Proactive/Reactive designs Stakeholder meeting Frank Nobel Brussels, 13 June 2014
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
1
Context for balancing The massive increase of intermittent energy resources is making the balancing process more complex and requires an increase of system flexibility, and an increase of system balancing requirements of TSOs
•Cross-border integration of balancing markets (CMOL) •Diversification of balancing resources Reduce the demand of balancing services via:
Imbalance Netting
Increase the available balancing services supply to balance the control area via:Diversification
•Stabilise/reduce the Net Imbalance caused by BRPs, •Avoidance of counteractivation. Balancing services
Reserve Sharing
Market
supply
Second solution is often forgotten. In fact an increase of the available balancing resources might be neutralised by a much stronger increase of
imbalances by BRPs. Cross border integration/diversification without stabilizing imbalances of BRPs: “fighting a losing battle ?”
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
4
Roles and responsibilities Efficient use of system resources => TSO Power balance the system => TSO Energy balance => TSO or market party? “The Network Code on Electricity Balancing shall describe that the general objective of imbalance settlement in national balancing mechanisms is to ensure that BRPs support the system’s balance in an efficient way and incentivise market participants in keeping and/or helping to restore the system balance.” ACER FWGL on NC EB
“The Agency believes that the Network Code should put higher focus on decreasing the needs for TSOs to balance the system by imposing correct incentives and providing adequate and timely information to BRPs to balance themselves during the intraday
timeframe and as close as possible to real time.” - ACER opinion on NC EB
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
5
Proces Times NC LFC-R
Frequency Containment Frequency Restoration
Joint TSO’s Pro-rata
Time target
Proactive/Reactive designs
Reserve Replacement
Individual TSO or Market
Individual TSO MOL
Time target
13 June 2014
6
Imbalance Settlement Period NC EB Pro-active TSO design
Frequency Containment Frequency Restoration
Reserve Replacement
Individual TSO or Market
Time target
Proactive/Reactive designs
Time target
13 June 2014
7
Imbalance Settlement Period NC EB Re-active TSO design
Frequency Containment Frequency Restoration
Reserve Replacement
Individual TSO or Market: IntraDay, Dispatch Time target
Proactive/Reactive designs
Time target
13 June 2014
8
TSO Control Concepts Characteristics Reactive
Proactive
All TSO’s
Some TSO’s
Curative Objectives
Preventive Objectives
̵
Contain Frequency Deviation
̵
Non-activation FRR
̵
Return to Control Program/Frequency
̵
Create Margin
̵
Release Activated FCR
̵
Optimization
Input
Input
̵
̵
Actual Frequency deviation, ACE
Means
̵
Frequency Containment Reserves
̵
Frequency Restoration Reserves
̵
Market Incentives
Proactive/Reactive designs
TSO Expected System Imbalance
Means
̵
Replacement Reserves
̵
Eliminate Market Incentives
13 June 2014
9
TSO Control Concepts Characteristics Incentive Based
Proactive
Some TSO’s
Some TSO’s
Objectives
Objective
̵
̵
limit TSO control actions
Means
̵
low activation prices
Means
̵
Induce Incentives to BRP’s to reduce System Imbalance
Eliminate Incentives to BRP’s to self balance or reduce System Imbalance
̵
Only Fast FRR reserves needed
̵
Replacement Reserves needed
̵
ID GCT close-to-real time
̵
ID GCT early before real-time
̵
Short ISP
̵
Long ISP
̵
Single Imbalance pricing
̵
Dual Imbalance pricing
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
10
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
11
NL Hybrid 90% of ISP’s Single Pricing
Proactive/Reactive designs
13 June 2014
12
Evolution system imbalance BE
Double average pricing
Single marginal pricing Enhanced real-time balancing information Stronger incentives via imbalance pricing
