IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sen/journl/v3i4y2002p425-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic assessment of congestion management methods for electricity transmission networks

Author

Listed:
  • R.A. Hakvoort
  • L.J. De Vries

Abstract

This paper provides an economic analysis of five different congestion management methods which can be used to handle congestion in electricity transmission networks: explicit auctioning, implicit auctioning, market splitting, redispatching and counter trading. These methods all have the objective to provide fair and non-discriminatory access to scarce transmission capacity in an economically efficient manner. This paper evaluates the theoretical economic efficiency of each of these methods. For this purpose an economic model is made of each method. In addition, some practical aspects of these congestion management methods are reviewed. The main conclusion is that all of the reviewed congestion management methods have, in theory, the potential of being economically efficient in the short term. That is, if they work well, they will all lead to the most efficient dispatch of generation given the existing transmission constraints. Their differences lie in the distribution of costs, their implementation costs, their practical feasibility, their susceptibility to strategic behaviour and their long-term incentives to generators and network operators. Finally, it is explained why congestion pricing methods (explicit auctioning, implicit auctioning and market splitting) in most cases are preferable as a solution for structural congestion over the corrective methods (redispatching and counter trading). They generate better economic incentives for users of the congested links which probably make them more efficient in the long term.

Suggested Citation

  • R.A. Hakvoort & L.J. De Vries, 2002. "An economic assessment of congestion management methods for electricity transmission networks," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 3(4), pages 425-467, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sen:journl:v:3:i:4:y:2002:p:425-467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Blijswijk, Martti J. & de Vries, Laurens J., 2012. "Evaluating congestion management in the Dutch electricity transmission grid," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 916-926.
    2. Jeddi, Samir & Sitzmann, Amelie, 2021. "Network tariffs under different pricing schemes in a dynamically consistent framework," EWI Working Papers 2021-1, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    3. Voswinkel, Simon & Höckner, Jonas & Khalid, Abuzar & Weber, Christoph, 2022. "Sharing congestion management costs among system operators using the Shapley value," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    4. Friedrich Kunz, 2013. "Improving Congestion Management: How to Facilitate the Integration of Renewable Generation in Germany," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    5. Bjørndal, Endre & Bjørndal, Mette & Rud, Linda & Alangi, Somayeh Rahimi, 2017. "Market Power Under Nodal and Zonal Congestion Management Techniques," Discussion Papers 2017/14, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    6. Jonas Höckner & Simon Voswinkel & Christoph Weber, "undated". "Market distortions in flexibility markets caused by renewable subsidies – The case for side payments," EWL Working Papers 1905, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics.
    7. Kunz, Friedrich & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2015. "Benefits of coordinating congestion management in electricity transmission networks: Theory and application to Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 34-45.
    8. Höckner, Jonas & Voswinkel, Simon & Weber, Christoph, 2020. "Market distortions in flexibility markets caused by renewable subsidies – The case for side payments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    9. Erik Heilmann & Nikolai Klempp & Kai Hufendiek & Heike Wetzel, 2022. "Long-term Contracts for Network-supportive Flexibility in Local Flexibility Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202224, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    10. Adrien de Hauteclocque & Vincent Rious, 2008. "Regulatory Uncertainty and Inefficiency for the Development of Merchant Lines in Europe," Post-Print hal-00338296, HAL.
    11. Hadush, Samson Yemane & Meeus, Leonardo, 2018. "DSO-TSO cooperation issues and solutions for distribution grid congestion management," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 610-621.
    12. Bjørndal, Endre & Bjørndal, Mette Helene & Coniglio, Stefano & Körner, Marc-Fabian & Leinauer, Christina & Weibelzahl, Martin, 2023. "Energy storage operation and electricity market design: On the market power of monopolistic storage operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 887-909.
    13. Friedrich Kunz & Alexander Zerrahn, 2013. "The Benefit of Coordinating Congestion Management in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1298, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Grimm, Veronika & Rückel, Bastian & Sölch, Christian & Zöttl, Gregor, 2019. "Regionally differentiated network fees to affect incentives for generation investment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 487-502.
    15. Adrien de Hauteclocque & Vincent Rious, 2009. "Reconsidering the Regulation of Merchant Transmission Investment in the Light of the Third Energy Package: The Role of Dominant Generators," RSCAS Working Papers 2009/59, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sen:journl:v:3:i:4:y:2002:p:425-467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Petra Van den Bempt (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.crninet.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.