As part of the amendment of the Network Expansion Acceleration Act (NABEG 2.0), a completely new power grid management system will be launched on October 1st, 2021 with Redispatch 2.0. The new, structured procedure for eliminating network bottlenecks for power-generating modules entails significant changes, particularly for smaller system operators. For example, the new instrument for regulating interventions in the generation capacity uses not only larger power plants but also plants with a rated output of 100 kW to 10 MW for redispatch.
The affected system operators and their generation plants will be subject to new market roles and obligations which they will have to comply with as part of their mandatory participation in Redispatch 2.0. In view of the resulting effort, it is worth examining the extent to which the tasks involved, such as reporting obligations and technical processing, can be transferred to supporting service providers such as ENGIE.
Whereas previously only conventional power plants were used in redispatch for grid balancing, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) and the Combined Heat and Power Act (KWKG) regulated the feed-in measures for green electricity and combined heat and power. The new regulations for ensuring grid stability combine the previous power plant deployment planning with the feed-in management via Redispatch 2.0. As a result, in particular due to the significant reduction in the minimum output of included power plants, significantly more smaller players – both conventional and renewable generation plants – will have to contribute to grid balancing in the future by shifting their scheduled electricity production.
However, balancing the supply and demand of electricity is a growing challenge for grid operators in the current environment. The number of redispatch measures required and the associated costs have thus increased continuously in recent years. The reasons for this include:
With the introduction of Redispatch 2.0, several goals are therefore pursued. The maintenance of network and system stability for a secure supply of consumers is considered to be the first premise. At the same time, the measures for balancing the network should be designed to be as cost-effective as possible and contribute to a reduction in network charges.
Especially for operators of plants in the output range between 100 kW and 10 MW, Redispatch 2.0 will result in numerous new tasks and obligations that they have to fulfill. These include, for example, the notification and updating of master data, planning data, outages and short-term adjustments and failures to the network operator. In addition, an operator (BTR) and an operator (EIV) of the system must be designated for interaction with the system operator. While the BTR is responsible for the operation of the technical resource, the EIV is responsible for the transmission of relevant data in advance and, under certain conditions, for the specific performance adjustment upon request.
Important: In Redispatch 2.0, the request or tolerance process is used to determine how the capacity adjustment is communicated to a plant. In the case of tolerance, this is done directly by the network operator, while in the case of request, the EIV carries out the adjustment itself. The respective technology required for this must also be provided. In the case of plants that are subsidized under the EEG or KWKG, the grid operator can use the radio ripple control receiver already used in feed-in management for this purpose.
In order for a redispatch measure to be compensated correctly, the network operator must be aware of the difference between the actual feed-in and the planned feed-in of the system. Two models are available for such accounting, from which different obligations arise. In the simpler forecast model, the access network operator creates the generation forecast and calculates the downtime work for which system operators receive remuneration. To do this, the network operator only has to be notified in advance of planned outages (e.g. maintenance) and unplanned outages within 60 minutes.
In the planned value model, on the other hand, the operator prepares the deployment planning, transmits the current planning data, for example the schedules for power generation or the available redispatch power, and calculates the monthly downtime work. Choosing the more complex planned value model may make sense, for example, if a plant has to meet other obligations, such as providing balancing power or process heat, and should not be available for redispatch during these times.
Our service for plant operators: As a competent service provider with its own diversified plant portfolio and many years of experience in Redispatch 1.0, ENGIE can take over the market roles of the deployment manager (EIV) and operator (BTR) as well as the associated task obligations if so desired. The actual implementation, such as the selection of the dispatch, balancing and billing model, is carried out in close coordination with the plant operator based on the intended use of the respective generation plant. In this context, ENGIE ensures the smooth transmission of all required data, checks the downtime work via queries and provides the required IT infrastructure as well as suitable customer interfaces.
With the Redispatch 2.0 services, ENGIE aims to minimize the effort and costs that the customer incurs. In addition to automated processes, automatic failure detection via a special communication unit on site plays a part in this. ENGIE also advises on non-standard plant configurations and individual site conversions and offers the attractive option of combining requirements from Redispatch 2.0 and additional revenues from trading on the electricity and balancing energy markets.
A booster for the energy transition? Find out here what the new regulation of the energy industry law means for the economy. → Read now
Under the SESTO Carbon Leakage Ordinance, reductions in CO2 prices are to be linked to climate-friendly investments.
A district heat system can be more efficient than supplying heat to each individual building. CO2 can be saved in a network – and the Building Energy Act now offers the option of a joint energy balance.
With the 44 Federal Immission Control Ordinance, a new legal framework for medium-sized combustion gas turbine and internal combustion engine plants has been in force since June 2019.