Impact of a German/Austrian market splitting on the
electricity markets and the transmission grid in CEE
 Introduction
 Assumptions and Scenario
 Market Results
 Grid Results
 Summary
Tim Drees
Christopher Breuer
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Albert Moser
3th September 2012, Vienna
2
Introduction
Background and Motivation
 Current definition of bidding areas in Europe mainly focusing on country borders
(internal physical transmission bottlenecks mainly handled by redispatch)
 Increasing appearance of congestion and loop flows in Central Europe
 Discussion on alternative definition of bidding areas (cf. Sweden, Italy)
 Evaluation of a splitting of the German/Austrian market area in a former study (2010)
 Results not directly transferable in future systems with a higher share of Renewables and
significant grid enforcement in the region
Goal of this study
 Analyzing the impact of a market splitting DE/AT on the markets and the transmission
Base
Splitting
grid in Central-Eastern-Europe (CEE)
 Focus years: 2016 and 2022
(with an hourly granularity)
 Focus area 1:
Germany, Austria, Poland and Czech Republic
1 Regarding
2 Splitting
simulation of necessary redispatch costs and volumes
of bidding area at country border DE/AT (not control zones)
Definition
DE/AT 2
3
Methodology
Methodology
Objective of the study
 Quantify impacts of a market splitting (DE/AT) on electricity markets and the
transmission grid
Nodal RES feed-in
and loads
Alternative bidding
area definition
Power market
simulation
Generation time series
Coal/Nuclear
Gas
Renewables
Hydro
Borders of bidding areas and
transmission capacities
Transmission grid
simulation
AC and HVDC
components
Nodal load time series
 Hourly
Determination of
 nodal RES
feed-in
 load
 Assumptions on
 Hourly calculation
NTC between
DE/AT
4,5 GW (2016) and
5,5 GW (2022)
 unit dispatch
 market prices
 exchange
 Simulation of
 (n-1) congestions
 redispatch
4
Models and assumptions
Input, assumptions and focus area
 Input data (2016 and 2022)
 SOAF Scenario B of ENTSO for installed
capacity and load in Europe
 Scenario of German Regulating Agency
(BNetzA) for the NEP (2012) for Germany
 Grid enforcement according to TYNDP
(2012) and NEP (2012)
 Simplified future NTC calculation
 Market design
 Zonal market areas without inner
transmission constraints
 Transmission capacity constraints (NTC
approach) between market areas 1
 Nodal cost-minimal cross-border
redispatch
Only market simulation
Market and grid simulation
Focus area (evaluation)
virtual inner
German border 3
 Focus area 2: AT, DE, PL and CZ
1 No
consideration of coordinated NTC (e.g. C-Function, Export Balance Poland)
2 Regarding simulation of necessary redispatch costs and volumes
3 Virtual (unconstraint) inner German border is just for monitoring the flows
from North to South Germany in this study (unlimited NTC!)
PL
DN
DS
CZ
AT
5
Models and assumptions
Assumptions on grid enforcement in focus area
Projects 1 from 2013 to 2016
380 kV
Projects 1 from 2017 to 2022
HVDC
380 kV
HVDC
 Assumptions based on TYNDP (2012), German grid enforcement plan (2012),
information from APG and publications from other TSOs
 Large scale upgrades of former 220 kV lines to 380 kV lines
 Partial grid enforcement until 2016 followed by massive grid enforcement until 2022
1 Projects
include new transmission lines as well topology changes due
to new substations (e.g. new substation in a line)
Models and assumptions
Assumptions on congestion management (redispatch) simulation
 Identification of (n-1) grid congestions with regular AC load flow calculation
 Measures to release congestion
1.
→
2.
→
Tapping of phase shifters (e.g. Poland, Austria) - No costs
Phase shifters are always first tapped according to grid situation
Adjustment of hourly HVDC operation in focus area (e.g. new HVDCs in Germany)
HVDC is assumed to transfer simulated schedules flows with priority followed by an
hourly adjustment of setpoints – No costs
3. (Joint cross-border) redispatch of power plants – High costs
 Power plants available for redispatching
 Decrease of generation
• All thermal conventional power plants (up to minimum power, marginal fuel costs)
• Wind power (up to zero feed in, highest costs)
 Increase of generation
• All thermal units in part-load operation (up to maximum power, marginal fuel costs)
• Offline natural gas power plants (up to maximum power, marginal fuel costs)
 No consideration of hydro power plants in redispatch simulation
6
7
MARKET RESULTS
8
Market Results – 2016/2022
Generation – Comparison with 2010
 Comparison of simulation values with real generation for 2010 of ENTSO-E
 Substitution of conventional generation by renewables in Germany and overall small
decrease of net power generation
 Decrease of generation in Belgium due to nuclear phase out
Generation
700
TWh
600
Others
500
Solar
400
Wind
300
Hydro
200
Oil
Gas
100
Coal
DE
FR
BE
AT
CH
CZ
 Shifting of exchanges estimated due to changes in generation
IT
PL
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
2022
2016
2010
0
Nuclear
9
Market Results – 2016/2022
Aggregate commercial exchange – Overview
2016
 High exchange between northern and southern part of Germany
 High exchange between southern Germany (DS) and Austria (AT)
 Exports from Poland (PL) and Czech Republic (CZ) to Germany (DE)
 Power flows from Poland across Czech Republic to Austria
 Power flows from Czech Republic across Slovakia to Hungary
* Simulated scheduled flows in the power markets (not physical flows!)
2022
10
Market Results – 2016
Aggregate commercial exchange – Comparison with 2010
 High increase of
Differences in hourly commercial
exchange (2016 – 2010) [TWh]
Change of
com. exchange
-1.2
negative
positive
0.7
-0.5
-0.1
-1.2
3.3
0.5
66.3
2.1
-1.0
1.2
0.8
1.9
2.8
0.3 0.8
-0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0
2.8
9.4
0.3
0.1
5.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
4.2
exchange between
northern and southern
part of Germany
 Increase of exchange
from southern
Germany to Austria
 Increase of power flows
from Poland across
Czech Republic to
Slovakia and Hungary
11
Market Results – 2016/2022
Commercial exchanges and assumptions on NTC (DE-AT)
 Sorted commercial exchange in base definition
50
Commercial exchange 2016
50
GW
40
GW
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
-10
-10
-20
-20
0
2000
4000
h
6000
8000
Commercial exchange 2022
DN/DS
DS/AT
0
2000
4000
h
6000
8000
 Scheduled power flows mainly from DN to DS (North to South Germany)
 Commercial exchange from DN to DS up to 32.9 GW in 2016 and 45.2 GW in 2022
 Exchange between DS and AT in both directions (nearly balanced)
 Commercial exchange from DS to AT ranges from -7.6 GW to 12.2 GW in 2016 and from
-14.6 GW to 15.5 GW in 2022
 NTC assumptions from APG: 4.5 GW in 2016 and 5.5 GW in 2022
 Exchange higher than 4.5 GW in 2,100 hours (24 %) in 2016 and
higher than 5.5 GW in 2,670 hours in 2022 (30 %)
12
MARKET SPLITTING DE/AT
13
Market Results – 2016/2022
Generation – Comparison to Base Definition
Change of generation 2016
Change of generation 2022
10
TWh
8
10
TWh
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
more pumping
-6
-8
-10
-10
PL
CZ
SE
AT
Pump
Gas
Nuclear
Turbine
Hard Coal
-6
-8
DE
Wind
Oil
Lignite
SK
DE
PL
CZ
SE
AT
 Decrease of lignite and increase of pumping and gas in Germany
 Decrease of pumping and turbining as well as an increase of hard coal in Austria
 Overall negligible effects on generation in other countries
SK
14
Market Results – 2016
Aggregated commercial exchange – DE/AT vs. Base
2016
 Reduction of exchange from south Germany to Austria
 Negligible influences on power flows on other borders
 Overall small changes on the borders
2022
Change of
com. exchange
negative
positive
15
2016 and 2022
GRID RESULTS
16
Grid Results – 2016
Congestions and redispatch – Base Definition
Frequency of (n-1) line overloadings1 (>150 kV)
before PST tapping and redispatch
Necessary redispatch measures2
(summed yearly value)
 Significant congestion in Germany and the Central Eastern European (CEE)
 Heavy negative redispatch in eastern/northern part of Germany
and Poland and increase of generation in southern Germany
Frequency of (n-1) line overloading (h/a)
before PST tapping and redispatch
Summed redispatch
Power reduction
Power increase
1%
15 %
> 30%
Volume 2 TWh/a
Remarks
1 Line is overloaded if
loading is higher than
100 % of max. current without
consideration of switching
actions
2 Optimized adjustment of
PST (e.g. in PL or AT) before
redispatching measures
17
Grid Results – 2016
Congestions and redispatch – Market splitting (DE/AT)
Splitting DE/AT
Base Definition
 No significant change of locations and level of congestion in focus area
 Only minor changes in grid situation due to splitting of DE/AT with assumed NTC (4,5 GW)
Frequency of (n-1) line overloading (h/a)
before PST tapping and redispatch
Summed redispatch
Power reduction
Power increase
1%
15 %
> 30%
Volume 2 TWh/a
18
Grid Results – 2022
Congestions and redispatch – Base Definition
Necessary redispatch measures2
(summed yearly value)
Frequency of (n-1) line overloadings1 (>150 kV)
before PST tapping and redispatch
 Massive decrease of congestion (cp. 2016) due to grid enforcement
 Significant reduction of overall redispatch volumes in focus area
 Remaining (local) bottlenecks in CEE region
Frequency of (n-1) line overloading (h/a)
before PST tapping, HVDC adjustment and redispatch
Summed redispatch
Power reduction
Power increase
1%
15 %
> 30%
Volume 2 TWh/a
Remarks
1 Line is overloaded if
loading is higher than
100 % of max. current without
consideration of switching
actions
2 Internal HVDC dispatch accor.
to scheduled flows
2 Optimized adjustment of
PST and HVDC before
redispatching measures
19
Grid Results – 2022
Congestions and redispatch – Market splitting (DE/AT)
Splitting DE/AT
Base Definition
Overloaded lines >150 kV
Overloaded lines >150 kV
 Light reduction of overloadings in Austria and Czech Republic due to Splitting DE/AT
 Overall only minor impact of DE/AT on congestions in CEE region and redispatch
volumes or locations
Frequency of (n-1) line overloading (h/a)
before PST tapping, HVDC adjustment and redispatch
Summed redispatch
Power reduction
Power increase
1%
15 %
> 30%
Volume 2 TWh/a
20
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (1/7)
(n-1) line loading St. Peter - Pleinting (AT to DE – 220 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
Remark:
Imax of 135% thermal current (due to
assumed switching actions)
I/I220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
h/a
5000
Remark:
Imax of 135% thermal current (due to
assumed switching actions)
I/I
220
max
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 Marginal impact of market splitting on line St. Peter – Pleinting
 Line not congested in 2022 due to parallel grid enforcement of St. Peter – Isar (380 kV)
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
21
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (2/7)
(n-1) line loading Redwitz – Remptendorf (inner German – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
Remark:
Imax of 3,2 kA due to HTLS conductor
I/I220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
Remark:
Imax of 3,2 kA due to HTLS conductor
I/I
220
max
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 No noticeable impact of splitting DE/AT on line Redwitz – Remptendorf
 Line not congested in 2022 due to grid enforcement by parallel lines and new HVDC
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
22
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (3/7)
(n-1) line loading Hradec – Chrast (inner Czech – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
I/I220
max
I/I
220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 Very little impact of splitting DE/AT on line Hradec – Chrast in both years (mostly in
times of high line loadings)
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
23
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (4/7)
(n-1) line loading Mikulowa – Czarna (inner Polish – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
I/I220
max
I/I
220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 Noticeable impact of splitting DE/AT on line Mikulowa – Czarna in both years
(especially in situations with high line loadings)
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
24
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (5/7)
(n-1) line loading Albrechtice – Dobrzen (CZ to PL – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
I/I220
max
I/I
220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 No significant impact of splitting (DE/AT) on line Albrechtice – Dobrzen (as well as
parallel line Nosovice – Wielopole
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
25
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (6/7)
(n-1) line loading Nosovice – Varin (CZ to SK – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
I/I220
max
I/I
220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 Very little impact of splitting DE/AT on Nosovice – Varin in 2016 and even no impact in
2022
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
26
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Grid Results – Focus lines (7/7)
(n-1) line loading Röhrsdorf - Hradec Vychod (DE to CZ – 380 kV) 1
2016
2022
240
240
I/I220
max
I/I
220
max
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
h/a
5000
6000
Base
DE/AT
0
h/a 6000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
 Splitting of DE/AT leads to slight reduction of overloadings on Röhrsdorf – Hradec in
both simulation years
1 (n-1)
line loading before adjustment of PST or redispatch measures
27
Grid Results – 2016/2022
Redispatch volumes and costs in focus area
40
TWh
35
a
30
25
Simulated redispatch volumes1
-4%
Base
DE/AT
Previous
study
800
Mio. €
700
a
600
500
20
Simulated redispatch costs1
-5%
Base
DE/AT
DS/AT
Previous
study
- 15 %
400
- 13 %
15
300
10
200
5
100
0
0
2010
2016
2022
2010
2016
2022
 Strong increase of total redispatch volumes and costs in 2016 compared to 2010
 Heavy decrease of costs and volumes in 2022 due to massive grid enforcement
 Only slight impact of splitting DE/AT on redispatch costs and volumes in all future
simulations
1 Summed
yearly value (based on investigation of all 8760 h/a) for all
countries in focus region (Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic)
28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
29
Conclusions
Main findings – Future scenario
 Evaluated future scenarios are facing significant congestion in all considered countries
Mid-Term (2016)
 High commercial exchanges in focus area (e.g. Northern Germany to Austria)
 Large congestion and high necessary redispatch costs and volumes
 Heavy congestion in Germany and significant curtailment of wind power due to slower
grid enforcement (e.g. North-South and East-South lines)
 Although exchange with Germany increases, only little congestion occurs in Austria
 Significant reduction of congestion in Poland due to Phase-Shifting-Transformers (PST)
 Grid congestion can be successfully handled by (cross-border) redispatch 1
Long-Term (2022)
 Significant reduction of redispatch volumes due to massive grid enforcement and
flexibility from HVDC components in Germany
 Remaining simulated local congestion in Germany and Poland
 High transport from North to South can be handled without large congestion
1
Without consideration of unplanned power plant
non-availability and line non availability due to maintenance
30
Conclusions
Main findings – Effects from market splitting (DE/AT)
 Increase of scheduled flows in the Eastern transmission corridor (PL->CZ->SK->HU)
 Overall only little effects from market splitting Germany/Austria
Base Definition
Splitting DE/AT
Frequency of (n-1) line
overloading (h/a) before
PST tapping and redispatch
> 30% of hours
15 % of hours
1 % of hours
Summed redispatch
Power reduction
Power increase
Volume 2 TWh/a
Key Conclusions
 Long-term grid enforcement (2022) reduces congestions and redispatch significantly
 Splitting of Austrian/German market area at Austrian border (splitting DS/AT) is no
efficient solution for solving congestion in other countries
31
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
Contact
Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Christopher Breuer / Dipl.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Tim Drees /
Dipl.-Ing. Daniel Heuberger
Institute for Power Systems and Economics (IAEW), Technical University (RWTH)
Aachen
Tel: +49 (0)241 80-96713
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.iaew.rwth-aachen.de
Head of institute
Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Albert Moser