arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 22 Oct 2018

Transcription

1 Otimal electricity demand resonse contracting with resonsiveness incentives René Aïd Dylan Possamaï Nizar Touzi arxiv: v1 [math.oc] Oct 18 October 3, 18 Abstract Desite the success of demand resonse rograms in retail electricity markets in reducing average consumtion, the literature shows failure to reduce the variance of consumers resonses. This aer aims at designing demand resonse contracts which allow to act on both the average consumtion and its variance. The interaction between the roducer and the consumer is modeled as a Princial-Agent roblem, thus accounting for the moral hazard underlying demand resonse rograms. The roducer, facing the limited flexibility of roduction, ays an aroriate incentive comensation in order to encourages the consumer to reduce his average consumtion and to enhance his resonsiveness. We rovide closed form solution for the otimal contract in the case of linear energy valuation. Without resonsiveness incentive, this solution decomoses into a fixed remium for enrolment and a roortional rice for the energy consumed, in agreement with reviously observed demand resonse contracts. The resonsiveness incentive induces a new comonent in the contract with ayment rate on the consumtion quadratic variation. Furthermore, in both cases, the comonents of the remium exhibit a deendence on the duration of the demand resonse event. In articular, the fixed comonent is negative for sufficiently long events. Finally, under the otimal contract with otimal consumer behaviour, the resulting consumtion volatility may decrease as required, but it may also increase deending on the risk aversion arameters of both actors. This agrees with standard risk sharing effects. The calibration of our model to ublicly available data of a large scale demand resonse exeriment redicts a significant increase of resonsiveness under our otimal contract, a significant increase of the roducer satisfaction, and a significant decrease of the consumtion volatility. The stability of our exlicit otimal contract is justified by aroriate sensitivity analysis. Université Paris Dauhine, PSL Research University, LeDA. The author received the suort of the Finance for Energy Markets Research Centre and of the ANR CAESARS ANR-15-CE5-4-. rene.aid@dauhine.fr. This work benefited from comments at the SIAM Conference on Financial Mathematics & Engineering, Austin 16), at the 1 th Bachelier World Congress, Dublin 18). A vulgarization of the model resented in this aer was ublished in SIAM News, June 17. Columbia University, IEOR, 5W 1th St., 17 New York, NY, d917@columbia.edu. Research suorted by the ANR roject PACMAN ANR-16-CE5-7. École Polytechnique, CMAP, nizar.touzi@olytechnique.edu 1

2 1 Introduction Part of the equation to achieve the COP1 objective, of limiting the climate change effects to a degrees Celsius increase, relies on the design of carbon-free electric systems. According to the International Energy Agency 16 reort on carbon emission from fuel combustion more than a third of carbon emission for energy system in the world comes from ower generation source IEA [4]). The massive develoment of renewable energy sources worldwide, mainly solar and wind ower is heling reaching this objective. But, at the same time, they are reshaing the way ower system have to be managed. Renewable energy sources are intermittent and not disatchable. The increase in the uncertainty of generation has made the question of flexibility at the heart of the design of ower systems with a large enetration of renewable energy sources. In this aer, we focus on the use of demand resonse contracts to achieve flexible ower systems. A demand resonse mechanism is a contract under which the consumer benefits from cheaer electricity than the standard tariff, and accets in turn to suffer from much higher rices at certain eak load eriods chosen by the roducer. These soft mechanisms aear to cumulate the virtues of consumtion reduction, while roviding substitutes to hardware technologies as chemical batteries or flexible gas fired lants. Their existence and use is crucial to achieve reliability and efficiency of ower systems, see the related work by Joskow and Tirole 7) [6]. Because of the stakes involved, a revival of exeriments has flourished worldwide to recisely assess the effects of demand resonse rograms on end users consumtion, see Abrahamse et al. 5) [1], Herter 7) [18], Faruqui and Sergici 1) [16], Newsham and Bowker 1) [34], Wolak 11) [43], Jessoe and Rason 14) [5]. For this reason, many OECD countries are making significative investment in the develoment of smart-meters as a key technology for new generation demand-side management rograms. This is best witnessed by the 45 millions smart meters deloyed in Italy, Swede and Finland, and the overall EU-7 objective of millions smart meters, that is 5 e er consumer 1. Nevertheless, demand resonse mechanisms have some challenges to overcome before they can retend to rovide a level of flexibility comarable to gas fired lants or chemical batteries. First, the incentive scheme needs to be devised so as to avoid baseline maniulation, see Chao and De Pillis 13) [1] in the context of the Baltimore stadium management by Enerwise comany case. This raises the general question of moral hazard in the resent context, which we address in the resent aer by modeling the interaction between the consumer and the roducer through a Princial Agent roblem. Our second main contribution is to address the well documented fact that demand resonse rograms exhibit a substantial variance in the resonse of consumers to rice signal. This leads to uncertainty on the total resonse of the solicited oulation, see Carmichael et al. 14) [8, Section 4.3], and Section below for the motivating facts of our work. This large variance is called the resonsiveness effect, and stands as a key deficiency of demand resonse rograms. Jessoe and Rason 14) [5] investigate the reasons for this oor resonsiveness, and oints out the role of communication technologies and information. The main objective of this aer is to device incentive mechanisms in order to enhance the resonsiveness of consumers and to rovide estimates of the otential gains they may induce. We formulate the mechanism design of demand resonse rograms as a roblem of continuous time otimal contracting between a roducer and a consumer. A risk averse CARA roducer has to satisfy the random electricity consumtion of a risk averse CARA consumer during a given eriod of time. We focus on the consumtion deviation relative to a redictable attern of the consumer s demand. The roducer has a generation cost function for the energy and is also subject to a direct cost of the consumer s resonsiveness defined as the consumtion volatility. The consumer has a subjective value of energy and can reduce both the average level of his consumtion and its volatility by taking costly actions which may deend on the nature of the corresonding usage of electricity lights, oven, air conditioning, tv, comuter...). The roducer only observes the total consumtion of the consumer and has no access to the consumer s actions or efforts. She aims at finding the otimal contract that minimises the exected disutility from the energy generation cost, the resonsiveness cost and the incentive ayment, while anticiating the otimal resonse of the consumer s maximisation of his exected utility from the ayment, the benefit value of his deviation and the cost of efforts. Finally, the roducer s roblem is subject to the consumer s articiation level defined as the reservation utility without contract. 1 Reort form the Commission Benchmarking smart metering deloyment in the EU-7 with a focus on electricity, SWD14) 188 final,. 4. Enerwise was fined a $78. enalty by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission 143 FERC 6118 as of June 7th, 13 for maniulation of a demand resonse rogram.

3 The execution of the contract described above can be interreted as a rice event of a dynamic tariff. With this interretation, the reduction of the volatility of consumtion on a single exercise is similar to an increase of consumer s resonsiveness. If there is a reduction in the volatility of consumtion, the roducer will observe a lower variance of consumtion reductions across rice events. Thus, from now on, we will use indifferently the terms of volatility reduction or of resonsiveness increase. It should be noted that the interretation we use in this aer of the reduction of volatility as an increase in the resonsiveness of the consumer alies to other Princial-Agent situations. We solve the first best and second best otimal contracting roblems in closed form in the context of linear consumer s energy value and roducer s energy generation cost. The otimal contract consists in a deterministic ayment that deends on the the duration of the demand resonse, a linear ayment on each infinitesimal deviation, and a linear ayment on the realised squared volatility. We find that the risk sharing rocess deends on the difference between the value of energy for the consumer and the energy generation cost of the roducer. This difference corresonds to eak eriod when energy is more costly to roduce than it has value for the consumer and off-eak eriods when it is the oosite. In agreement with the economic intuition, we find that the roducer induces efforts to reduce the average consumtion only on eak eriods when energy is more costly to generate than it has value for the consumer. This result is consistent with demand resonse rograms which target eak eriods, see Faruqui and Sergici 1) [16]. Further, we find that the resonsiveness incentive does not deend on the eriod of the day, but on the marginal resonsiveness cost of the roducer. The latter decomoses into the direct linear resonsiveness cost and a risk remium accounting for the risk sharing between the roducer and the consumer. The resonsiveness incentive is active even without direct resonsiveness cost in the roducer s criterion. As a consequence, under the otimal contract with otimal consumer behaviour, the resulting resonsiveness may imrove as required, but it may also deteriorate deending on the risk aversion arameters of both actors. Because he is risk averse, the consumer has a natural incentive to reduce the consumtion volatility, even without contract. Thus, before contracting one could observe a higher level of resonsiveness than the no-effort situation. After contracting, if the roducer s resonsiveness cost is small enough, or if she is much less risk averse than the consumer, she would bear enough risk thus decreasing the burden of the consumer to imrove resonsiveness. This exlains the ossible resonsiveness decrease, and illustrates how the risk sharing effect induces that the electric system can bear more risk. Another result of our model is that, during off eak eriods, the roducer s first best value can be imlemented by second best otimal contracting, with identical otimal contracts. This result is not valid anymore during eak eriods: the consumer does enjoy a ositive information rent for sufficiently small consumer s resonsiveness cost of effort. This is due to the fact that the incentives on level reduction and resonsiveness imrovement are combined in this context, while they act searately in the first best contracting situation. This mixed effect is resonsible for the loss of value from the roducer s side. We next turn to the emirical examination of our model. We use the ublicly available data of the large scale demand resonse exeriment of Low Carbon London Pricing Trial, see Section 7 for a descrition of the data. The exeriment allows to comare a controlled grou of consumers enjoying a standard flat tariff with a grou of consumers enrolled with a dynamic Time of Use tariff dtou). We calibrate the arameters of our model by interreting this exeriment as the imlementation of our otimal contracting model under no resonsiveness incentives, i.e. the consumer is only incentivised to reduce the average level of his consumtion deviation. Using this hyothesis, we find that the imlementation of a resonsiveness incentive would result in a reduction of volatility of 17% and a multilication by three of the roducer certainty equivalent comared to an otimal contract based only on incentives on average consumtion reduction. The benefit of the roducer would increase from.33 ence er rice event and consumer to 1 ence. Whether or not the resonsiveness incentive is active, we find that the otimal ayments are ositive, non monotonic and increase for large values of the demand resonse events duration. But, while the deterministic and random art ayments without resonsiveness control are always ositive, we find that the resonsiveness control induces a negative deterministic ayment combined with a large ositive certainty equivalent random ayment. The resonsiveness incentive consists in, first taking cash out of the consumer, and then giving him back a otential large ayment for aroriate realisation of the outut. We also find a significant cost of action for the consumers to reduce their consumtion of aroximately 18 /KWh, a value that ranges between the normal day rice of 11.4 /KWh and the high rice during events of 67. /KWh. But, as the LCL Pricing Trial did not involve consumers enroled with a real time ricing tariff RTP), we can not comare this cost to the cost induced by RTP as Wolak 11) [43] does. Nevertheless, our result rovides 3

4 new insights in the debate regarding the incentive olicies roosed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to foster the develoment of demand resonse rograms FERC Order 745). The design of efficient incentive olicies to foster consumer s demand resonse as roosed by the FERC can not rely on the marginal cost of electricity of the roducer, or only on the difference between this marginal cost and the value aid by the consumer as suggested by Hogan 9,1) [, 1], Chao 11) [9] and Brown and Saington 16) [6], but should also take into account the disutility incurred by the consumer for his efforts to induce the reduction as well as the risk aversion of both the consumer and the roducer even when there is no resonsiveness control imlemented. Finally, we examine the robustness of our results to our linearity assumtion which is crucial for the derivation of the exlicit solution. We imlement a numerical aroximation of the solution of the otimal contracting roblem for a concave consumer s energy value function, and we erform the comarison with the corresonding linear contract aroximation. We find that the more the energy value is concave, the more the roducer overays the consumer. But, even for large concavity value, the linear contract succeeds in roviding 8% of the benefit issued from the otimal second best contract. Further, the resonsiveness control mechanism still rovides a significant benefit to the roducer. The ure effect of concavity leads to a decrease of the gain to 7% while the joint effects of concavity and multile usages leads to a decrease of the gain to 3%. Our model stands at the intersection of otimal contract theory in continuous-time, the economics of demand resonse for ower systems and theirs emirical imlications. From a methodological oint of view, our work falls in the line of the works of Hölmstrom and Milgrom 1979) [], Grossman and Hart 1983) [17], Hölmstrom and Milgrom 1987) [3] and Sannikov 8) [36]. Our results rely on the recent advances of Cvitanić et al. 18) [13] which allows volatility control i.e. resonsiveness effort) in the continuous time Princial Agent roblem. For an economic introduction to incentives theory, we refer to Laffont and Martimort ) [3]. The economic literature on otimal contract theory and risk-sharing is vast. We also refer to Cadellinas et al. 7) [7], who resent a general setting for the analysis of the first best otimal risk sharing in the context of comensation lan for executives, and to Müller 1998) [33] who rovides the first best otimal sharing rule in the case of CARA exonential utility function and shows that it is also a linear function of the aggregated outut as in the second best case. The closest work on volatility control in the framework of Princial Agent is in Cvitanić et al. 17) [14], however our aer is the first to roduce a closed form solution in this context. Regarding demand resonse rograms, its study is a long dated subject in the economic literature, see Tan and Varaiya 1993) [38] for a seminal model of interrutible contracts for a ool of consumers. The framework of otimal contract theory has been used to formulate the enrolment of customers in demand resonse rograms as an adverse selection rogram. This idea can be traced back to the work of Fahrioglu and Alvarado ) [15] on incentive comatible demand resonse rogram and has been recently reused both in the work of Crames and Léautier 15) [1] to design suitable base line consumtion reference, and by Alasseur et al. 17) [] for eak load ricing. More recently, big data methods have been used to rovide recise resonse of consumers with a given robability, see Kwac and Rajagoal 14) [9]. The only known work to the authors modeling the cost of electricity demand volatility is Tsitsiklis and Xu 15) [4] who designed a model in discrete time where they take into account not only the generation cost of energy but also the cost of variation of generation between two time stes. In their model, consumers are incited to reduce their consumtion with a rice signal which is the traditional marginal fuel cost of generation lus the marginal of cost of variation of generation. The comlexity of the model in terms of reresented constraints only allows for numerical simulations. Finally, our work contributes to the emirical literature on moral hazard models, see Chiaori and Salanié ) [11] for insurance industry, Lewis and Bajari 14) [31] for ublic rocurement and Bandiera et al. 5) [3] for workers roductivity. We make the testable rediction that the imlementation of resonsiveness incentives decreases consumtion volatility. This claim can be tested by the next generation of demand resonse ricing trials by erforming controlled exeriments to comare consumers with and without resonsiveness incentives as described in our work. The aer is organised as follows. Section rovides evidences that current demand resonse mechanism fails to increase consumer s resonsiveness, i.e. to decrease the volatility of his resonses. Section 3 describes the model. Section 4 rovides the otimal contract and effort of the first best roblem in the general case. Section 5 rovides the otimal contract and effort characterization in the second best case. Section 6 gives the closed-formed exression of the otimal contract and efforts in the case of a linear energy value and generation cost and comares the first and the second best roblem. Section 7 rovides emirical results. Section 8 concludes. 4

5 Figure 1: Household resonse to dynamic ricing of electricity, source: Faruqui & Sergici 1) [16]. Motivating facts In this section, we rovide evidence that consumers exhibit a large variance in their resonse to standard dynamic ricing schemes. Our argument relies on the existing literature on one hand, and on an emirical examination of the Low Carbon London Pricing Trial. Our main concern is that these rograms fail to enhance the resonsiveness of consumers. The first objective of demand resonse rograms is to incite consumtion reduction during eak load eriods. Significant exeriments have been conducted worldwide to assess the efficiency of such rograms. Faruqui & Sergici 1) documents more than 3 trials which conclude to a ositive effect of demand resonse incentives. However, an imortant concern is about the resonsiveness of the consumers. The efficiency of demand resonse rograms to achieve average consumtion reduction comes with an irregular resonse of the consumers during the ricing trials. Figure shows the average consumtion reduction of more than 5 ricing trial. The reduction of consumtion in eak-load exhibits a large variance with an efficiency ranging from 1% to 5%. This variance is still large in the oulation enrolled in Critical Peak Pricing with digital communication devices CPP w/tech). We next use the Low Carbon London Pricing Trial ublicly available data to illustrate that dynamic Time-of- Use tariff dtou) fails to control the enrolled consumers resonsiveness, although the overall effect of the incentive mechanism is ositive. In the Low Carbon London Pricing Trial, a grou of consumers enjoying a standard flat tariff was used as a control grou while a grou of consumers was enrolled in a dynamic Time Of Use tariff. Tariffs were sent to the latter households on a day ahead basis using a Home Dislay or a text message to the mobile hone of the customer. A rice event is a day when a high rice is sent to the dtou grou. The recise descrition of the dtou trial erformed in 13 is given in [39, cha. 3] and will be discussed further in Section 7. The Low Carbon London Demand Side Resonse Trial was designed to be as close as ossible to a random trial exeriment, while accounting for the oerational constraints due to the enrollment of a large set of customers within the ortfolio of given UK utility EDF Energy). In the following, the size of the samles is 88 consumers for the control grou and 5 for the dtou grou and the number of rice events is 69. We decomose the consumtion of each household i as Ct i := St i + Xt, i where St i is a deterministic seasonal comonent and Xt i is the deviation of the household consumtion to the deterministic attern St. i In order to comare the two oulations, we formulate the following linear model X i t = m + v ε i t, if i enrolled, and X i t = m + v ε i t, if i not enrolled, where m, m and v, v are unknown arameters, and ε i t are indeendent centered with unit variance. These arameters are naturally estimated by the means ˆm, ˆm and the standard deviations ˆv, ˆv within each oulation. We next erform the test of the hyothesis that m = m and v = v. The results are reorted in Table 1. The last column rovides the -value of the Student test for the equality of the mean and of the Fisher-Snedecor 5

6 test for the equality of the standard deviation of the two samles. The equality of the means is statistically rejected with a high level of confidence, indicating that there is an average reduction effect of aroximately 1 Watt. However, again with a high level of confidence, the equality of standard deviations can not be rejected, indicating that the rogram has no effect on the resonsiveness. The urose of this aer is to rovide otimal incentives to induce both reduction of the average consumtion of the consumer and to enhance his resonsiveness, i.e. to reduce the volatility of his consumtion during rice events. We shall rovide redictions of the otential benefits from resonsiveness incentive. The calibration erformed in Section 7 of the Princial Agent model described in Section 3 with the data of the LCL ricing trial shows that during eak load eriods the imlementation of a resonsiveness incentive can increase by more than % the gain of the roducers; in the situation defined by the calibration of the model, resonsiveness incentive induces an increase of the roducer s certainty equivalent from.33 to 1.3 ence; reduce the volatility of consumtion by %. not enrolled enrolled Test Hyothesis i.e. standard i.e. dtou -value Mean m = m : Standard deviation v = v :.18 Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of consumtion deviation for the Standard tariff grou and for the dtou tariff grou during rice events unit Watt). 3 The model The Agent consumtion deviation rocess is denoted by X = {X t, t [, T ]}, and is the canonical rocess of the sace Ω of scalar continuous trajectories ω : [, T ] R, i.e. X t ω) = ωt) for all t, ω) [, T ] Ω. We denote by F = {F t, t [, T ]} the corresonding filtration. 3.1 The consumer A control rocess for the consumer the Agent) is a air ν := α, β) of F adated rocesses, which are resectively A and B valued. More secifically, α reresents the effort of the consumer to reduce the nominal level of consumtion and β is the resonsiveness effort consisting in reducing the consumtion deviation variability for each usage of electricity. We emhasize that α and β are resectively N and d dimensional vectors, thus caturing the differentiation between different usages, e.g. refrigerator, heating or air conditioning, lightning, television, washing machine, comuters... This set of control rocesses is denoted by U. For a given initial condition x R, reresenting the current deviation from the deterministic art of consumtion, and some control rocess ν := α, β), the controlled equation is defined by the following stochastic differential equation 3 driven by an d dimensional Brownian motion W X t = x t α s 1ds + t σβ s ) dw s, t [, T ], with σb) := σ 1 b1,..., σ d bd ), 3.1) for some given arameters σ 1,..., σ d >. All of our utility criteria deend only on the distribution P ν of the state rocess X corresonding to the effort rocess ν. Let P be the collection of all such measures P ν. 3 For technical reasons, we need to consider weak solutions of the stochastic differential equations. However, for exositional uroses, we deliberately ignore this technical asect in this section so as to focus on the main message of the resent aer. 6

7 The state variable X reresents the consumer s deviation from the deterministic rofile of his consumtion. An effort ν induces a searable cost cν) := c 1 α) + 1 c β) and a utility fx) from the deviation X. Throughout this aer, we shall take c 1 a) := 1 N i=1 a i µ i, and c b) := d j=1 σ j λ j η j b η j j 1 ), a A, b B, for some µ, λ, η), + ) N, + ) d 1, + ) d. Notice that c is convex, increasing in a and decreasing in b as the resonsiveness effort consists in reducing the volatility, thus reroducing the requested effects of increasing marginal cost of effort. Moreover, c 1 ) = c 1) = catures the fact that there is no cost for making no effort. The cost function is quadratic in a, and illustrates that small deviations as e.g. switching off the light when leaving some lace) are ainless, while large deviations as e.g. reducing the consumtion from heating or air conditioning) are more costly. The function f is increasing, and centered at the origin. A secific choice of f is not imortant for the general resentation, but closed form solutions will be obtained for linear f. The Agent controls the electricity consumtion deviation by choosing the effort rocess ν in the state equation 3.1), subject to the corresonding cost of effort rate cν), and the deviation utility rate fx). For technical reasons, we need to consider bounded efforts, we then set A := [, µ 1 A max ] [, µn A max ] and B := [ε, 1], for some constants A max > and ε >. The execution of the contract starts at t =. The consumer receives a ayment ξ from the roducer at time T, in comensation for his consumtion deviation. The roducer has no access to the consumer s actions, and does not observe the consumer s different usages of electricity and deviations. She only observes the overall deviation X. Consequently, the comensation ξ can only be contingent on X, that is ξ is F T measurable. We denote by C the set of F T measurable random variables. The objective function of the consumer is then defined for all ν, ξ) U C by [ J A ξ, P ν ) := E Pν U A ξ + fxs ) cν s ) ) ds)], where U A x) := e rx, 3.) for some constant risk aversion arameter r >. It is imlicitly understood that the limiting case r corresonds to a risk neutral consumer. The consumer s roblem is V A ξ) := su J A ξ, P ν ), 3.3) P ν P i.e. maximising utility from deviating from the baseline electricity consumtion subject to the cost of effort. A control P ν P will be called otimal if V A ξ) = J A ξ, P ν ). We denote by P ξ) the collection of all such otimal resonses P ν. We finally assume that the consumer has a reservation utility R R = R e rπ, where R := V A ). 3.4) Here, R is the exected utility level that the Agent can achieve without contracting, and e rπ is the utility induced by the remium π. If π is ositive, the consumer is asking for a remium over the utility without contract because R < ). If π is negative, the consumers is willing to make some sacrifice to hel the electricity system. 3. The roducer The roducer the Princial) rovides electricity to the consumer, and thus faces the generation cost of the roduced energy, and the cost induced by the variation of roduction. Her erformance criterion is defined by [ J P ξ, P ν ) := E Pν U ξ gx s )ds h )] X T, with Ux) := e x. 3.5) Here > is the constant absolute risk aversion arameter, g is a non negative non decreasing generation cost function, and h is a ositive constant reresenting the direct cost induced by the quadratic variation X of the 7

8 consumtion deviation. The higher the volatility of the consumtion, the more costly it is for the roducer to follow the load curve. Note that due to risk aversion, the roducer bears also an indirect cost of volatility. An F T measurable random variable ξ will therefore be called a contract, which we denote by ξ C, if it satisfies the additional integrability roerty su E [ Pν e rmξ] + su E [ Pν e mξ] < +, for some m > ) P ν P P ν P This integrability condition guarantees that the consumer criterion 3.) and the rincial one 3.5) are well-defined. Throughout this aer, we shall consider the two following standard contracting roblems. First best contracting corresonds to the benchmark situation where the roducer has full ower to imose a contract to the consumer and to dictate the effort the Agent effort V fb { := JP ξ, P ν ) : J A ξ, P ν ) R }, 3.7) su ξ,p ν ) C P Second best contracting allows the consumer to resond otimally to the roducer offer. We follow the standard convention in the Princial Agent literature in the case of multile otimal resonses in P ξ), that the consumer imlements the otimal resonse that is the best for the roducer. This leads to the second best contracting roblem V sb := su ξ Ξ su J P ξ, P ν ), where Ξ := { ξ C : V A ξ) R }, 3.8) P ν P ξ) with the convention su =, thus restricting the contracts that can be offered by the roducer to those ξ C such that P ξ). 3.3 Consumer s otimal resonse and reservation utility We collect here some calculations related to the consumer s otimal resonse which will be useful throughout the aer. Following Cvitanić et al. 18) [13], we introduce the consumer s Hamiltonian. Hz, γ) := H m z) + H v γ), z, γ R, 3.9) where H m and H v are the comonents of the Hamiltonian corresonding to the instantaneous mean and the volatility, resectively { H m z) := inf a 1z + c1 a) }, and H v γ) := 1 a A inf { c b) γ σb) }. 3.1) b B Here, z reresents the ayment rate for a decrease of the consumtion deviation and γ reresents the ayment rate for a decrease of the volatility of the consumtion deviation. Both ayments can be ositive or negative. Given these ayments, the consumer maximises the instantaneous rate of benefit given by the Hamiltonian to deduce the otimal resonse âz) on the drift and bγ) on the volatilities. The following result collects the closed form exression of the last otimal resonses. We denote x := x), x R. Proosition 3.1. The otimal resonse of the consumer to an instantaneous ayment rate z, γ) is âz) j := µ j z A max ), and bj γ) := 1 λ j γ ) 1 1+η j ε, j = 1,..., N, so that, with µ := µ 1, σγ) := σ bγ) ), ĉ1 z) := c 1 âz) ), and ĉ γ) := c bγ) ), H m z) = 1 µ z A max ) and H v γ) = 1 ĉ γ) γ σγ) ). The z ayment induces an effort of the consumer on all usages to reduce the average consumtion deviation and this effort is roortional to its cost 1/µ i. The γ ayment induces an effort only on the usages whose cost 1/λ j is lower than the ayment. As a first use of the revious notations, we rovide the following characterisation of the consumer s reservation utility. The roof is reorted in the Aendix section A.1. 8

9 Proosition 3.. Consumer s reservation utility) Assume that f is concave, non decreasing, and Lischitz continuous. Then the following holds. i) The consumer s reservation utility is concave in x, and is given by R = e re,x), where the corresonding certainty equivalent E is a viscosity solution of the HJB equation t E = f + H v Exx re x) on [, T ) R, and ET, x) =, x R, 3.11) with growth controlled by Et, x) CT t) x, for some constant C >. ii) Assume that the PDE 3.11) has a C 1, solution E with growth controlled by Et, x) CT t) x, for some constant C >. Then the otimal effort of the consumer is defined by the feedback controls a :=, and b j := ε 1 λ j E xx re x) ) 1 1+η j, j = 1,..., d. Note that, even without contracting, the consumer s otimal behaviour exhibits a ositive resonsiveness effort. The next result rovides a closed form exression for the reservation utility when f is linear. Proosition 3.3. Let fx) = κ x, x R, for some κ. Then, the consumer s reservation utility is R = e rκxt +ET )), where E T ) := H v γt) ) dt, and γt) := rκ T t). The consumer s otimal effort on the drift and on each volatility usage are resectively a =, and b jt) := ε 1 λ j γt) ) 1 1+η j, j = 1,..., d, thus inducing an otimal distribution P under which the deviation rocess follows the dynamics dx t = σ b t) ) dw t, for some P Brownian motion W. Proof. By directly lugging the guess Et, x) = Ct)x + E t) in the PDE 3.11), we obtain C t)x + E t) + H v rc t) ) + κx =, with CT ) = E T ) =. This entails Ct) = κt t) and E t) = H t v rc s) ) ds, t T. Finally the exression of the maximiser b follows from Proosition 3.1. Since this smooth solution of the PDE has the aroriate linear growth, we conclude from Proosition 3. ii) that it is indeed the value function inducing the reservation utility. Remark 3.1. In the setting of the last roosition, the consumer s certainty equivalent for x = is either 1 rκ T s) σ ds, or 1 rκ T s) σγs)) + ĉ γs)) ) ds, deending on whether no effort is made or not. Hence, in both situations, the consumer bears a cost from the volatility and his otimal effort can reduce this cost but can not turn it into a benefit. This oint is imortant as it imlies that if the consumer does not require a remium π to enter in the contract, then setting the consumer at his reservation utility consists in taking away from him some cash. 4 First best contracting We rovide here the solution of the first best roblem 3.7) corresonding to the case where the roducer chooses both the contract ξ and the level of effort of the consumer ν, under the constraint that the consumer s satisfaction is above the reservation utility. Introducing a Lagrange multilier l to enalise the articiation constraint, and alying the classical Karush Kuhn Tucker method, we can formulate the roducer s first best roblem as { V fb = inf lr + su E [ Pν U ξ K ν ) )] } T + lua ξ + G ν T, 4.1) l ξ,p ν ) 9

10 where G ν T := gx s)ds + h X T and K ν T := fx s) cν s ))ds. The first order conditions in ξ are U ξ l G ν T ) + lu A ξl + K ν T ) =. In view of our secification of the utility functions, this rovides the otimal contract ayment for a given Lagrange multilier l ξ l := 1 ) rl + r ln + r Gν T r + r Kν T. 4.) Substituting this exression in 4.1), we see that the Princial s first best roblem reduces to { V fb = inf l R r l ) ) r )} rl r+ V, with V := su E P P ν [ ν e ρ T )] f g)xt) cνt))dt h X T, and 1 ρ := 1 r + 1. Notice that V does not deend on the Lagrange multilier l. Then direct calculations lead to the otimal Lagrange multilier and first best value function l := r ) 1+ ) V r 1+ V, so that V fb r = R. 4.3) R R This lead to the following roosition, whose roof is deferred to the Aendix section A.. Proosition 4.1. Assume that f g is Lischitz continuous.then i) V = e ρ v,x), where v has growth vt, x) CT t) x, for some constant C >, and is a viscosity solution of the PDE t v = f g) + H m v x ) + H v vxx ρ v x h ), on [, T ) R, and vt,.) =, 4.4) so that, by 4.3), the first best value function V fb = U v, x ) + 1 r log R)). ii) If in addition v is smooth, the otimal efforts to induce a reduction of the consumtion deviation and of its volatility are given by where a fb t, X t ) := â z fb t, X t ) ), and b fb t, X t ) := b γ fb t, X t ) ), t [, T ], 4.5) z fb t, x) := v x t, x), γ fb t, x) := v xx t, x) ρ v xt, x) h, t, x) [, T ] R. iii) Denoting ν fb := a fb, b fb ), the otimal first best contract can be written as ξ fb = log R) r + r v, x ) r fxt ) cν fb t, X t )) ) dt gx t )dt + h + r + r X T. Remark 4.1. The otimal contract is a sum of the values and costs bore by the consumer and the roducer weighted by their relative aversion. Producer s cost is taken back from the consumer and if the consumer reduces consumtion, fx t ) is negative and thus, the consumer gets aid. 5 Second best contracting 5.1 Revealing contracts As the volatility induced by resonsiveness effort is uniformly bounded above zero, and the level reduction effort is bounded, we may follow the general methodology of Cvitanić et al. 18) [13], based on Sannikov 8) [36]. Let V be the collection of all air rocesses Z, Γ) and constants y R, inducing the subclass of contracts ξ = Y y,z,γ T, where Y y,z,γ t := y + t Z s dx s + 1 t Γs + rzs ) t d X s HZs, Γ s ) + fx s ) ) ds, t [, T ]. 5.1) 1

11 We recall from Cvitanić et al. 18) that U A Y y,z,γ) t reresents the Agent s continuation utility so that Y y,z,γ t is the time t value of the Agent s certainty equivalent. This contract is affine in the level of consumtion deviation X and the corresonding quadratic variation X, with linearity coefficients Z and Γ. The constant art HZ s, Γ s )+fx s ))ds reresents the certainty equivalent of the utility gain of the consumer that can be achieved by an otimal resonse to the contract, and is thus subtracted from the Princial s ayment, in agreement with usual Princial Agent moral hazard tye of contract see [3, Chater 4]). Further, in the resent setting, the risk aversion of the Agent imlies that the infinitesimal ayment Z t dx t must be comensated by the additional ayment 1 rz t d X t, so that, formally, the resulting imact of the ayment Z t dx t on the Agent s exected utility is ex r Z t dx t + 1 )) rzt d X t r Z t dx t + 1 ) rzt d X t 1 r Zt d X t + 1 rz t dx t. Under the otimal resonse of the consumer, the dynamics of the consumtion deviation and the certainty equivalent of the consumer are given by X Z,Γ t := x Y Y,Z,Γ t = Y + t t âz s ) 1ds + t σγ s ) dw s c âz s ), bγ s ) ) fx Z,Γ s ) + 1 rz s σγ s ) ) ds + t Z s σγ s ) dw s, so that the average rate of ayment consists in aying back the consumer her costs minus benefit c f, and an additional comensation for the risk taken by the consumer for bearing the volatility of consumtion deviation. Note that the average rate of ayment can be ositive or negative. Remark 5.1. i) Consider the zero remium case π =, and assume that the roducer rooses the contract ξ defined by y = 1 r ln R ), Z = Γ, i.e. ξ = 1 r ln R ) fxν t )dt, as the Hamiltonian satisfies here H v ). Then, the otimal resonse of the consumer is obtained by solving the utility maximisation roblem )] V A ξ ) = su E [U A cν t )dt. P ν P As the cost function c is non decreasing in the effort, at the otimum, the consumer makes no effort, neither on the drift, nor on the volatility. Comaring with Proosition 3., this shows that the absence of contract is different from the above contract ξ, with zero ayment rates. ii) We may also examine the case where the roducer offers a contract with ayment ξ = to the consumer. This is achieved by choosing Z t = E x t, X t ) and Γ t = E xx E x)t, X t ), where the certainty equivalent reservation E is defined in Proosition 3.. From the oint of view of the consumer, such a contract is clearly equivalent to the no contracting setting, and thus induces a ositive effort on the volatility in the consumer s otimal resonse. 5. HJB characterisation of the roducer s roblem By the main result of Cvitanić et al. 18), we may reduce the Princial s roblem to the otimisation over the class of contracts Y y,z,γ T, where y r 1 log R) and Z, Γ) V. By the obvious monotonicity in y, this leads to the following standard stochastic control roblem V sb = su Z,Γ E [ U L Z,Γ )] T, with L Z,Γ t := Y Z,Γ t + t g Xs Z,Γ ) h ds + d XZ,Γ s, t [, T ], and starting oint L = y = r 1 log R). The state variable L reresents the loss of the roducer under the otimal resonse of the consumer, and is defined by the dynamics dl Z,Γ t = 1 g f)x Z,Γ t ) + ĉ 1 Z t ) + f rzt + h, Γ t ) ) dt + Z t σγ t ) dw t, t [, T ). where f q, γ) := q σγ) + ĉ γ). 5.) 11

12 The function f q, γ) measures the total cost the roducer incurs from the volatility, when the unit cost of volatility is q and the rate of ayment for the volatility reduction is γ. The term q σγ) is the instantaneous cost of volatility while the term ĉ γ) is the cost of effort incurred by the consumer. This last cost will be aid by the roducer, and enters thus in the evaluation of the cost of volatility. The roducer aims at making the term σγ) as small as ossible. To achieve this objective, a sufficiently large γ should be aid to reduce σγ), but this can be done only at the exense of an increasing cost ĉ γ). Lemma 5.1. Let F q) := inf γ f q, γ). Then F q) = f q, q) = H v q) is non decreasing. Proof: See Aendix A.3. The value function of the second best roblem can be characterised as follows, see Section A.4. Proosition 5.1 Second-best contract). Assume that f g is Lischitz continuous. Then i) V sb = e v,x) L) where v has growth vt, x) CT t) x, for some constant C >, and is a viscosity solution of the PDE t v = f g + 1 µ v x 1 inf { F qvx, v xx, z) ) + µ z + v x ) + η A v x, z) )}, on [, T ) R, z R 5.3) vt,.) =, with qv x, v xx, z) := h v xx + rz + z v x ), and η A v x, z) := v x + z A) + ) v x, as A. ii) If in addition v is smooth, the otimal ayment rate γ sb to incentivise the agent resonsiveness is γ sb t, X t ) := h + v xx t, X t ) rz sbt, X t ) z sb t, X t ) v x t, X t ) ), t [, T ], 5.4) and the otimal ayment rate for the consumtion deviation reduction is the minimiser z sb in 5.3), satisfying for large A: ) z sb v x, r + v x, when v x, and z sb = r + v x, when v x. iii) The second best otimal contract is given by ξ sb := log R) r + z sb t, X t )dx t + 1 γ sb + rzsb)t, X t )d X t Hz sb, γ sb ) + f ) t, X t )dt. Remark 5.. i) Consider the case of a risk neutral consumer r =. As F is non decreasing by Lemma 5.1, we see that the minimum in the PDE 5.3) is attained at z sb = v x, thus reducing the PDE 5.3) to t v f g) 1 µ v x ) = 1 F h v xx ) = H v v xx h), where the last equality follows from Lemma 5.1. Notice that this is the same PDE as the first best characterisation given in Proosition 4.1 i), since ρ = in the resent setting. In articular, the roducer s value function is indeendent of her risk aversion arameter. The otimal ayment rates for the effort on the drift and the volatility are given by z sb = v x and γ sb = h + v xx, so that the resulting otimal contract is also indeendent of the roducer s risk aversion. This is consistent with the findings of Hölmstrom and Milgrom [3] in the context of a risk neutral agent, where the otimal effort of the Agent is indeendent of the Princial risk aversion arameter. Remark 5.3. i) From Proosition 3.1, a ositive ayment z induces no effort of the consumer on his average deviation, as âz) = µz A max. However when v x >, it follows from Proosition 5.1 that the otimal ayment rate z sb = r+ v x is also ositive, and not zero, as one could exect. In other words, the roducer is aying the consumer when the consumtion deviation increases. While this finding seems to be in contradiction with the roducer s objective, it is exlained as follows. Observe that the otimal rate of ayment z sb, as the minimiser of qv x, v xx, z), balances two effects on one hand, the roducer comensates the ositive efforts of the consumers on the drift reduction; 1

13 on the other hand, the roducer aims at reducing the squared distance z v x reresenting her indirect cost of volatility, as her continuation utility e vt,xt) LZ,Γ t ) is affected by the volatility v x t, X t ) Z t of the difference vt, X t ) L Z,Γ t by v x t, X t ) Z t ) ; this is a direct consequence of Itô s formula. ii) Notice that the case v x cannot be excluded. A ositive marginal value of this certainty equivalent means that the higher the initial deviation, the higher the utility of the roducer. Using the exression of the objective function of the roducer in 3.5) in our formula for the otimal contract in 5.1), one can check that the monotonicity of the value function of the roducer w.r.t. the initial condition x deends only on f g)x t)dt. Thus, if the consumer values more the energy than it is costly for the roducer to generate it, the value function of the roducer is increasing in x. This remark exlains why the roducer will not encourage the consumer to reduce his consumtion in this situation; see Section 6 for more details in the case of linear energy valuation and generation cost. iii) If the consumer asks for no remium π to enter in the contract, the roducer may have an interest in signing the contract even if there is no direct volatility cost h =. Indeed, the roducer s risk aversion induces a volatility cost deending on the risk aversion arameter, and induces a gain from signing the contract even if h =. 6 Linear case We consider in this section the case where f g)x) := δx, x R. 6.1) for some constant arameter δ, called hereafter energy value discreancy. The case δ corresonds to the setting where an increase in consumtion rovides more utility to the consumer than the additional generation cost induced to the roducer. It corresonds to off eak hours. Similarly, negative δ means that an increase of consumtion induces more cost for the roducer than the benefit gained by the consumer. It corresonds to eak load hours. We directly consider the limiting case ɛ = and A max =, although our exlicit derivation of the value function of the roducer can also be obtained for fixed ɛ and A max. 6.1 Producer s benefit from the second best contract Similar to the roof of Proosition 3.3, we derive a closed form solution for the PDE 5.3) of the form vt, x) = At) x + Bt), 6.) for some aroriate functions A and B. To determine the functions A and B, we lug this guess into the PDE 5.3), and obtain the following restrictions: A t) = δ, AT ) =, B t) = mt) := 1 µa t) 1 inf { F h + rz + z At)) ) + µz + At)) }, BT ) =. This rovides z R At) = δt t), and Bt) = t ms)ds, t [, T ], 6.3) so that the sign of v x is determined by that of δ. The derivation of the function B will be continued in the next subsections. In articular, it turns out that the consumer behavior is crucially driven by the sign of the arameter δ. Notice that, the solution 6.)-6.3) derived by this guess has the aroriate linear growth, as required in Proosition 5.1. We may then conclude that it coincides with the certainty equivalent function v which induces the second best roducer s value function. 13

14 Proosition 6.1. Let the energy value discreancy be linear as in 6.1). Then: i) the roducer s second best value function is given by V sb = U ) v, X ) L, with certainty equivalent function v characterized by 6.)-6.3). The otimal ayment rates are the deterministic functions z sb = Arg min z R { F h + rz + z A) ) + µz + A) }, and γ sb = h + rz sb + z sb A) ). ii) the second best otimal contract is given by ξ sb = log R) r + z sb )X Hz sb, γ sb )t)dt + 1 γ sb + rz sb)d X t κ + z sbt))x t dt. Proof. The claim follows from the fact that V sb = e [v,x) L], with L = r 1 log R), together with the calculation receding the statement. The form of the contract is obtained by alying integration by art to the term z sbt)dx t of the general form of the contract 5.1). Remark 6.1. In the case of linear energy value, the otimal contract shares the form of real life demand resonse contracts. It is the sum of a constant term log R) T + z sb )X Hz sb, γ sb )t)dt r reresenting a remium aid at the enrollment, and a term roortional to the consumtion but deending on the realised effort of the consumer 1 γ sb + rz sb)d X t κ + z sbt))x t dt. However, in our case, the ayment or enalty alies to the consumtion deviation and not the total consumtion. Nevertheless, a ayment for the deterministic art of the consumtion could be added u to the constant term. Further, we note that the constant term deends on the duration of the effort T. Thus, the different initial ayment should be aid if the roducer wants to imlement a resonse for a rice event of three, six or 1 hours. In the case where the energy value discreancy is ositive it is ossible to obtain more exlicit result for Proosition 6.1. Proosition 6.. Suose that the energy has more value for the consumer than for the roducer, i.e. f g) = δ. Then: i) the otimal ayments rate are deterministic functions of time given by z sb t) = inducing the second-best otimal contract ξ sb = log R) r r + δt t), and γ sbt) = h + r r + δ T t) + δt r + X H, γ sb t))dt + 1 γsb t) + rz sb t) ) d X t κ + r + δ)x tdt. 6.4) ii) the consumer s otimal effort on the drift and the volatility of the consumtion deviation is â ) ) ) 1 1+η j z sb =, and bj γsb = 1 λ j γ sb t), so that the otimal resonse of the consumer induces the otimal robability distribution P sb such that dx t = σγ sb ) dw t, for some P sb Brownian motion W. Proof. ii) Alying Proosition 6. and Proosition 5.1 iii) to the case where δ gives directly that z sb = r+ v x = r+ δt t) and thus γ sb follows. Further, alying Proosition 5.1 iv) together with the exression of z sb gives directly ξ sb. iii) The alication of Proosition 3.1 gives the result. Reassembling the former results together with Proosition 6. i) and our guess, gives the exression of V sb in i). 14

15 Remark 6.. i) Consider the secial case where the roducer and the consumer agree on the energy value, i.e. δ =. The ayment rates to reduce volatility is a constant and does not deend on the risk aversion of the roducer and the consumer. It is just a matter of direct cost of volatility for the roducer h and volatility cost reduction for The consumer makes effort only on those usages whose marginal cost of effort 1/λj is lower than the consumer 1/λ. the roducer s marginal cost of volatility h. For each usage, the volatility is a constant, equal to σj if h < 1/λj, or to σj λj h) 1/1+ηj )) otherwise. ii) If in addition the roducer incurs no volatility cost h =, then the otimal ayment γsb induces no effort from the consumer. Thus, the volatility of the consumtion deviation is larger than when there is no contract and the consumer makes effort to reduce his own induced cost of volatility. One can exect a benefit for the roducer from trading volatility with the consumer and we conduct the analysis of this benefit after this remark. But, surrisingly, by transferring the volatility risk from the consumer to the roducer, the otimal contract can lead to an increase of volatility. From a risk sharing oint of view, this means that otimal contracting allows the system to bear more risk. iii) When δ >, the roducer induces a time decreasing effort on the volatilities. Thus, deending on the relative costs of energy δ, relative risk aversion r and and duration of the contract T, it may haen that at some oint during the execution of the contract, the roducer stos requiring an effort from the consumer. Further, the roducer requires no effort on the drift but comensates the consumer for the volatility costs induced by increasing or decreasing consumtion. Indeed, we see below that there is no reason for the roducer to require that the consumer reduces the consumtion as the generation cost is less than the roducer benefit. 5 3 v; ) j<t j dt 5 15 RT h h Figure : Left) Total volatility of consumtion deviation under otimal contract as a function of the direct volatility cost h and the risk-aversion arameter of the consumer comared to the total volatility without contract flat surface). Right) Certainty equivalent of the roducer with contract and without contract as a function of the direct volatility cost h and the risk-aversion arameter. arameters value: two usages, T = 1, µ =, 5), σ = 5, ), λ =.5,.1), η = 1, 1), κ = 5, δ = 3. Figure illustrates the variation of the observed total volatility of consumtion deviation and the benefit from the contract as a function of the direct marginal cost of volatility h and the risk-aversion arameter of the roducer when δ >. For a risk neutral roducer with zero marginal direct cost of volatility, the roducer requires no effort from the consumer and the volatility is equal to the nominal volatility. For a risk neutral roducer with increasing direct marginal cost of volatility, we observe that volatility remains constant until the value of h gets higher than a certain threshold, namely the lower cost of effort for volatility reduction of the consumer. Then, the roducer starts to require an effort from the consumer. Then, the higher the value of h, the lower the observed volatility until an effort is required that reduces the volatility below its value before contracting. If we fix the value of h and make the roducer increasingly risk averse, we also observe a rogressive yet slower reduction of volatility because the indirect cost of volatility is much lower than its direct cost. Further, we observe that the gain from the 15