IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i9p989-d544948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Evaluation of Electric Power Grid Enterprise Related to Electricity Transmission and Distribution Tariff Regulation Employing a Hybrid MCDM Model

Author

Listed:
  • Wenjin Li

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Bingkang Li

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Rengcun Fang

    (Economic and Technology Research Institute of State Grid Hubei Electric Power Company, Wuhan 430077, China)

  • Peipei You

    (Department of Finance, Accounting and Auditing Research, State Grid Energy Research Institute, Beijing 102209, China)

  • Yuxin Zou

    (Economic and Technology Research Institute of State Grid Hubei Electric Power Company, Wuhan 430077, China)

  • Zhao Xu

    (Department of Finance, Accounting and Auditing Research, State Grid Energy Research Institute, Beijing 102209, China)

  • Sen Guo

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

Abstract

In China, a new-round marketization reform of electricity industry is in progress, and the electricity transmission and distribution tariff reform is the core and important task. Currently, the electricity transmission and distribution tariff regulation has gone to the second round in China, and the electric power grid enterprises are facing a closed-loop regulatory system and an increasingly strict regulatory environment. Therefore, it is urgent to evaluate the risk of electric power grid enterprise that is related to electricity transmission and distribution tariff regulation, which can aid the electricity regulators and electric power grid enterprise operators to manage risk and promote the sustainable development of electric power industry. In this paper, a hybrid novel multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method combining the fuzzy Best-Worst method (FBWM) and improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method based on a vague set is proposed for the risk evaluation of electric power grid enterprise related to electricity transmission and distribution tariff regulation. The risk evaluation index system is built. Subsequently, the FBWM is utilized to determine the optimal weights of electric power grid enterprise risk criteria, and the improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method that is based on vague set is employed to rank the comprehensive risk grade of electric power grid enterprise related to electricity transmission and distribution tariff regulation. The risk of a province-level electric power grid enterprise that is located in Northern China is empirically evaluated using the proposed MCDM method, and the result indicates that the overall risk of this province-level electric power grid enterprise belongs to ‘High’ grade, but it is very close to ‘Very High’ grade. The results indicate that the proposed hybrid novel MCDM method in this paper is effective and practical. Meanwhile, it provides a new view for the risk evaluation of electric power grid enterprise that is related to electricity transmission and distribution tariff regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenjin Li & Bingkang Li & Rengcun Fang & Peipei You & Yuxin Zou & Zhao Xu & Sen Guo, 2021. "Risk Evaluation of Electric Power Grid Enterprise Related to Electricity Transmission and Distribution Tariff Regulation Employing a Hybrid MCDM Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:989-:d:544948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/989/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/989/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhattacharya, Anindya & Kojima, Satoshi, 2012. "Power sector investment risk and renewable energy: A Japanese case study using portfolio risk optimization method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 69-80.
    2. Zeng, Ming & Yang, Yongqi & Wang, Lihua & Sun, Jinghui, 2016. "The power industry reform in China 2015: Policies, evaluations and solutions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 94-110.
    3. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    4. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Li, Cun-bin & Li, Peng & Feng, Xia, 2014. "Analysis of wind power generation operation management risk in China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 266-275.
    7. Daisuke Sasaki & Mikiyasu Nakayama, 2016. "Risk Management in an Electricity Transmission Project between Iceland and the UK," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 4(2), pages 17-23, February.
    8. Lee, Hsing-Chen & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2018. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 883-896.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhuola Zhang & Shiyuan Lin & Yingjin Ye & Zhao Xu & Yihang Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Jingqi Sun, 2022. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating the Market-Oriented Business Regulatory Risk of Power Grid Enterprises Based on the Bayesian Best-Worst Method and MARCOS Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    2. Abdel-Basset, Mohamed & Gamal, Abduallah & Chakrabortty, Ripon K. & Ryan, Michael J., 2021. "Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1073-1095.
    3. Yuan, Jiahai & Li, Xinying & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhao, Changhong & Liu, Yuanxin, 2019. "Investment risk assessment of coal-fired power plants in countries along the Belt and Road initiative based on ANP-Entropy-TODIM method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 623-640.
    4. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 58-74.
    6. Giri, Puspendu & Paul, Somnath & Debnath, Bijoy Krishna, 2024. "A fuzzy Graph Theory and Matrix Approach (fuzzy GTMA) to select the best renewable energy alternative in India," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 358(C).
    7. Krishankumar, Raghunathan & Pamucar, Dragan & Deveci, Muhammat & Aggarwal, Manish & Ravichandran, Kattur Soundarapandian, 2022. "Assessment of renewable energy sources for smart cities’ demand satisfaction using multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic based choquet integral approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1428-1442.
    8. Chen, Xin & Wenjia Zhou,, 2023. "Support carbon neutrality target — Which flexible power source is the best option for China?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    9. Yana Duan & Yang Sun & Yu Zhang & Xiaoqi Fan & Qinghuan Dong & Sen Guo, 2021. "Risk Evaluation of Electric Power Grid Investment in China Employing a Hybrid Novel MCDM Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Ali Mostafaeipour & Ali Sadeghi Sedeh & Shahariar Chowdhury & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "Ranking Potential Renewable Energy Systems to Power On-Farm Fertilizer Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-27, September.
    11. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    12. Horasan, Muhammed Bilal & Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk, 2022. "A multi-objective decision-making model for renewable energy planning: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 484-504.
    13. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    14. Hashemizadeh, Ali & Ju, Yanbing & Bamakan, Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini & Le, Hoang Phong, 2021. "Renewable energy investment risk assessment in belt and road initiative countries under uncertainty conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    15. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Frank A. Wolak, 2016. "Level versus Variability Trade-offs in Wind and Solar Generation Investments: The Case of California," NBER Working Papers 22494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Jin, Xin & Zhang, Zhaolong & Shi, Xiaoqiang & Ju, Wenbin, 2014. "A review on wind power industry and corresponding insurance market in China: Current status and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1069-1082.
    18. Jiang, Yihuo & Ni, Hongliang & Ni, Yihan & Guo, Xiaomei, 2023. "Assessing environmental, social, and governance performance and natural resource management policies in China's dual carbon era for a green economy," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    19. Bin Luo & Shumin Miao & Chuntian Cheng & Yi Lei & Gang Chen & Lang Gao, 2019. "Long-Term Generation Scheduling for Cascade Hydropower Plants Considering Price Correlation between Multiple Markets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-17, June.
    20. Nock, Destenie & Baker, Erin, 2019. "Holistic multi-criteria decision analysis evaluation of sustainable electric generation portfolios: New England case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 655-673.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:989-:d:544948. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.