Correction to: Forward-looking distribution network charges considering lumpy investments

Abstract

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in one of the coauthor name Hélène Le Cadre. During production process, the name was in-completed. The author name is corrected with this correction.The original article has been corrected.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A Bilevel Model for Voluntary Demand-Side Flexibility in Distribution Grids

“…Several authors used the bi-level set-up to show how consumers react to different types of tariffs, such as fixed, volumetric or capacity-based tariffs, with different levels of locational and spatial granularity. These studies have highlighted the importance of costreflective distribution tariffs to align consumers' interest with the system needs ( (Schittekatte et al, 2018), (Govaerts et al, 2021), (Schittekatte and Meeus, 2020), (Pediaditis et al, 2021), and (Hoarau and Perez, 2019)). The model we developed in our previous paper, Nouicer et al (2021), was the first to include the option for the DSO to curtail demand for a fixed compensation in a bilevel set-up.…”

A bilevel model for voluntary demand-side flexibility in distribution grids

“…Several authors used the bi-level set-up to show how consumers react to different types of tariffs, such as fixed, volumetric or capacity-based tariffs, with different levels of locational and spatial granularity. These studies have highlighted the importance of costreflective distribution tariffs to align consumers' interest with the system needs ( (Schittekatte et al, 2018), (Govaerts et al, 2021), (Schittekatte and Meeus, 2020), (Pediaditis et al, 2021), and (Hoarau and Perez, 2019)). The model we developed in our previous paper, Nouicer et al (2021), was the first to include the option for the DSO to curtail demand for a fixed compensation in a bilevel set-up.…”