隨著分散式能源（Distributed Energy Resources, DERs）、儲能設備、電動車與需量反應等資源持續接入配電網路，饋線容量、電壓、保護協調與局部壅塞等配電端限制，逐漸成為影響虛擬電廠（Virtual Power Plant, VPP）市場參與的重要條件。虛擬電廠與聚合商雖可整合分散資源並參與電力市場，但其選址、併網、投標、調度及市場承諾之履約可交付性，仍取決於市場參與者能否取得與資源電氣位置、容量餘裕、限制時段及可操作範圍相關的資料。配電系統資料開放因此不只是行政透明化措施，也涉及市場參與者能否在不取得完整配電拓樸與即時潮流資料的情況下，完成基本可行性與履約風險判斷。
臺灣目前已公開再生能源可併網容量、變電所容量與負載、配電設備地理位置，以及輔助服務需求、價格與交易量等資訊。然而，相關資料分散於再生能源併網專區、政府資料開放平臺及電力交易平台，主要支援再生能源併網前期篩選、區域供電條件評估與系統層級輔助服務市場參與，尚未完整形成支援虛擬電廠判斷配電端位置有效性、局部限制時段及履約可交付性的整合性資料架構。
本研究首先整理臺灣現階段與配電系統及市場參與相關之公開資料，作為政策比較基準，再採取多重案例研究法，選取英國 UK Power Networks（UKPN）、荷蘭 GOPACS 與美國加州公用事業委員會／整合容量分析（California Public Utilities Com-mission／Integration Capacity Analysis, CPUC／ICA）三個國際案例。研究依據資料可取得性、決策直接相關性與文件可追溯性選擇案例，並從資料內容、空間顆粒度、時間時效性與技術可用性四個面向，分析不同資料配置如何支援市場參與者之選址、併網、投標、調度與履約判斷。
研究結果顯示，各國配電資料開放的內容與形式，均與其市場制度及配電治理目的密切相關。UKPN 透過彈性分區、郵遞區號對應、電號驗證與歷史調度紀錄，支援地方彈性服務採購、參與資格判斷及事後市場學習；GOPACS 透過壅塞公告、位置資訊標籤、交易平台介接與後端安全查核，將特定地點與時段的壅塞需求連結至市場化再調度機制；CPUC／ICA 則透過配電資料入口、剩餘可承載容量與技術地圖，支援分散式能源開發商進行併網前期選址與容量初步判斷。三個案例共同顯示，有效的配電資料開放並非全面揭露內部電網資料，而是依據市場用途與決策階段，將配電端工程限制轉譯為市場參與者可理解、可取得及可重複使用的資料產品或限制訊號。資料欄位定義、更新頻率、空間層級、機器可讀格式及資料品質治理，亦是資料能否實際進入市場決策流程的關鍵。
基於上述結果，本研究提出以最低可用資料集合（Minimum Viable Openness, MVO）作為臺灣配電資料治理之起點。短期宜優先整合既有資料入口，建立共同的饋線與變電所識別方式、資料字典及版本資訊，並依剩餘可併網容量、併網排隊案件、分散式能源集中程度與負載成長等條件，對不同電氣區域採取差異化的資料顆粒度與更新頻率。中期則應以地方彈性服務或區域性採購制度成立為前提，再建立標準化壅塞公告、資源電氣位置查核及事後去識別化採購與調度資料。長期可依實際市場交易與資源控制需求，評估將動態操作包絡曲線（Dynamic Operating Envelopes, DOE）建置為提供合格參與者與控制設備使用的受控資料產品。整體而言，臺灣配電資料開放的政策重點並非從無到有建立所有資料，亦不宜直接移植國外制度，而應依臺灣實際交易市場與配電治理需求，整合既有資料、提升資料可用性並增補仍缺少的資料產品。

As distributed energy resources (DERs), energy storage systems, electric vehicles, and demand response resources continue to connect to distribution networks, distribution-level constraints—including feeder capacity, voltage limits, protection coordination, and local con-gestion—have become increasingly important to virtual power plant (VPP) participation in electricity markets. Although VPPs and aggregators can combine distributed resources and participate in market transactions, their siting, interconnection, bidding, dispatch, and the de-liverability of their market commitments depend on whether market participants can obtain information concerning electrical location, available capacity, constrained time periods, and feasible operating ranges. Distribution system data openness is therefore relevant not only to administrative transparency but also to whether market participants can assess basic feasibility and delivery risks without accessing complete network topology or real-time power-flow data.
Taiwan currently discloses information on renewable-energy interconnection capacity, substation capacity and loading, the geographical locations of distribution facilities, and ancil-lary-service demand, prices, and transaction volumes. However, these data are dispersed across the renewable-energy interconnection portal, the government open-data platform, and the electricity trading platform. They primarily support preliminary renewable-energy inter-connection screening, regional supply-capacity assessment, and participation in system-wide ancillary-service markets. They do not yet form an integrated information framework that en-ables VPPs to assess locational effectiveness, local constraint periods, and the deliverability of aggregated resources at the distribution level.
This study first reviews Taiwan’s existing public data related to distribution systems and electricity-market participation to establish a policy comparison baseline. It then adopts a mul-tiple-case study approach and examines three international cases: UK Power Networks (UKPN) in the United Kingdom, GOPACS in the Netherlands, and the California Public Utilities Commission/Integration Capacity Analysis (CPUC/ICA) in the United States. The cases are selected according to data availability, direct relevance to market decisions, and document traceability. They are compared across four dimensions: data content, spatial granu-larity, timeliness, and technical usability. The analysis focuses on how different data configu-rations support the siting, interconnection, bidding, dispatch, and deliverability assessments of VPPs, aggregators, and DER developers.
The findings indicate that the content and form of distribution system data disclosure are closely tied to the institutional purpose of each electricity market and distribution-governance framework. UKPN uses flexibility zones, postcode-to-zone mapping, metering-point verifica-tion, and historical dispatch records to support local flexibility procurement, eligibility assess-ment, and ex-post market learning. GOPACS uses congestion announcements, locational tags, integration with commercial trading platforms, and back-end security validation to connect time- and location-specific congestion needs with market-based redispatch. CPUC/ICA uses distribution data portals, available hosting-capacity information, and technical maps to support preliminary siting and interconnection-capacity assessments for DER developers.
Across the three cases, effective data openness does not require the unrestricted disclo-sure of internal network information. Instead, it involves translating engineering constraints into data products or constraint signals that market participants can understand, access, and reuse according to specific market functions and decision stages. Clear field definitions, ap-propriate spatial granularity, predictable update schedules, machine-readable formats, and con-tinuing data-quality governance are therefore essential if disclosed data are to be incorporated into actual market decisions.
Based on these findings, this study proposes Minimum Viable Openness (MVO) as the starting point for distribution system data governance in Taiwan. In the short term, Taiwan should integrate existing data portals, establish common feeder and substation identifiers, provide data dictionaries and version information, and apply differentiated spatial granularity and update frequencies across electrical areas according to available interconnection capacity, application queues, DER concentration, and load growth. In the medium term, standardized congestion announcements, electrical-location verification, and anonymized ex-post procure-ment and dispatch records should be introduced only after local flexibility services or regional procurement mechanisms have been established. In the long term, Taiwan may evaluate Dy-namic Operating Envelopes (DOE) as controlled data products for authorized market partici-pants and control systems, subject to actual market and operational requirements.
Overall, Taiwan’s policy priority is neither to create every dataset from scratch nor to di-rectly replicate foreign arrangements. Distribution system data openness should instead be de-termined by Taiwan’s electricity-market structure and distribution-governance needs, with an emphasis on integrating existing data, improving their usability, and adding data products that are currently absent.

一、 中文部分（依照姓氏筆畫排列）
1. 林尚汶（2023）。《電力開放資料之關鍵因素分析及其權重評估》（碩士論文，國立政治大學）。
2. 林聖開（2015）。《含需量反應之虛擬電廠調度規劃》（碩士論文，國立中山大學）。
3. 唐文俊（2019）。《虛擬電廠之網路保護、最佳運轉及競價策略》（博士論文，國立成功大學）。
4. 張維清（2012）。《需量反應競標獲益最大化研究》（碩士論文，大同大學）。
5. 許志義（2018）。〈台灣數據經濟大未來〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2018年8月號，30。
6. 許志義（2019）。〈資料革命、資料治理及開放資料〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2019年1月號，22–23。
7. 許志義（2021）。〈資料治理的國家級戰略〉。《哈佛商業評論》，2021年3月號，44。
8. 許志義、王筑莙、柳育林、許懷元（2019）。〈政府資料開放與資料管理〉。《政大公共行政學報》，56，131–162。
9. 許志義、洪穎正（2016）。〈電力需求面管理與用戶群代表法制革新：先進國家案例及其對臺灣之政策意涵〉。《臺灣能源期刊》，3(2)，137–153。
10. 許志義、陳俐妏、黃鈺愷、陳彥豪、楊宏澤（2016）。〈虛擬電廠先進國家發展趨勢及對台灣之政策意涵〉。《台電工程月刊》，817，9–11。
11. 許志義、黃俊凱（2016）。〈論電力自由化下虛擬電廠之商業模式：德國 Harz 示範計畫之經驗及對我國之政策意涵〉。《台灣經濟論衡》，14(2)，77–110。
12. 許志義、楊梓萱、陳志綸、柳育林（2017）。〈智慧揭露應用於電力服務之研究〉。《臺灣能源期刊》，4(3)，345–360。
13. 許志義、詹書瑋、于濂波、王巍興（2015）。〈我國推動綠色按鈕資訊平台之效益探討〉。《臺灣能源期刊》，2(3)，293–304。
14. 許志義、鍾皓晨（2017）。〈虛擬電廠參與者之成本效益分析與政策推介〉。《臺灣能源期刊》，4(2)，145–172。
15. 黃宇康（2019）。《一種考慮移動電動汽車排放減量和充電需求的虛擬電廠負載平衡電力調度系統》（碩士論文，國立東華大學）。
16. 經濟部（2021）。《電力交易平台設置規則》。經濟部主管法規查詢系統。
17. 鄭仲凱（2024）。《虛擬電廠聚合商營運模式之影響因素》（碩士論文，國立政治大學經濟學系）。
18. 鍾佩純（2025）。《考量經濟效益與電池壽命之強化學習用戶側最佳化虛擬電廠控制策略》（碩士論文，國立中央大學）。
19. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-a）。〈電力交易平台〉。檢索於2026年7月15日。
20. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-b）。〈再生能源併網專區〉。檢索於2026年7月15日。
21. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-c）。〈再生能源併網專區：可併網容量查詢〉。檢索於2026年7月15日。
22. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-d）。《台灣電力公司全國各縣市再生能源可併網容量》［資料集］。政府資料開放平臺。檢索於2026年7月15日。
23. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-e）。《台灣電力公司二次變電所主變壓器裝置容量及負載》［資料集］。政府資料開放平臺。檢索於2026年7月15日。
24. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（無日期-f）。《台灣電力公司超高壓及一次變電所主變壓器裝置容量及負載》［資料集］。政府資料開放平臺。檢索於2026年7月15日。
25. 臺灣電力股份有限公司（2023）。〈儲能擴大展綠效益提供用戶解決方案〉。《台電月刊》，723。

二、 英文部分（依照首字母順序排列）
1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
2. Burger, S. P., Knittel, C. R., Pérez-Arriaga, I. J., Schneider, I., & Vom Scheidt, F. (2019). The economics of distributed energy resource charging and rate design: A review. Energy Policy, 132, 1162-1180.
3. California Public Utilities Commission. (n.d.). Distribution Resources Plan (DRP): Integration Capacity Analysis (ICA) regulatory framework and decisions. California Public Utilities Commission Official Portal.
4. Cui, B., Zamzam, A. S., & Bernstein, A. (2022). Enabling grid-aware market partic-ipation of aggregate flexible resources. arXiv.
5. Dronne, T., Roques, F., & Saguan, M. (2021). Local flexibility markets for distribu-tion network congestion-management in center-western Europe: Which design for which needs? Energies, 14(14), 4113.
6. EPEX SPOT. (2022, May). EPEX SPOT and GOPACS partner to unlock distribut-ed flexibility in the Netherlands [Press release]. EPEX SPOT Corporate.
7. EPEX SPOT. (2023, June). EPEX Localflex (Netherlands) connection with GO-PACS goes live on 27 June 2023 [Market announcement]. EPEX SPOT Market Op-erations.
8. European Distribution System Operators’ Entity. (2026). Report on distributed flex-ibility practices: Markets for local services.
9. Evans, M., Riaz, S., & Verbič, G. (2024). Operationalization of dynamic operating envelopes for distributed energy resources: Interface design and market delivery. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 15(2), 1422-1435.
10. Forouli, A. A., Papazoglou, G. K., Bakirtzis, E. A., Biskas, P. N., & Bakirtzis, A. G. (2022). AC-feasible local flexibility market with continuous trading. arXiv.
11. Good, N., Ellis, K. A., & Mancarella, P. (2017). Review and classification of barri-ers and enablers of demand response in the smart grid. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 57–72.
12. GOPACS. (2025). GOPACS platform updates: Introduction of the Virtual Order Book and historical intimation query mapping. GOPACS Netherlands.
13. GOPACS. (n.d.-a). About GOPACS: Network operators cooperation. GOPACS Netherlands.
14. GOPACS. (n.d.-b). Explanation of congestion data and Congestion Service Provid-ers (CSP) framework. GOPACS Netherlands.
15. Goris, T., de Vries, L., & Hakvoort, R. (2023). Tailored openness: Regulatory op-tions for data sharing in smart distribution grids while ensuring cybersecurity. Utili-ties Policy, 81, 101512.
16. Interstate Renewable Energy Council. (n.d.). Key lessons from California's Integra-tion Capacity Analysis: An independent evaluation of IOU data portal usability. IREC Reports.
17. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.
18. Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M., & Thernstrom, S. (2021). Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector: The role of distributed energy resources and connection transparency. Applied Energy, 282, 116143.
19. Jin, X., Wu, Q., & Jia, H. (2020). Local flexibility markets: Literature review on concepts, models and clearing methods. Applied Energy, 261, 114387.
20. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. SAGE Publications.
21. Lo Schiavo, L., Delfanti, M., Fumagalli, E., & Olivieri, V. (2018). Changing the regulation for regulating change: Innovation-driven regulation in electricity distribu-tion grids. Energy Policy, 120, 484–492.
22. Mashhour, E., & Moghaddas-Tafreshi, S. M. (2011). Bidding strategy of virtual power plant for participating in energy and spinning reserve markets—Part I: Prob-lem formulation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26(2), 949–956.
23. Müller, F. L., Szabó, J., Sundström, O., & Lygeros, J. (2017). Aggregation and dis-aggregation of energetic flexibility from distributed energy resources. arXiv.
24. Naval, N., & Yusta, J. M. (2021). Virtual power plant models and electricity mar-kets: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 111393.
25. Nosratabadi, S. M., Hooshmand, R. A., & Gholipour, E. (2017). A comprehensive review on microgrid and virtual power plant concepts employed for distributed en-ergy resources scheduling in power systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 341–363.
26. Olivella-Rosell, P., Lloret-Gallego, P., Munné-Collado, I., Villafafila-Robles, R., Sumper, A., Ottesen, S. Ø., Rajasekharan, J., & Bremdal, B. A. (2018). Local flexi-bility market design for aggregators providing multiple flexibility services at distri-bution network level. Energies, 11(4), 822.
27. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (2024, November). Advice Letter 7412-E: Com-pliance implementation plan in response to Decision D.24-10-030 for Integration Capacity Analysis enhancements. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Regulatory Af-fairs.
28. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (n.d.). Integration Capacity Analysis map for Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) [Digital image]. Retrieved May 2026, from Re-searchGate database.
29. Pandžić, H., Kuzle, I., & Capuder, T. (2013). Virtual power plant mid-term dispatch optimization. Applied Energy, 101, 134–141.
30. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
31. Prat, E., Herre, L., Kazempour, J., & Chatzivasileiadis, S. (2020). Design of a con-tinuous local flexibility market with network constraints. arXiv.
32. Prat, E., Dukovska, I., Herre, L., Nellikkath, R., Thoma, M., & Chatzivasileiadis, S. (2021). Network-aware flexibility requests for distribution-level flexibility markets. arXiv.
33. Pudjianto, D., Ramsay, C., & Strbac, G. (2007). Virtual power plant and system in-tegration of distributed energy resources. IET Renewable Power Generation, 1(1), 10–16
34. SA Power Networks. (2025). Flexible exports compliance and IEEE 2030.5 imple-mentation guide for distributed energy resources. SA Power Networks.
35. San Diego Gas & Electric Company. (n.d.). Integration Capacity Analysis (ICA) methodology and technical constraints white paper. SDG&E Clean Energy Integra-tion.
36. UK Power Networks. (2023, March). Competition in Connections Forum – March 2023 [Presentation slides]. UK Power Networks DSO. (註：內文圖 4-1引自該簡報第 33 頁；圖 4-2引自該簡報第 34 頁)
37. UK Power Networks. (n.d.-a). Open Data Portal. UK Power Networks Open Data Portal.
38. UK Power Networks. (n.d.-b). Flexibility – UKPN DSO (Flexibility datasets; Flexi-bility Dispatches; participation process).
39. UK Power Networks. (n.d.-c). Tender Hub – UKPN DSO.
40. UK Power Networks. (n.d.-d). Flexibility Dispatches [Data set]. UK Power Net-works Open Data Portal (Opendatasoft).
41. UK Power Networks. (n.d.-e). Flexibility Tender Data by Postcode [Data set]. UK Power Networks Open Data Portal (Opendatasoft).
42. Villar, J., Bessa, R., & Matos, M. (2018). Flexibility products and markets: Litera-ture review. Electric Power Systems Research, 154, 329–340.
43. Villar, J., Bessa, J., & Matos, M. (2018). From regional heliostats to local flexibility markets: A review of European market designs for distributed energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 89, 191-201.
44. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.