# Flexible Dispatch for Integrated Power and Gas Systems Considering Power-to-Gas and Demand Response
## 5 Simulation Results
### Analysis of Comprehensive Consideration of P2G Facilities and Demand Response  
The demand response analysis is further added here, the upward and downward demand response is divided into three levels, and the responsiveness of each level is specified. Bus 4 and Bus 21 access the incentive demand response providers DRu1 and DRu2 to provide upward adjustable capacity, and Bus 7 and Bus 19 access the incentive demand response providers DRd1 and DRd2 to provide downward adjustable capacity. The specific parameters are shown in Table 14.  
In order to show the advantages of comprehensive consideration of P2G facilities and demand response in improving the flexibility and economy of the power system, the following two cases are also set here for comparative analysis:  
Case3: Coordination optimization of IPGS considering only P2G facilities. Case4: Coordination optimization of IPGS considering P2G facilities and demand response. Figure 6 shows the output curves of the two cases. Figure 7 shows the upward adjustable capacity of the power system configuration in the two cases. Figure 6: Power output of units in different Cases: (**a**) Case3; (**b**) Case4. Comparing the two cases of Figure 6, it can be seen that, during the peak load period, Case4 considers the P2G facilities and demand response to participate in the adjustable capacity configuration, the higher cost gas unit G6 is avoided, and the start time of the gas unit G5 is delayed from 9:00 to 10:00, which plays a role in reducing the number of online generating units and generating costs of generating units. It can be found in Figure 7 that, in order to meet the upward scheduling flexibility requirements of the power system, Case3 uses gas-fired units with higher configuration costs during peak load hours (10:00-11:00 and 17:00-20:00) to provide adjustable capacity. However, due to the limited adjustable capacity that the unit can provide, at 11:00 it is necessary to provide a 4.30 MW upward adjustable capacity for the power system through load shedding. The Case4 considers demand response and participates in the upward adjustable capacity configuration. Both the adjustable capacity provided by the gas unit G5 at 10:00 and 19:00 and the adjustable capacity provided by the gas unit G6 at 17:00 are changed to demand respond with lower configuration costs, so that the adjustable capacity allocation cost of the power system is effectively improved. More notably, the participation of demand response provided more sources of adjustable capacity for the power system, reducing the adjustable capacity provided by load shedding at 11:00 to 0.17 MW, and optimizing the output of the unit by reducing the adjustable capacity of the G4 unit at 18:00 and 20:00. It is obvious that, compared with Case3, Case4 considers the demand response and participates in the upward adjustable capacity allocation during the peak load period, which can provide more adjustable capacity sources for the power system, thereby achieving a wider range of optimized resource allocation. Through the coordination between the unit and the power system, the power system can provide more adjustable capacity sources for the power system, thereby achieving a wider range of optimized resource allocation. Figure 7: Power system upward adjustable capacity in different Cases: (**a**) Case3; (**b**) Case4. and demand response, it can better cope with the problem of insufficient upward scheduling flexibility of the power system caused by large-scale wind power grid integration. The various costs of the two cases as shown in Table 2.  
Observing Table 2 and combining the previous flexibility analysis, we find that Case4 considers the demand response and participates in the adjustment of the capacity allocation based on the P2G facilities. The cost of adjustable capacity allocation and the penalty of load shedding are reduced by 2287$ and 4130$ respectively compared to the Case3.