I mean, I guess I disagree that you need anything close to a perfect model. You will get many of the benefits of the correct solution by using linearized power flow with nodal pricing and explicitly modeling transmission constraints (and by extension, redispatch). Afaik, Germany doesn’t do this, but as you had described earlier, redispatch costs are physical in nature and obviously still exist, they just aren’t reflected in prices. This is very dumb.
Suppose a new generator wants to know which is the best node to interconnect to. This should be obvious from nodal pricing, as you would simply check the node that has the highest INC redispatch/lowest congestion costs (the nodes in the south of Germany in your example). Similarly, the worst node to connect to will be the one with the highest DEC redispatch/highest congestion costs (the North). Instead, in the current german system, I would think you would need to do some contrived thing of figuring out which generators are getting the highest uplift payments, but this would be very imperfect as you would not know how sensitive a different node would be to the system redispatch (not to mention, this is assuming this information is even readily published).
There’s really no excuse to not adopt nodal pricing over whatever exists for a centrally planned grid operator. I can only really imagine it’s a political issue.
I mean, I guess I disagree that you need anything close to a perfect model.
It's an adversarial setting, economic actors are incentivized to find any loophole and exploit them, so even if it doesn't need to be perfect it needs to be indistinguishable from perfection from the PoV of the market actors, otherwise the defects will be weaponized.
Comments
I mean, I guess I disagree that you need anything close to a perfect model. You will get many of the benefits of the correct solution by using linearized power flow with nodal pricing and explicitly modeling transmission constraints (and by extension, redispatch). Afaik, Germany doesn’t do this, but as you had described earlier, redispatch costs are physical in nature and obviously still exist, they just aren’t reflected in prices. This is very dumb.
Suppose a new generator wants to know which is the best node to interconnect to. This should be obvious from nodal pricing, as you would simply check the node that has the highest INC redispatch/lowest congestion costs (the nodes in the south of Germany in your example). Similarly, the worst node to connect to will be the one with the highest DEC redispatch/highest congestion costs (the North). Instead, in the current german system, I would think you would need to do some contrived thing of figuring out which generators are getting the highest uplift payments, but this would be very imperfect as you would not know how sensitive a different node would be to the system redispatch (not to mention, this is assuming this information is even readily published).
There’s really no excuse to not adopt nodal pricing over whatever exists for a centrally planned grid operator. I can only really imagine it’s a political issue.
It's an adversarial setting, economic actors are incentivized to find any loophole and exploit them, so even if it doesn't need to be perfect it needs to be indistinguishable from perfection from the PoV of the market actors, otherwise the defects will be weaponized.