB}\|^2=0\), so the PoA is 1 by
  2. [Abstract, final sentence; compare §7] The abstract states: 'Finally, we extend the linear analysis to n competing batteries, where a potential-game argument gives a unique equilibrium and an efficiency loss that decreases to 1 as the number of batteries grows.' No such theorem, lemma, or section appears anywhere in the body. Section 7 explicitly says that 'generalizing this framework to the interaction of multiple competitive storage systems remains a significant challenge' and discusses congestion games only as a promising future direction. This is an unsupported contribution claim. The sentence must either be substantiated with the promised result or removed/qualified so that the abstract matches the actual contents of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Example 2, §2] The example states that \(P(z)=z/2\) 'giving a social generation cost function \(G(z)=z^2\)'. This is inconsistent: if \(G(z)=\int_0^z P(x)\,dx\), then \(P(z)=z/2\) implies \(G(z)=z^2/4\). Either set \(P(z)=2z\) or correct the cost function and the computed welfare values.
  2. [Lemma 10, §6.1] The statement of Lemma 10 gives the denominator of the lower bound \(k\) as \(2(d-1)(1-x)\), but the proof solves a quadratic with denominator \(2(d+1)(1-x)\), and the later use of \(k\) in the proof of Theorem 3 also uses \(d+1\). The statement should be corrected to \(2(d+1)(1-x)\).
  3. [§6.2, proof of Theorem 5] The displayed chain of inequalities for the PoA lower bound appears to omit an \(\epsilon\) factor in the intermediate denominators. As typeset, the expression \(\epsilon-G(1-x^*)\) would be negative for small \(\epsilon\), making the displayed lower bound impossible. The intended denominator is presumably \(\epsilon-\epsilon G(1-x^*)\), which makes the sequence of inequalities valid. Please fix the typography and verify the displayed algebra.
  4. [Inequality (9), §4] The parenthesization in the displayed Inequality (9) is difficult to parse due to missing brackets around the inner products and norms. For readability, write the terms as \(4(2\langle D,B^{DCB}\rangle-\|B^{DCB}\|^2)-3(2\langle D,B^{CB}\rangle-\|B^{CB}\|^2)\), and similarly for the intermediate expressions.
  5. [Theorems 4 and 5, §6] The text says the upper bound in Theorem 4 is 'achieved' when \(x\to0\) and \(\epsilon\to0\), and the lower bound in Theorem 5 is obtained as \(\epsilon\to0\). These are supremum/limit statements, not attained at admissible positive parameters; the wording should clarify that the values are approached in the limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central 4/3 theorem is derived from the model's optimality conditions; no fitted constants or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The main theorem's proof derives the welfare and revenue expressions from the linear price definition, then applies the variational inequality for the profit-maximizer with the substitutions B=0 and B=B_CB. These steps rest entirely on stated assumptions: the feasible set B∩Ω convex, the zero policy feasible, and the cycle constraint ∫B=0. The bound 4/3 follows algebraically from Inequality (9), and tightness is shown by an explicit example. Appendix D uses Lemma 14 from Anderson et al. [3], an external monotonicity result, not the authors' own prior work; [4] is cited only to frame the open question and does not carry the proof. The abstract's unsupported claim about extending to n competing batteries is a contribution-verification issue, not a circular derivation, and Section 7 explicitly labels that extension as future work. Consequently, no prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are parameter-free bounds; the only hand-chosen numbers are construction parameters in the impossibility/lower-bound examples (δ, ε), which are taken to zero and are not fitted to data. The model assumes the market is Pay-as-Clear, the battery is a price-maker with a known price function, policies are non-anticipating and energy-neutral over the cycle, and the feasible set is convex and contains the zero policy. These are stated domain assumptions, not independently verified facts. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • δ (Theorem 2 / Corollary 8 construction) = δ → 0 in the limit
    Width parameter of the near-singular convex price function; PoA → ∞ as δ→0. Hand-chosen to make the counterexample work, not fitted to data.
  • ε (Theorem 5 lower-bound instance) = ε → 0 in the limit
    Peak duration in the lower-bound demand; the bound uses ε→0. Hand-chosen construction parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Jensen's inequality / convexity of the cost function G
    Claim 7 uses Jensen to show balancing net demand to the average demand is welfare-optimal.
  • standard math Variational-inequality first-order conditions (Lemma 6)
    Used to derive Inequality (9) in the linear-price theorem; requires concavity and Fréchet differentiability on a convex feasible set.
  • domain assumption Feasible set B∩Ω is convex and contains the zero policy
    Structural Constraints in §2; needed to substitute B=0 into the variational inequality and to guarantee the do-nothing policy is admissible.
  • domain assumption Pay-as-Clear pricing with truthful marginal-cost bids
    §2 'Energy Pricing and Social Cost'; justifies social cost as ∫P and revenue as B·P.
  • standard math Lemma 14 of Anderson et al. [3] (monotonicity of ratio of functions)
    Used in Appendix D to prove Lemma 11; external monotonicity result.
  • standard math Bernstein operator properties (uniform convergence, convexity preservation, above approaching)
    Used in Corollary 8's proof to approximate the convex counterexample by convex polynomials.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Welfare Gap of Strategic Storage: Universal Bounds and Price Non-Linearity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URNQ4BWM

@misc{pith2026260219660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Welfare Gap of Strategic Storage: Universal Bounds and Price Non-Linearity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URNQ4BWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.19660}
}
abstract

This paper studies the efficiency of battery storage operations in electricity markets by comparing the social welfare gain achieved by a central planner to that of a decentralized profit-maximizing operator. The problem is formulated in a generalized continuous-time stochastic setting, where the battery follows an adaptive, non-anticipating policy subject to periodicity and general convex constraints. We quantify the efficiency loss by bounding the ratio of the optimal welfare gain to the gain under profit maximization. First, for linear price functions, we prove that this ratio is tightly bounded by $4/3$. We show that this bound is a structural invariant: it is robust to arbitrary stochastic demand processes and accommodates general convex operational constraints. Second, we demonstrate that the efficiency loss can be unbounded for general convex price functions even in a canonical discrete-demand benchmark, so convexity alone is insufficient to guarantee market efficiency. Third, within the same benchmark we analyze monomial price functions, where the degree controls the curvature, and prove that the loss grows with the degree yet remains bounded by $2$. Finally, we extend the linear analysis to $n$ competing batteries, where a potential-game argument gives a unique equilibrium and an efficiency loss that decreases to $1$ as the number of batteries grows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19660 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure shows the stochastic process defined in Example 1. The gray dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of Example 2. The left panel compares the original demand with the net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [4]

    Balseiro, Omar Besbes, and Bolun Xu

    Jerry Anunrojwong, Santiago R. Balseiro, Omar Besbes, and Bolun Xu. Battery operations in electricity markets: Strategic behavior and distortions. InProceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 5, 2025

    2025

  2. [1]

    Shape preserving properties of general- ized bernstein operators on extended chebyshev spaces.Numerische Mathematik, 114(1):1–25, 2009

    JM Aldaz, Ognyan Kounchev, and Hermann Render. Shape preserving properties of general- ized bernstein operators on extended chebyshev spaces.Numerische Mathematik, 114(1):1–25, 2009. 20

    2009

  3. [2]

    Stochastic optimal planning of battery energy storage systems for isolated microgrids.IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9(1):211– 227, 2017

    Hisham Alharbi and Kankar Bhattacharya. Stochastic optimal planning of battery energy storage systems for isolated microgrids.IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9(1):211– 227, 2017

    2017

  4. [3]

    Inequalities for quasiconformal mappings in space.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 160(1):1–18, 1993

    Glen Anderson, Mavina Vamanamurthy, and Matti Vuorinen. Inequalities for quasiconformal mappings in space.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 160(1):1–18, 1993

    1993

  5. [5]

    A diffusion model for electricity prices.Mathematical finance, 12(4):287–298, 2002

    Martin T Barlow. A diffusion model for electricity prices.Mathematical finance, 12(4):287–298, 2002

    2002

  6. [6]

    World Scientific, 2008

    Fred Espen Benth, Jurate Saltyte Benth, and Steen Koekebakker.Stochastic modelling of electricity and related markets. World Scientific, 2008

    2008

  7. [7]

    D´ emonstration du th´ eor` eme de weierstrass, fond´ ee sur le calcul des prob- abilit´ es.Communications de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de Kharkov, 13(2):1–2, 1912

    Sergei N Bernstein. D´ emonstration du th´ eor` eme de weierstrass, fond´ ee sur le calcul des prob- abilit´ es.Communications de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de Kharkov, 13(2):1–2, 1912

    1912

  8. [8]

    Equilibrium pricing and optimal hedging in electricity forward markets.the Journal of Finance, 57(3):1347–1382, 2002

    Hendrik Bessembinder and Michael L Lemmon. Equilibrium pricing and optimal hedging in electricity forward markets.the Journal of Finance, 57(3):1347–1382, 2002

    2002

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Energy storage operation and electricity market design: On the market power of monopolistic storage operators.European Journal of Operational Research, 307(2):887–909, 2023

    Endre Bjørndal, Mette Helene Bjørndal, Stefano Coniglio, Marc-Fabian K¨ orner, Christina Leinauer, and Martin Weibelzahl. Energy storage operation and electricity market design: On the market power of monopolistic storage operators.European Journal of Operational Research, 307...

    2023

  2. [10]

    The economics of electricity reliability

    Severin Borenstein, James Bushnell, and Erin Mansur. The economics of electricity reliability. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 37(4):181–206, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Measuring market inefficiencies in california’s restructured wholesale electricity market.American Economic Review, 92(5):1376– 1405, 2002

    Severin Borenstein, James B Bushnell, and Frank A Wolak. Measuring market inefficiencies in california’s restructured wholesale electricity market.American Economic Review, 92(5):1376– 1405, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    A mixed complementarity model of hydrothermal electricity competition in the western united states.Operations research, 51(1):80–93, 2003

    James Bushnell. A mixed complementarity model of hydrothermal electricity competition in the western united states.Operations research, 51(1):80–93, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    Power stabilization for AI training data- centers.CoRR, abs/2508.14318, 2025

    Esha Choukse, Brijesh Warrier, Scot Heath, et al. Power stabilization for AI training data- centers.CoRR, abs/2508.14318, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Water resource and power generation.International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19(6):975–997, 2001

    Claude Crampes and Michel Moreaux. Water resource and power generation.International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19(6):975–997, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Control of energy storage with market impact: Lagrangian approach and horizons.Operations Research, 67(1):1–9, 2019

    James Cruise, Lisa Flatley, Richard Gibbens, and Stan Zachary. Control of energy storage with market impact: Lagrangian approach and horizons.Operations Research, 67(1):1–9, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Short-term load forecasting based on a semi-parametric additive model.IEEE transactions on power systems, 27(1):134–141, 2011

    Shu Fan and Rob J Hyndman. Short-term load forecasting based on a semi-parametric additive model.IEEE transactions on power systems, 27(1):134–141, 2011. 21

    2011

  9. [17]

    Bidding in an electricity pay-as-bid auction.Journal of Regulatory Economics, 24(2):175–211, 2003

    Giulio Federico and David Rahman. Bidding in an electricity pay-as-bid auction.Journal of Regulatory Economics, 24(2):175–211, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Battery energy storage systems for the electricity grid: Uk research facilities

    Tom Feehally, AJ Forsyth, Rebecca Todd, MP Foster, Daniel Gladwin, DA Stone, and D Strick- land. Battery energy storage systems for the electricity grid: Uk research facilities. In8th IET International Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Optimal storage policies with wind forecast uncertainties.ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 40(3):28– 32, 2012

    Nicolas Gast, DanCristian Tomozei, and JeanYves Le Boudec. Optimal storage policies with wind forecast uncertainties.ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 40(3):28– 32, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Intermittency and the value of renewable energy.Journal of Political Economy, 124(4):1187–1234, 2016

    Gautam Gowrisankaran, Stanley S Reynolds, and Mario Samano. Intermittency and the value of renewable energy.Journal of Political Economy, 124(4):1187–1234, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Multi- service battery energy storage system optimization and control.Applied Energy, 311:118614, 2022

    Sarmad Hanif, Md Jan E Alam, Kini Roshan, Bilal A Bhatti, and Juan C Bedoya. Multi- service battery energy storage system optimization and control.Applied Energy, 311:118614, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Probabilistic electric load forecasting: A tutorial review.International Journal of Forecasting, 32(3):914–938, 2016

    Tao Hong and Shu Fan. Probabilistic electric load forecasting: A tutorial review.International Journal of Forecasting, 32(3):914–938, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Density forecasting for long-term peak electricity demand

    Rob J Hyndman and Shu Fan. Density forecasting for long-term peak electricity demand. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(2):1142–1153, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    An empirical examination of restructured electricity prices.Energy economics, 27(5):791–817, 2005

    Christopher R Knittel and Michael R Roberts. An empirical examination of restructured electricity prices.Energy economics, 27(5):791–817, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Optimal day-ahead trading and storage of renewable ener- gies—an approximate dynamic programming approach.Energy Systems, 1(1):61–77, 2010

    Nils L¨ ohndorf and Stefan Minner. Optimal day-ahead trading and storage of renewable ener- gies—an approximate dynamic programming approach.Energy Systems, 1(1):61–77, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Electricity forward prices: a high-frequency empirical analysis.The journal of finance, 59(4):1877–1900, 2004

    Francis A Longstaff and Ashley W Wang. Electricity forward prices: a high-frequency empirical analysis.The journal of finance, 59(4):1877–1900, 2004

    1900

  19. [27]

    Coordinated price-maker operation of large energy storage units in nodal energy markets.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31(1):786–797, 2015

    Hamed Mohsenian-Rad. Coordinated price-maker operation of large energy storage units in nodal energy markets.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31(1):786–797, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Deepar: Probabilis- tic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks.International journal of forecasting, 36(3):1181–1191, 2020

    David Salinas, Valentin Flunkert, Jan Gasthaus, and Tim Januschowski. Deepar: Probabilis- tic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks.International journal of forecasting, 36(3):1181–1191, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Welfare impacts of electricity storage and the implications of ownership structure.The Energy Journal, 31(2):173–198, 2010

    Ramteen Sioshansi. Welfare impacts of electricity storage and the implications of ownership structure.The Energy Journal, 31(2):173–198, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    When energy storage reduces social welfare.Energy Economics, 41:106– 116, 2014

    Ramteen Sioshansi. When energy storage reduces social welfare.Energy Economics, 41:106– 116, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    The impact of variable renewable energy tech- nologies on electricity markets: An analysis of the turkish balancing market.Energy Policy, 151:112093, 2021

    Selahattin Murat Sirin and Berna N Yilmaz. The impact of variable renewable energy tech- nologies on electricity markets: An analysis of the turkish balancing market.Energy Policy, 151:112093, 2021. 22

    2021

  24. [32]

    Bess optimal sizing and scheduling for energy arbitrage and frequency containment reserve via dual-loop optimization

    Ramadhani Kurniawan Subroto, Daniel Gebbran, Alberto Barragan Moreno, and Tomislav Dragiˇ cevi´ c. Bess optimal sizing and scheduling for energy arbitrage and frequency containment reserve via dual-loop optimization. In2022 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Ex...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Short-term electricity demand forecasting using double seasonal exponential smoothing.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(8):799–805, 2003

    James W Taylor. Short-term electricity demand forecasting using double seasonal exponential smoothing.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(8):799–805, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Optimal offer-bid strat- egy of an energy storage portfolio: A linear quasi-relaxation approach.Applied Energy, 260:114251, 2020

    Egill T´ omasson, Mohammad Reza Hesamzadeh, and Frank A Wolak. Optimal offer-bid strat- egy of an energy storage portfolio: A linear quasi-relaxation approach.Applied Energy, 260:114251, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    System lcoe: What are the costs of variable renewables?Energy, 63:61–75, 2013

    Falko Ueckerdt, Lion Hirth, Gunnar Luderer, and Ottmar Edenhofer. System lcoe: What are the costs of variable renewables?Energy, 63:61–75, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Modeling and optimization methods for controlling and sizing grid- connected energy storage: A review.Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 8(2):123– 130, 2021

    Di Wu and Xu Ma. Modeling and optimization methods for controlling and sizing grid- connected energy storage: A review.Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 8(2):123– 130, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ruixiaoxiao Zhang, Minhyun Lee, Lijie Huang, and Meng Ni. Optimization of battery energy storage system (bess) sizing in different electricity market types considering bess utilization mechanisms and ownerships.Journal of Cleaner Production, 470:143317, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Grid- connected battery energy storage system: a review on application and integration.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 182:113400, 2023

    Chunyang Zhao, Peter Bach Andersen, Chresten Træholt, and Seyedmostafa Hashemi. Grid- connected battery energy storage system: a review on application and integration.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 182:113400, 2023. A Proof of Claim 7 By Constraints (3), we have ż 1...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.