The design of the Internal Energy Market in relation energy supply security and climate change

The Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP), the Loyola de Palacio Chair on EU Energy Policy of the Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (European University Institute), the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Wilton Park Conferences (WPC) organize a four-tier program for discussing the potential for a smart EU Energy Policy. The Florence workshop is then the first one in a series of four where academics will discuss the various interactions between the three objectives of the EU Energy Policy with stakeholders from governments, regulators and the industry. This workshop adressed the internal energy market design and its consequences for energy supply security and climate change policies. The workshop gathered over on day and a half 42 experts to discuss current problems and possible solutions for a smart EU Energy Policy.Smart energy policy; 3rd EU directive; Market design; Renewable energy; gas reform

The Design of the Internal Energy Market in Relation to Energy Supply Security and Climate Change

The Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP), the Loyola de Palacio Chair on EU Energy Policy of the Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (European University Institute), the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Wilton Park Conferences (WPC) organize a four-tier program for discussing the potential for a smart EU Energy Policy. The Florence workshop is then the first one in a series of four where academics will discuss the various interactions between the three objectives of the EU Energy Policy with stakeholders from governments, regulators and the industry. This workshop addressed the internal energy market design and its consequences for energy supply security and climate change policies. The workshop gathered over one day and a half 42 experts to discuss current problems and possible solutions for a smart EU Energy Policy.Smart energy policy,3d EU directive,Market design,Renewable energy,gas reform

An operational and institutional modular analysis framework of Transmission and System Operator Why Transmission and System Operators are not ideal ones

Transmission and System Operator (TSO) is the power flows externality market designer. And so, not only is TSO a module of power markets but its missions that are related to the management of power flows can also be studied thanks to a modular analysis. An ideal first-best TSO can then emerge as a benchmark for comparison with real TSOs. The governance structure of TSO accounts for the gap between such an ideal first-best and real TSOs. Then, although the economic theory specifies a unique arrangement to reach efficiency, the diversity of transmission governance accounts for the diversity of arrangements to manage power flows. Moreover the comparison between an ideal first-best TSO and two reference TSOs, PJM and NGC, with quite opposite features accounts for heterogeneous results among TSOs.TSO;institutional complementarity;modular analysis; congestion

Real gains from flow-based methods for allocating power transmission capacity in Europe

This paper aims at understanding and assessing the main methods proposed by ETSO and EuroPEX [1] to define and allocate interconnection capacities in Europe. We model these methods and evaluate their technical and economic efficiency on a 7-node network. We find first, that, unsurprisingly, the allocation methods are all the more efficient as the Kirchhoff laws are integrated more precisely in the market clearing. Second, and more surprisingly, we find that the zonal vision of the grid considered by all these methods has important consequences on the technical and economic efficiency as it may cause the capacity limits of powerlines to be exceeded.Electricity, Transmission Capacity Allocation, Market Coupling, ATC-based, flow-based.

The diversity of design of TSOs

It is puzzling today to explain diversity and imperfection of actual transmission monopoly designs in competitive electricity markets. We argue that transmission monopoly in competitive electricity markets has to be analysed within a Wilson (2002) modular framework. Applied to the management of electricity flows, at least three modules make the core of transmission design: 1° the short run management of network externalities; 2° the long run management of network investment; and 3° the coordination of neighboring Transmission System Operators for cross border trade. In order to tackle this diversity of designs of TSOs, we show that for each of these modules, three different basic ways of managing them are possible. Among the identified twenty seven options of organisation, we define an Ideal TSO. Second, we demonstrate that 1°monopoly design differs from this Ideal TSO and cannot handle these three modules irrespective of the "institutional" definition and allocation of property rights on transmission; while 2°definition and allocation of property rights on transmission cannot ignore the existing electrical industry and transmission network structure: they have to complement each other to be efficient. Some conclusions for regulatory issues of transmission systems operators are derived from this analysis of network monopoly organisation

Tariffs for European Gas Transmission Networks. Report on workshop proceedings

The mainline of the workshop was the transmission tariffs on gas network from a European perspective. Transmission is a key issue for the European gas system for two reasons. First, transmission tariff should incentivize the efficient use of infrastructure and so facilitate the development of competition. Second, transmission tariff should also give enough return to network investors so that they upgrade the network efficently compared to their current and future uses not only for national infrastructures but also for cross-border pipelines. Three issues were especially treated in the different sessions during the workshop namely: 1° competition and efficient use of the network, 2° investment in national infrastructures, and 3° investment in cross-border infrastructures. Key conclusions and open questions from the debate among regulators, TSOs, stakeholders and academic delegates are reported here.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Inefficiency for the Development of Merchant Lines in Europe

This paper evaluates regulatory uncertainty and inefficiency that may prevent merchant transmission investors from committing in Europe, in particular when they are dominant generators. We argue that market players may perceive regulatory uncertainty to acquire exemption on merchant line mainly because of the discretion given for the application of Art. 7 of the Regulation 1228/2003 on cross-border exchanges. However we show that an emerging strategy of the European Commission for granting exemption on merchant transmission line can be eventually derived from recent legal and regulatory proceedings. It mainly consists in relying on TSOs to build merchant lines. We demonstrate that this strategy is neither a first best nor a second best given imperfect unbundling and the current flows in the allocation of regulatory powers. Indeed, it prevents merchant line investment by dominant generators with low generation cost while they have currently more incentive than TSOs to build merchant lines. Since unregulated merchant transmission investment by generators would be problematic, we show eventually that the current strategy of the application of Regulation can easily be fine-tuned to reach this second-best optimum.Regulatory Uncertainty and Inefficiency for the Development of Merchant Lines in Europe

A Typical Case of Weak Institutional Complementarity in Institution Building : The Design of Transmission Network Monopoly in Competitive Electricity Markets

In a “Weak institutional complementarity” type of institution building it is typically the less replaceable institutional characteristic which dictates the path of change for the institution as a whole. We will show it is exactly what explains the diversity and imperfection of actual transmission monopoly designs in competitive electricity markets. Firstly we argue that transmission monopoly in competitive electricity markets has to be analysed within an industry modular frame. Transmission is a set of several modules which have to be distinguished and separated in any design analysis and comparison. At least three modules make the core of transmission design: 1° the short run management of network externality; 2° the short run management of cross border trade; and 3° the long run management of network investment. Second in a new-institutional economics perspective we say that 1°monopoly design in a competitive policy cannot handle these three modules irrespective of the “institutional” definition and allocation of property rights on transmission; while 2°definition and allocation of property rights on transmission cannot ignore the existing electrical industry and transmission network structure: they basically have to complement each other. Third we apply this frame to compare PJM (USA) and NGC (UK) and we show it remarkably illuminates the reality.TSO; weak institutional complementarity; modular analysis

Is combination of nodal pricing and average participation tariff the best solution to coordinate the location of power plants with lumpy transmission investments?

This paper evaluates the opportunity and efficiency to introduce a two-part tariff to coordinate the location of power plants with lumpy transmission investments. Nodal pricing sends the short run component of such a two-part tariff and we study the case where the average participation tariff sends the long run one. We argue that this solution is helpful because the average participation tariff tackles lumpiness of transmission capacity while being as cost-reflective as possible. Our proposition is evaluated based on a double optimization model where a TSO minimizes the transmission cost while a generator minimizes its own cost that may take into account network constraints and include the average participation tariff. Numerical simulations are performed on a two-node network evolving during twenty years with increasing demand. The joint implementation of nodal pricing and the average participation tariff stays the best combination to coordinate as efficiently as possible the generation and transmission investments, although the optimal set of generation and transmission investments may not be reached because of transmission lumpiness. The simulations show also that implementing locational network tariffs is prioritary over implementing nodal pricing to coordinate more efficiently the location of generation with lumpy transmission investment. In the considered examples, the average participation tariff allows a more efficient location of generation even when the congestion management scheme being redispatch sends no short run locational signal.Generation investment; Lumpy transmission investment; Long run coordination; Locational signals; Efficiency evaluation

An operational and institutional modular analysis framework of Transmission and System Operator Why Transmission and System Operators are not ideal ones

International audienceTransmission and System Operator (TSO) is the power flows externality market designer. And so, not only is TSO a module of power markets but its missions that are related to the management of power flows can also be studied thanks to a modular analysis. An ideal first-best TSO can then emerge as a benchmark for comparison with real TSOs. The governance structure of TSO accounts for the gap between such an ideal first-best and real TSOs. Then, although the economic theory specifies a unique arrangement to reach efficiency, the diversity of transmission governance accounts for the diversity of arrangements to manage power flows. Moreover the comparison between an ideal first-best TSO and two reference TSOs, PJM and NGC, with quite opposite features accounts for heterogeneous results among TSOs