## 4 Discussion  
To see the evolution of the reliability of the dwellings for different values of \(SOC_{C}\), a sensitivity analysis was carried out with \(SOC_{C}\) values between \(SOC_{L}=20\%\leq SOC_{C}<60\%\), simulating each of the resulting scenarios. By increasing the value of \(SOC_{C}\), the dwellings become more independent and the advantage of cooperation is lost, which is why it has been simulated in the aforementioned interval. Figure 8 shows the improvement of LOLP in percentage compared to S1 of both dwellings in the simulated scenarios of this sensitivity analysis. As depicted in Figure 8, with small values of \(SOC_{C}\), D1 improves much more than D2. This difference decreases when \(SOC_{C}\) increases, and for values close to \(SOC_{C}=30\%\), both houses achieve a similar benefit. The curves represented in Figure 9 show the LOLP of each dwelling in this case (scenario S2\({}_{30}\)), which is shown to be the best of the studied cases, compared to the results of scenario S1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & ENU (Wh) & HNU (h) & ENS (Wh) & LOLP (\%) \\ \hline D1 alone (S1) & 4,556,147.37 & 1827 & 131,088 & 2.64\% \\ D2 alone (S1) & 3,289,774.14 & 1586 & 79,574 & 2.33\% \\ D1 cooperative (S2\({}_{25}\)) & 4,288,604.12 & 1615 & 107,872 & 2.26\% \\ D2 cooperative (S2\({}_{35}\)) & 3,255,462.81 & 1515 & 61,143 & 1.89\% \\ S1 (global) & 7,845,921.51 & 1706 & 210,662 & 2.49\% \\ S2\({}_{35}\) (global) & 7,544,066.93 & 1565 & 169,015 & 2.08\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{S2\({}_{35}\) improvement compared to S1 (\%)} \\ \hline D1 & 5.87 & 11.60 & 17.71 & 14.46 \\ D2 & 1.04 & 4.47 & 23.16 & 18.82 \\ Average & 3.85 & 8.29 & 19.77 & 16.50 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Scenario S1 vs. scenario S2\({}_{35}\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & ENU (Wh) & HNU (h) & ENS (Wh) & LOLP (\%) \\ \hline D1 alone (S1) & 4,558,096.21 & 1828 & 136,035 & 2.76\% \\ D2 alone (S1) & 3,292,984.25 & 1587 & 83,180 & 2.47\% \\ D1 cooperative (S2\({}_{40}\)) & 4,296,492.29 & 1618 & 116,710 & 2.42\% \\ D2 cooperative (S2\({}_{40}\)) & 3,261,013.86 & 1519 & 66,528 & 2.08\% \\ S1 (global) & 7,851,080.46 & 1707 & 219,215 & 2.61\% \\ S2\({}_{40}\) (global) & 7,557,506.15 & 1568 & 183,239 & 2.25\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{S2\({}_{40}\) improvement compared to S1 (\%)} \\ \hline D1 & 5.74 & 11.47 & 14.21 & 12.47 \\ D2 & 0.97 & 4.29 & 20.02 & 15.64 \\ Average & 3.74 & 8.13 & 16.41 & 13.97 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Scenario S1 vs. scenario S2\({}_{40}\). In addition, it should be noted that not only does the cooperative strategy represent an improvement compared to the S1, but it also improves the results of the shared scenario S2\({}_{20}\), as shown in Figure 10. This analysis solves one of the research gaps identified in the literature, as it proposes a simple cooperative strategy based on the key parameter \(SOC_{\text{C}}\). With this strategy, the system obtains better results than in other scenarios (shared and isolated), which correspond to other microgrid configurations in the literature (since most studies, such as [34], are exclusively focused on stand-alone). In addition, these results have a substantial impact to be taken into account, since they have been obtained using real data and proposing random failures in the system. Figure 8: Improvement in terms of LOLP for each dwelling in scenarios S2\({}_{\text{x}}\) compared to S1. Figure 9: LOLP of each dwelling in scenarios S1 and S2\({}_{30}\). The results obtained in this case study show that for a set of demand and generation curves, the most equitable strategy can be proposed by setting the parameter of \(SOC_{C}\) at a certain value that can be determined with the proposed method. For this case study, this value was 30%, which made it possible to achieve better reliability values in both dwellings than those obtained without using cooperative strategies, while providing balanced improvements.