This paper develops a stylized model of cross-border balancing. We distinguish three degrees of cooperation: autarky, reserves exchange and reserves sharing. The model shows that TSO cooperation reduces costs. The gains of cooperation increase with cost asymmetry and decrease with correlation of real-time imbalances. Based on actual market data of reserves procurement of positive and negative automatic frequency restoration reserves in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, we estimate the procurement cost decrease of exchange to be €165 million per year without transmission constraints and €135 million per year with transmission constraints. The cost decrease of sharing is estimated to be €500 million per year. The model also shows that voluntary cross-border cooperation could be hard to achieve, as TSOs do not necessarily have correct incentives.
50 Hertz Transmission GmbH, Amprion GmbH, Elia, Tennet TSO GmbH, and Transnet BWGmbH (2014) “Potential cross-border balancing cooperation between the Belgian, Dutch and German electricity Transmission System Operators.”
2.
ACER (2014). Annual Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2013, pp. 1-274. (2015) Annual Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2014, pp. 1-274.
3.
BaldurssonF. M.LazarczykE.OvaereM.ProostS. (2016). “Multi-TSO system reliability: cross-border balancing,” Energycon proceedings.
4.
BinmoreK.RubinsteinA.WolinskyA. (1986). “The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling,” The RAND Journal of Economics17: 176-188. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555382.
DoormanG. L.Van der VeenR. (2013) “An analysis of design options for markets for cross-border balancing of electricity,” Utilities Policy27: 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjup.2013.09.004.
7.
ElaE.MilliganM.KirbyB. (2011). “Operating Reserves and Variable Generation,”Technical report. ENTSO-E (2014) “Network Code on Electricity Balancing,”Technical report. (Accessed: 1st of August2016) “Public consultation for the design of the TERRE,” https://consultations.entsoe.eu/markets/terre. https://doi.org/10.2172/1023095.
8.
European Commission (2017a) “Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1485 establishing a guideline on electricity transmission system operation.”
9.
European Commission (2017b) “Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing.”
10.
FarahmandH.AignerT.DoormanG. L.KorpasM.Huertas-HernandoD. (2012). “Balancing market integration in the Northern European continent: A 2030 case study,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy3: 918-930. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2201185.
11.
GebrekirosY. T.DoormanG. L.FarahmandH.JaehnertS. (2013). “Benefits of cross-border reserve procurement based on pre-allocation of transmission capacity,” in PowerTech (POWERTECH), 2013 IEEE Grenoble, pp. 1-6, IEEE.
12.
HobbsB. F.RijkersF. A. M.BootsM. G. (2005). “The More Cooperation, the More Competition? A Cournot Analysis of the Benefits of Electric Market Coupling,” The Energy Journal26: 69-97. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-No4-5.
13.
KolstadC. D. (2005). “Piercing the veil of uncertainty in transboundary pollution agreements,” Environmental and Resource Economics31: 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-6980-0.
14.
MottMacDonald (2013). “Impact Assessment on European Electricity Balancing Market,” pp. 1-135.
15.
NashJ. F. (1953) “Two-Person Cooperative Games,” Econometrica21: 128-140.
16.
NeuhoffK.RichsteinJ. (2016). “Coordinated Balancing of the European Power System,”Mimeo, pp. 1-8.
17.
NewberyD.StrbacG.ViehoffI. (2016). “The benefits of integrating European electricity markets,” Energy Policy94: 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.047.
18.
NREL (2011). “Flexibility Reserve Reductions from an Energy Imbalance Market with High Levels of Wind Energy in the Western Interconnection,”Technical report.
19.
OvaereM.HeylenE.ProostG.DeconinckS.Van#HertemD. (2016). “How detailed value of lost load data impact power system reliability decisions: a trade-off between efficiency and equality,” KU Leuven Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series DPS16.26.
20.
OvaereM.ProostS. (2016). “Electricity transmission reliability: the impact of reliability criteria,” KU Leuven Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series DPS16.21.
21.
TangerasT. P. (2012). “Optimal transmission regulation of an integrated energy market,” Energy Economics34: 1644-1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.01.007.
Van den BerghK.HytowitzR. B.DelarueE.WilliamD.r.HobbsB. F. (2017). “Benefits of coordinating sizing, allocation and activation of reserves among market zones,” Electric Power Systems Research143: 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.10.012.
24.
VandezandeL.SaguanM.MeeusL.GlachantJ. M.BelmansR. (2009). “Assessment of the implementation of cross-border balancing trade between Belgium and the Netherlands,” 2009 6th International Conference on the European Energy Market, EEM 2009, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEM.2009.5207126.
25.
van der WeijdeA. H.HobbsB. F.ConzelmannG. (2011). “Locational-based coupling of electricity markets: benefits from coordinating unit commitment and balancing markets,” Journal of Regulatory Economics39: 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-011-9145-4.
26.
ZhouZ.LevinT.ConzelmannG. (2016). “Survey of U.S. Ancillary Services Markets,”Technical report, Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory.
27.
ZimmermanR. D.Murillo-SanchezC. E.ThomasR. J. (2011). “Matpower: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems1: 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2051168.
