Suchergebnisse

The increasing penetration of distributed energy resources (DERs) has posed challenges to the distribution system operator (DSO) from the operation and regulatory point of view. High penetration of DERs could have negative impacts on the performance of the distribution grid, and depending on the regulatory framework, the DSO's remuneration as well. In liberalized electrical systems, the focus on promoting eciency has led to the implementation of an incentive-based regulation that exerts additional pressure on the DSOs to reduce costs. Additionally, the European Parliament Directive 2009/72/EC establishes a regulatory unbundling among the distribution, production, and retailing activities within the same vertically integrated electric utility. A way of helping the DSO to cope with the posed challenges is by providing it with exibility. This exibility can be acquired from the planning stage, and later be used during the system operation. This exibility can stem from the DSO's ability to exert control on the demand and the supply side to balance the system and correct its operational state. Based on the European DSOs' current situation at facing the increasing penetration of DERs, this thesis investigates in non-wired exible grid tools to solve the distribution network expansion problem. The investigation focuses on exibility providers, in particular on energy storage systems and hydropower, and also on capacity mechanisms to translate the capacity from DERs into the grid's capacity for planning purposes. Given that the share of renewable sources among the DERs is increasing, and considering the importance of energy storage systems in providing exibility to balance renewable energy production, the eort has been turned on to developing a hydropower model and a generic storage model that t both planning and operational studies. Given the need for gearing the DERs' behavior into the DSO's decision making process during the planning and operational timescales, the design and implementation of a distribution capacity mechanism have been developed. The design of the capacity mechanism has been conceived considering its integration within the distribution network expansion problem. The outcomes of this thesis can be synthesized as follows: 1) A generic hydraulic/storage model provided with an equivalent marginal cost that aids in considering the impact of present decisions in the future costs. 2) A market oriented distribution capacity mechanism that gears DERs and the DSOs to benefit mutually. 3) A distribution network expansion planning formulation that integrates the capacity resource from DERs through the distribution capacity mechanism.

The push for clean energy has caused a rapid growth of renewables in the electricity supply mix of the EU. Although one would assume that the impact of these technologies is entirely positive, recent research and experience indicate that there is reason for concern namely regarding the security of supply. In this context, the concern is how renewable energy sources (RES) affect the business case of conventional power generation. In response to this concern, capacity mechanisms are being considered or have already been implemented by various member states of the EU. However, in a highly interconnected electricity system, such as the one in Europe, there appears to be a risk that the uncoordinated implementation of capacity mechanisms may cause unintended cross-border effects. This research explored the performance of various capacity mechanisms in an electricity system with a strong growth in the portfolio share of variable renewable energy sources (RES). The cross-border effects of implementing various capacity mechanisms in an interconnected power system were also analyzed. In this research, two capacity mechanisms, namely a strategic reserve and a capacity market, were modeled as extensions to the EMLab-Generation agent-based model. Furthermore, two variations of a capacity market were analyzed. The first was a yearly capacity market design and the second was a forward capacity market with long term contracts. A survey of experts on the US capacity markets supplemented the modeling work with practical insights. ; QC 20161006 The Doctoral Degrees issued upon completion of the programme are issued by Comillas Pontifical University, Delft University of Technology and KTH Royal Institute of Technology. The invested degrees are official in Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden, respectively. copyright (c) 2016 P. C. Bhagwat

The impact of renewables on the energy markets-falling wholesale electricity prices and lower investment stability-are apparently creating a shortage of energy project financing, which in future could lead to power supply shortages. Governments have responded by introducing payments for capacity, alongside payments for energy being sold. The increasing use of capacity mechanisms (CMs) in the EU has created tensions between the European Commission, which encourages cross-country cooperation, and Member States that favour backup solutions such as capacity markets and strategic reserves. We seek to trace the influence of the European Commission on national capacity markets as well as learning between Member States. Focusing on the United Kingdom, France and Poland, the analysis shows that energy security concerns have been given more emphasis than the functioning of markets by Member States. Policy developments have primarily been domestically driven, but the European Commission has managed to impose certain elements, most importantly a uniform methodology to assess future supply security, as well as specific requirements for national capacity markets: interconnectors to neighbouring countries, demand side responses and continuous revision of CMs. Learning from other Member States' experiences also play a role in policy decisions.

The impact of renewables on the energy markets–falling wholesale electricity prices and lower investment stability–are apparently creating a shortage of energy project financing, which in future could lead to power supply shortages. Governments have responded by introducing payments for capacity, alongside payments for energy being sold. The increasing use of capacity mechanisms (CMs) in the EU has created tensions between the European Commission, which encourages cross-country cooperation, and Member States that favour backup solutions such as capacity markets and strategic reserves. We seek to trace the influence of the European Commission on national capacity markets as well as learning between Member States. Focusing on the United Kingdom, France and Poland, the analysis shows that energy security concerns have been given more emphasis than the functioning of markets by Member States. Policy developments have primarily been domestically driven, but the European Commission has managed to impose certain elements, most importantly a uniform methodology to assess future supply security, as well as specific requirements for national capacity markets: interconnectors to neighbouring countries, demand side responses and continuous revision of CMs. Learning from other Member States' experiences also play a role in policy decisions.

The impact of renewables on the energy markets–falling wholesale electricity prices and lower investment stability–are apparently creating a shortage of energy project financing, which in future could lead to power supply shortages. Govern ments have responded by introducing payments for capacity, alongside payments for energy being sold. The increasing use of capacity mechanisms (CMs) in the EU has created tensions between the European Commission, which encour ages cross-country cooperation, and Member States that favour backup solutions such as capacity markets and strategic reserves. We seek to trace the influence of the European Commission on national capacity markets as well as learning between Member States. Focusing on the United Kingdom, France and Poland, the analysis shows that energy security concerns have been given more emphasis than the functioning of markets by Member States. Policy developments have primarily been domestically driven, but the European Commission has managed to impose certain elements, most im portantly a uniform methodology to assess future supply security, as well as specific requirements for national capacity markets: interconnectors to neighbouring countries, demand side responses and continuous revision of CMs. Learning from other Member States' experiences also play a role in policy decisions. ; publishedVersion

A capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) which excludes cross border participants is considered to have serious distortive effects on long term competition, compared to explicit cross border participation (CBP), on the grounds that it doesn't capture the advantages of multi-system competition. This paper examines the reality of these advantages by distinguishing situations with and without congestion between systems during critical periods because congestion separates markets and their collective goods of reliability and adequacy for each system, and suppresses any economic and physical relevance of a capacity commitment from a new external participant to a CRM. From the limited perspective of any single system, there are two potential advantages of explicit CBP: the first is the supplement of the set of committed capacities to a CRM; the second is the lower cost of the adequacy policy of the system, thanks to enlarged competition, but it is illusory because the clearing price of capacity is the same with and without explicit CBP. Moreover concretization of such benefits for the system is not possible when there is congestion. From the EU wide perspective, we identify some potential gains of social efficiency from explicit CBP at the multi-system level, when we have systems with a long standing situation of overcapacity beside systems with tight situations during their critical periods; or when there exists projects of hydro equipment (pumping storage, etc. But again, congestion removes any sense to any additional revenue to them. In any case erratic revenues certainly do not steer new investment towards either system. Furthermore exchanges of capacity rights between systems equipped with different CRMs introduce a supplement of distortions compared to the same situation with implicit CPB and no trade of capacity rights. It is problematic in the case of congestion; this delays the price signal of capacity scarcity in the system with the least attractive CRM in terms of revenue and risk management. ...

A capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) which excludes cross border participants is considered to have serious distortive effects on long term competition, compared to explicit cross border participation (CBP), on the grounds that it doesn't capture the advantages of multi-system competition. This paper examines the reality of these advantages by distinguishing situations with and without congestion between systems during critical periods because congestion separates markets and their collective goods of reliability and adequacy for each system, and suppresses any economic and physical relevance of a capacity commitment from a new external participant to a CRM. From the limited perspective of any single system, there are two potential advantages of explicit CBP: the first is the supplement of the set of committed capacities to a CRM; the second is the lower cost of the adequacy policy of the system, thanks to enlarged competition, but it is illusory because the clearing price of capacity is the same with and without explicit CBP. Moreover concretization of such benefits for the system is not possible when there is congestion. From the EU wide perspective, we identify some potential gains of social efficiency from explicit CBP at the multi-system level, when we have systems with a long standing situation of overcapacity beside systems with tight situations during their critical periods; or when there exists projects of hydro equipment (pumping storage, etc. But again, congestion removes any sense to any additional revenue to them. In any case erratic revenues certainly do not steer new investment towards either system. Furthermore exchanges of capacity rights between systems equipped with different CRMs introduce a supplement of distortions compared to the same situation with implicit CPB and no trade of capacity rights. It is problematic in the case of congestion; this delays the price signal of capacity scarcity in the system with the least attractive CRM in terms of revenue and risk management. Acknowledgements: This paper has benefited from the support of the Chaire European Electricity Markets of the Paris-Dauphine Foundation, supported by RTE, EDF, EPEX Spot and the UFE. The views and opinions expressed in this article [research, Working Paper etc.] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the partners of the CEEM.

A capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) which excludes cross border participants is considered to have serious distortive effects on long term competition, compared to explicit cross border participation (CBP), on the grounds that it doesn't capture the advantages of multi-system competition. This paper examines the reality of these advantages by distinguishing situations with and without congestion between systems during critical periods because congestion separates markets and their collective goods of reliability and adequacy for each system, and suppresses any economic and physical relevance of a capacity commitment from a new external participant to a CRM. From the limited perspective of any single system, there are two potential advantages of explicit CBP: the first is the supplement of the set of committed capacities to a CRM; the second is the lower cost of the adequacy policy of the system, thanks to enlarged competition, but it is illusory because the clearing price of capacity is the same with and without explicit CBP. Moreover concretization of such benefits for the system is not possible when there is congestion. From the EU wide perspective, we identify some potential gains of social efficiency from explicit CBP at the multi-system level, when we have systems with a long standing situation of overcapacity beside systems with tight situations during their critical periods; or when there exists projects of hydro equipment (pumping storage, etc. But again, congestion removes any sense to any additional revenue to them. In any case erratic revenues certainly do not steer new investment towards either system. Furthermore exchanges of capacity rights between systems equipped with different CRMs introduce a supplement of distortions compared to the same situation with implicit CPB and no trade of capacity rights. It is problematic in the case of congestion; this delays the price signal of capacity scarcity in the system with the least attractive CRM in terms of revenue and risk management. Acknowledgements: This paper has benefited from the support of the Chaire European Electricity Markets of the Paris-Dauphine Foundation, supported by RTE, EDF, EPEX Spot and the UFE. The views and opinions expressed in this article [research, Working Paper etc.] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the partners of the CEEM.

A capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) which excludes cross border participants is considered to have serious distortive effects on long term competition, compared to explicit cross border participation (CBP), on the grounds that it doesn't capture the advantages of multi-system competition. This paper examines the reality of these advantages by distinguishing situations with and without congestion between systems during critical periods because congestion separates markets and their collective goods of reliability and adequacy for each system, and suppresses any economic and physical relevance of a capacity commitment from a new external participant to a CRM. From the limited perspective of any single system, there are two potential advantages of explicit CBP: the first is the supplement of the set of committed capacities to a CRM; the second is the lower cost of the adequacy policy of the system, thanks to enlarged competition, but it is illusory because the clearing price of capacity is the same with and without explicit CBP. Moreover concretization of such benefits for the system is not possible when there is congestion. From the EU wide perspective, we identify some potential gains of social efficiency from explicit CBP at the multi-system level, when we have systems with a long standing situation of overcapacity beside systems with tight situations during their critical periods; or when there exists projects of hydro equipment (pumping storage, etc. But again, congestion removes any sense to any additional revenue to them. In any case erratic revenues certainly do not steer new investment towards either system. Furthermore exchanges of capacity rights between systems equipped with different CRMs introduce a supplement of distortions compared to the same situation with implicit CPB and no trade of capacity rights. It is problematic in the case of congestion; this delays the price signal of capacity scarcity in the system with the least attractive CRM in terms of revenue and risk management. Acknowledgements: This paper has benefited from the support of the Chaire European Electricity Markets of the Paris-Dauphine Foundation, supported by RTE, EDF, EPEX Spot and the UFE. The views and opinions expressed in this article [research, Working Paper etc.] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the partners of the CEEM.

A capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) which excludes cross border participants is considered to have serious distortive effects on long term competition, compared to explicit cross border participation (CBP), on the grounds that it doesn't capture the advantages of multi-system competition. This paper examines the reality of these advantages by distinguishing situations with and without congestion between systems during critical periods because congestion separates markets and their collective goods of reliability and adequacy for each system, and suppresses any economic and physical relevance of a capacity commitment from a new external participant to a CRM. From the limited perspective of any single system, there are two potential advantages of explicit CBP: the first is the supplement of the set of committed capacities to a CRM; the second is the lower cost of the adequacy policy of the system, thanks to enlarged competition, but it is illusory because the clearing price of capacity is the same with and without explicit CBP. Moreover concretization of such benefits for the system is not possible when there is congestion. From the EU wide perspective, we identify some potential gains of social efficiency from explicit CBP at the multi-system level, when we have systems with a long standing situation of overcapacity beside systems with tight situations during their critical periods; or when there exists projects of hydro equipment (pumping storage, etc. But again, congestion removes any sense to any additional revenue to them. In any case erratic revenues certainly do not steer new investment towards either system. Furthermore exchanges of capacity rights between systems equipped with different CRMs introduce a supplement of distortions compared to the same situation with implicit CPB and no trade of capacity rights. It is problematic in the case of congestion; this delays the price signal of capacity scarcity in the system with the least attractive CRM in terms of revenue and risk management. Acknowledgements: This paper has benefited from the support of the Chaire European Electricity Markets of the Paris-Dauphine Foundation, supported by RTE, EDF, EPEX Spot and the UFE. The views and opinions expressed in this article [research, Working Paper etc.] are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the partners of the CEEM.