## 4 Simulation Results
### Market Price
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Market Price** & \multirow{2}{*}{**KY**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CC**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**JL**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**KW**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**YN**} \\
**(KRW/kWh)** & & & & & \\ \hline
5-Zonal (ATC, ZMP) & 153.12 & 132.27 & 132.44 & 133.06 & 132.25 \\ \hline
5-Zonal (FBMC, ZMP) & 151.73 & 135.12 & 133.85 & 134.52 & 133.66 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: As shown in Figure 2, Zones CC, JL, KW, and YN represent further subdivisions of the non-capital (NKY) region from the previous 2-zonal pricing scheme.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of market prices under 5-zonal pricing schemes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Pricing Scheme** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Nodal (LMP)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Nodal (ELMP)**} \\ \hline
**Node Type** & **Load** & **Generation** & **Load** & **Generation** \\ \hline Market Price & \multirow{2}{*}{144.38} & \multirow{2}{*}{138.45} & \multirow{2}{*}{156.84} & \multirow{2}{*}{149.82} \\ (KRW/kWh) & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison of market prices under nodal pricing schemes. Nodal pricing resulted in varied prices across individual nodes, implying that the market prices affecting each generator can vary significantly, in contrast to the current uniform pricing system. Figures 7 and 8 compare the market prices that each of the 1597 generators would receive under the Nodal (LMP) and Nodal (ELMP) pricing schemes, respectively, against the current Uniform (SMP) adopted in the Korean power market. Under Nodal (LMP), 91.7% of the generators exhibited a price drop compared with Uniform (SMP), whereas 71.1% experienced a reduction under Nodal (ELMP). Notably, the Nodal (ELMP) presented here may yield more optimistic outcomes for generators than a standard ELMP implementation, as it assumes that a broader range of units qualify as FSRs, leading to higher market prices. Figure 6: Geographical distribution of nodal prices in the Korean power system: (**a**) Nodal (LMP) and (**b**) Nodal (ELMP). Figure 7: Comparison of Nodal (LMP) and Uniform (SMP) prices for individual generators. To summarize our findings from the market price analysis:  
1. The market price trend followed the order: Uniform (SMP) > 2-Zonal (SMP) > 2-Zonal (ZMP) \(\approx\) 5-Zonal (ATC, ZMP) \(\approx\) 5-Zonal (FBMC, ZMP). 2. In nodal pricing, which was not directly comparable to uniform and zonal pricing, approximately 71.1-91.7% of the generators faced downside risk under both the Nodal (LMP) and Nodal (ELMP) schemes. 3. On a market-wide level, the average market price was expected to decrease by 4.8-7.0%, even though the 2-Zonal (SMP) and Nodal (ELMP), which compensated for the no-load and start-up costs, exhibited the least price reduction compared to the currently adopted pricing scheme. 4. However, when analyzed at the zonal or granular level, this market price reduction was found to be concentrated among generators in non-capital region. These results suggest that although the transition to more granular pricing schemes may facilitate overall market price reductions, the impact is likely to be unevenly distributed. The generators in the non-capital region are expected to bear a disproportionate share of the downside risk. For a more detailed examination of the daily market prices across different pricing schemes, please refer to Appendix A.