Aggregated Flexibility and Inflexibility

Binary supply or demand flexibility might be acceptable for aggregation of household or building demand and supply. But it is unlikely that dissimilar objects’ flexibility can be controlled in a binary fashion using the same strike price. Shouldn’t DERs supplying utility of different value be prioritized by strike price?
In principle, a transactive energy system should be able to represent aggregations of bids and offers from sets of objects having binary flexibility, price-sensitive flexibility, and even inflexibility. The aggregation of an object without flexibility with another have binary flexibility is exemplified by Figure 4. In this example, there is no price at which the aggregate supply or demand quantity
magnitude can be reduced to zero. A step appears at the strike price of the object offering binary flexibility.
If CTS were to support the supply and demand aggregations of example of Figure 4, it would need to communicate at least two price/quantity pairs. However, it would be better for CTS to support a greater or indefinite number of such pairs if rich aggregations of supply and demand are to be represented.
Incidentally, an aggregate curve could very well include both supply (positive quantity) and demand (negative quantity) price/quantity pairs, as would be needed for the indifference supply/bid curve from a battery system performing arbitrage. I recommend the consistent use of signed quantities, like those of panels (b) and (c), because the use of signed quantity avoids separation of an object’s supply and demand components, as must be done when using unsigned quantities (i.e., panels (a)). Furthermore, the practice of using signed quantities greatly
facilitates aggregation, requiring simply that objects’ quantities be added at all defined strike prices, including inflexible quantities at strike price ∞.

See attachment (URI in environment) for graphics