Coupling a Power Dispatch Model with a Wardrop or Mean-Field-Game Equilibrium Model


In this paper, we propose an approach for coupling a power network dispatch model, which is part of a long-term multi-energy model, with Wardrop or Mean-Field-Game (MFG) equilibrium models that represent the demand response of a large population of small “prosumers” connected at the various nodes of the electricity network. In a deterministic setting, the problem is akin to an optimization problem with equilibrium constraints taking the form of variational inequalities or nonlinear complementarity conditions. In a stochastic setting, the problem is formulated as a robust optimization with uncertainty sets informed by the probability distributions resulting from an MFG equilibrium solution. Preliminary numerical experimentations, using heuristics mimicking standard price adjustment techniques, are presented for both the deterministic and stochastic cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. In the rest of the paper, we shall refer only to PHEVs.

  2. 2.

    Most of these activities take place at distribution level see [1, 2] .

  3. 3.

    ETEM-SG for Energy Technology Environment Model with Smart-Grids is a technology-rich capacity expansion model used to assess long-term energy policies.

  4. 4.

    Energy-Technology-Environment-Model with Smart-Grid

  5. 5.

    It is currently used to assess the possible transition to 100% renewable energy in non-interconnected regions (typically islands and remote territories) in France.

  6. 6.

    Usually the swing bus is numbered 1 for the load flow studies. This bus sets the angular reference for all the other buses. Since it is the angle difference between two voltage sources that dictates the real and reactive power flow between them, the particular angle of the swing bus is not important.

  7. 7.

    In electrical engineering, susceptance (\(\mathbf {B}\)) is the imaginary part of admittance. The inverse of admittance is impedance and the real part of admittance is conductance. In SI units, susceptance is measured in siemens.

  8. 8.

    This power flow model corresponds to the approximate DC flow where power flow obeys Kirchoff’s voltage law, reactive power is ignored and phase angle differences are small and per unit voltages are set to 1.

  9. 9.

    Note that, to obtain time continuous versions of the nodal price and target charging demand at a generic node, we consider spline approximations along the time slices.


  1. 1.

    Andrianesis P, Caramanis M (2019) Distribution network marginal costs-part I: a novel ASC OPF including transformer degradation, Tech report, Boston University. arXiv:1906.01570

  2. 2.

    Andrianesis P, Caramanis M (2019) Distribution network marginal costs part II: case study based numerical findings, Tech report, Boston University. arXiv:1906.01572

  3. 3.

    Aumann RJ (1964) Markets with a continuum of traders. Econometrica 32(1/2):39–50

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Babonneau F, Caramanis M, Haurie A (2016) A linear programming model for power distribution with demand response and variable renewable energy. Appl Energy 181(1):83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Babonneau F, Caramanis M, Haurie A (2017) ETEM-SG: optimizing regional smart energy system with power distribution constraints and options. Environ Model Assess 22(5):411–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Babonneau F, Haurie A (2019) Energy technology environment model with smart grid and robust nodal electricity prices. Ann Oper Res 274:101–117

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Babonneau F, Kanudia A, Labriet M, Loulou R, Vial J-P (2012) Energy security: a robust optimization approach to design a robust european energy supply via TIAM-WORLD. Environ Model Assess 17(1–2):19–37 (en)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Babonneau F, Vial JP, Apparigliato R (2009) Robust optimization for environmental and energy planning. In: Filar J, Haurie A (eds) Uncertainty and environmental decision making, vol 138. International series in operations research & management science. Springer, Boston, pp 79–126

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ben-Tal A, El Ghaoui L, Nemirovski A (2009) Robust optimization. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Brotcorne L, Marcotte P, Savard G (2008) Bilevel programming: the montreal school. INFOR Inf Syst Oper 46(4):231–246

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Caramanis M, Ntakou E, Hogan WH, Chakrabortty A, Schoene J (2016) Co-optimization of power and reserves in dynamic T&D power markets with nondispatchable renewable generation and distributed energy resources. Proc IEEE 104(4):807–836

  12. 12.

    Côté J-P, Marcotte P, Savard G (2003) A bilevel modelling approach to pricing and fare optimisation in the airline industry. J Revenue Pricing Manag 2(1):23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Delage E, Iancu D (2015) Robust multistage decision making. In INFORMS TutORials in Operations Research, pp. 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dussault J-P, Haddou M, Migot T (2016) The new butterfly relaxation method for mathematical program with complementarity constraints. Optimization (online)

  15. 15.

    Etesami SR, Saad W, Mandayam NB, Poor HV (2017) Smart routing in smart grids. In: Proceedings of the 56th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), Melbourne, Australia. IEEE

  16. 16.

    Etesami SR, Saad W, Mandayam NB, Poor HV (2018) Stochastic games for smart grid energy management with prospect prosumers. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 63(8):2327–2342

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Foguen RT, Malhamé R, Caines P (2019) A quantilized mean field game approach to energy pricing with application to fleets of plug-in electric vehicles. In: IEEE 58th conference on decision and control (CDC)

  18. 18.

    Frangioni A, Gentile C (2006) Solving nonlinear single unit commitments problems with ramping constraints. Oper Res 54(4):767–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gupta S, Kekatos V, Saad W (2019) Optimal real-time coordination of energy storage units as a voltage-constrained game. IEEE Trans Smart Grid (to appear)

  20. 20.

    Haurie A, Marcotte P (1985) On the relationship between Nash–Cournot and Wardrop equilibria. Networks 15(3):295–308

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Haurie A, Zaccour G (2005) S-adapted equilibriain games played overevent trees: an overview. In: Advances in dynamic games, Annals of the international society of dynamic games, vol 7. Springer, pp 417–444

  22. 22.

    Hogan W (2018) Best electricity market design practices: in my view. IEEE Power Energy Mag

  23. 23.

    Kuhn D, Wiesemann W, Georghiou A (2011) Primal and dual linear decision rules in stochastic and robust optimization. Math Program 130(1):177–209

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Li Pei-Hao, Pye Steve (2018) Assessing the benefits of demand-side flexibility in residential and transport sectors from an integrated energy systems perspective. Appl Energy 228:965–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Litvinov E, Zhao F, Zheng T (2019) Electricity markets in the United States. IEEE Power Energy Mag.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ma Z, Callaway D, Hiskens I (2013) Decentralized charging control of large populations of plug-in electric vehicles: application of the Nash certainty equivalence principle. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 21:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Moret S, Babonneau F, Bierlaire M, Marechal F (2019) Decision support for strategic energy planning: a robust optimization framework. Eur J Oper Res (to appear)

  28. 28.

    Ruiz PA, Foster JM, Rudkevich A, Caramanis MC (2012) Tractable transmission topology control using sensitivity analysis. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(3):1550–1559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ruiz PA, Rudkevich A, Caramanis MC, Goldis E, Ntakou E, Philbrick R (2012) Reduced MIP formulation for transmission topology control. In: 50th Annual Allerton conference on communication, control, and computing (USA University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, Monticello

  30. 30.

    Ruiz PA, Foster JM, Rudkevich A, Caramanis M (2011) On fast transmission topology control heuristics. In: Proceedings (2011) IEEE power and energy society general meeting. Detroit, MI. IEEE, July

  31. 31.

    Stiel ADJ (2011) Modelling liberalised power markets, Master’s thesis, ETH Zürich, Centre for Energy Policy and Economics

  32. 32.

    Summers T, Warrington J, Morati M, Lygeros J (2015) Stochastic optimal power flow based on conditional value at risk and distribution robustness. Electr Power Energy Syst 72:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wang Y, Saad W, Han Z, Poor HV, Başar T (2016) A game-theoretic approach to energy trading in the smart grid. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 7(6):2604–2614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wang Y, Saad W, Sarwat A, Hong CS (2018) Reactive power compensation game under prospect-theoretic framing effects. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(5):4181–4193

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research is supported by the Canadian IVADO programme (VORTEX Project). First and third authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Qatar National Research Fund under Grant Agreement No. NPRP10-0212-170447. The first author also acknowledges support provided by FONDECYT 1190325 and by ANILLO ACT192094, Chile.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Babonneau.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Proof of Propositions  1 and 2

Propositions 1 and 2 are special cases of a more general theorem in RO, by taking into account that \(\Delta _a(\tau ) \le \Delta _\ell (\tau )\) and \(\Delta _u(\tau ) \le \Delta _a(\tau )\), respectively. For the interested readers, we state now the general theorem and prove Proposition 1 as a corollary. In order to show the derivation, we shall use the concise notation

$$\begin{aligned} z_0+ \sum _\tau z_\tau \xi _\tau \le 0 \end{aligned}$$

to represent the inequality (53). The coefficients \(\hat{z}\) are easily identified as

$$\begin{aligned} z_0= & {} \sum _{\tau =0}^{T-1} \Delta _\ell (\tau ) \\ z_\tau= & {} \Delta _a(\tau ) - \Delta _\ell (\tau ). \end{aligned}$$

The proof is similar for Proposition 2 considering

$$\begin{aligned} z_0= & {} \sum _{\tau =0}^{T-1} \Delta _u(\tau ) \\ z_\tau= & {} -(\Delta _u(\tau ) - \Delta _a(\tau )). \end{aligned}$$

The main result can be formulated as

Theorem 2

Let \(\eta _\tau \) be T independent random variables with common support \([-1,1]\) and known means \(E(\eta _\tau ) = \nu _\tau \). The probabilistic inequality \(\hat{z}_0+ \sum _\tau \hat{z}_\tau \eta _\tau \le 0\) is satisfied with probability at least \((1-\epsilon )\) if there exists a vector \(w\in \mathbb R^\tau \) such that the deterministic inequality

$$\begin{aligned} \hat{z}_0 + \sum _\tau \hat{z}_\tau \nu _\tau + \sum _\tau ( |w_k | - w_{\tau }\nu _{\tau }) + \sqrt{2T \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _\tau |\hat{z}_\tau - w_\tau | \le 0 \end{aligned}$$

is satisfied.

Note that the range of the random factors is now \([-1,1]\). The above theorem is the formal statement of the theory for inequalities with random factors having known means \(\nu _{\tau }\) and common range \([-1,1]\) as discussed in [9, example 2.4.9, p. 55].

We show now how to prove Proposition 1 as a corollary of Theorem 2.


(Proposition 1)

Let us start with (72) and define the variables \(\eta _{\tau } = 2\xi _{\tau } - 1\). In view of Assumption  4 the range of \(\eta _{\tau }\) is \([-1,1]\) and \(E(\eta _{\tau }) = \nu _{\tau } = 2\mu _{\tau } - 1 \le 0\). Inequality (72) becomes

$$\begin{aligned} z_{0} +\frac{1}{2} \sum _{\tau }z_{\tau } + \frac{1}{2} \sum _{\tau }z_{\tau }\eta _{\tau } \le 0. \end{aligned}$$

Let \(\hat{z}_{0} = z_{0} +\frac{1}{2}\sum _{\tau }z_{\tau }\) and \(\hat{z}_{\tau } = z_{\tau }/2\). The hypotheses of Theorem 2 for the inequality \(\hat{z}_{0} + \sum _{k}\hat{z}_{k}\eta _{k} \le 0\) are verified. Hence,

$$\begin{aligned} \hat{z}_0 + \sum _\tau \hat{z}_\tau \nu _\tau + \sum _\tau ( |w_\tau | -w_{\tau }\nu _{\tau }) + \sqrt{2T \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _\tau |\hat{z}_\tau - w_\tau | \le 0 \end{aligned}$$

is a sufficient condition to ensure the constraint satisfaction with probability at least \((1 - \epsilon )\). If we substitute \(\nu _{\tau }\), \(\hat{z}_{0}\) and \(\hat{z}_{\tau }\) by their values, we obtain the condition

$$\begin{aligned} z_{0} + \sum _{\tau }\mu _{\tau } z_{\tau } + \sum _\tau ( |w_\tau | +w_{\tau } -2\mu _{\tau } w_{\tau }) + \sqrt{\frac{T}{2} \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _\tau | z_\tau - 2 w_\tau | \le 0. \end{aligned}$$

Recall that \(z_{\tau } = \Delta _a(\tau ) - \Delta _\ell (\tau ) \ge 0\). We claim that only positive values \(w\ge 0\) need to be considered. Indeed, the theorem does not specify the value it should take. In particular, we can choose w so as to have to minimize the right-most component \( \sum _\tau ( |w_\tau | +w_{\tau } -2\mu _{\tau } w_{\tau }) + \sqrt{\frac{T}{2} \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _k | z_\tau - 2 w_\tau |\). If for some \(\tau '\), \(w_{\tau '} <0\), then \(|w_{\tau '}| + w_{\tau '} = 0\) and the contribution of term \(\tau '\) in the summation is \(-2\mu _{\tau '}w_{\tau '} + \max \{ z_{\tau '} - 2 w_{\tau '}, \max _{\tau \ne \tau '}|z_{\tau } - w_{\tau }|\}\). Clearly this term can be made smaller by taking \(w_{\tau '}= 0\). Hence, we can assume \(w_{\tau '} \ge 0\).

With \(w\ge 0\) inequality (74) becomes

$$\begin{aligned} z_{0} + \sum _{\tau }\mu _{\tau } z_{\tau } + \sum _\tau (1 - \mu _{\tau })2 w_{\tau } + \sqrt{\frac{T}{2} \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _\tau | z_\tau - 2 w_\tau | \le 0. \end{aligned}$$

Writing u for 2w in the above inequality, we obtain the condition

$$\begin{aligned} z_{0} + \sum _{\tau }\mu _{\tau } z_{\tau } + \sum _\tau (1 - \mu _{\tau }) u_{\tau } + \sqrt{\frac{T}{2} \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\max _\tau | z_\tau - u_\tau | \le 0. \end{aligned}$$

Using the same argument as before, we easily prove that we can restrict our choice of u to \(u \le z\). Hence, \(| z_\tau - u_\tau | = z_\tau - u_\tau \ge 0\) and using the additional scalar variable \(v\ge 0\) we can transform our inequality into

$$\begin{aligned} z_{0} + \sum _{\tau }\mu _{\tau } z_{\tau } + \sum _\tau (1 - \mu _{\tau }) u_{\tau } + \sqrt{\frac{T}{2} \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\cdot v\le & {} 0 \\ z_\tau - u_\tau\le & {} v,\; \tau =0, \ldots , T-1 \\ u \ge 0,v\ge 0. \end{aligned}$$

This concludes the proof of the proposition.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babonneau, F., Foguen, R.T., Haurie, A. et al. Coupling a Power Dispatch Model with a Wardrop or Mean-Field-Game Equilibrium Model. Dyn Games Appl (2020).

Download citation


  • Long-term energy model
  • Power generation and distribution submodel
  • Wardrop equilibrium
  • Mean field game
  • PHEV strategic charging