Flexibility Assessment Studies Worldwide-Bridging
With the Adequacy Needs
*Note: Sub-titles are not captured in Xplore and should not be used
Valeri Mladenov
Technical University of Sofia Veselin Chobanov
Faculty of Automatics Technical University of Sofia
Sofia, Bulgaria Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
valerim@tu-sofia.bg
vesselin_chobanov@tu-sofia.bg
Vasiliki Vita
Institute of Communications and
Computer Systems
Athens, Greece
vasvita@aspete.gr
Abstract—This paper aims to go forward the literature
review of our previous research [1], focusing a bit more on the
existing efforts on improving the adequacy assessment with
flexibility indices, defining more clearly the
FLEXITRANSTORE WP2 contribution to the on-going
discussion about these topics in Europe and worldwide
Keywords—component, formatting, style, styling, insert
(key words)
I. INTRODUCTION (HEADING 1)
In order to ensure the balance of the energy system, the
construction of new germination sources must be planned in
the long term. The Capacity Adequacy Forecast (CAF) has
been assessing the capacity adequacy of available supply
resources to meet simulated demand scenarios. This annual
exercise provides an overview of the state of play across a
ten-year time frame, carried out by national TSOs for each
country and ENTSOe for the European network. Ten years is
usually the time frame during which policy makers, investors
and market participants make strategic decisions so as to
allow the power system to deliver a targeted level of
adequacy. Such forecasting exercises focus on the likelihood
of unusual events disrupting supply. The results are derived
from many simulations providing a probabilistic
interpretation of the likelihood of lack of supply. One such
metric explored in the CAF and covered here, is loss of load
expectation (LOLE). It is the average number of hours per
year in which it is statistically expected that there is not
sufficient power supply in the market to cover demand. Note
that this is not translated in a blackout as the analysis keeps
security margin for unforeseen events near real time, since it
is a probabilistic assessment based on models.
II. FLEXIBILITY SERVICES
Adequacy is not only related to the total amount of
capacity being installed in the system, but also to the ability
of the installed capacity to adjust to the ever-increasing
dynamics of dispatch events in the system. The latter is
defined as ‘flexibility adequacy’ and it becomes ever more
important, mainly due to the increasing amount of variable
renewable energy present in the power system. Several
flexibility services will be required in order to ensure a
smooth transition to high RES penetration [5], particularly:
978-1-7281-2697-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Elias Zafeiropoulos
Institute of Communications and
Computer Systems
Athens, Greece
Sofia, Bulgaria eagle@central.ntua.gr
A. Ramping needs
With the high RES penetration, flexible resources will
become essential to meet the fast change of residual demand
i.e. the steep upward ramp created by the decline in solar
output due to the sun setting when demand increases in the
evening.
B. Balancing fast reserves
The increase of variable generation along with the
forecast error of wind and PV should be overcome with
reserve deployment in order to secure the supply. Modeling
of balancing reserves in the CAF is performed assuming that
a fixed amount of supply is kept available at any time.
Despite the considerable improvements in forecasting
variable power generation, for both wind and solar, in
practice, forecasting can never be perfectly accurate, with
decreasing forecast errors as real-time operation approaches.
Thus, forecasts are very likely to be updated hours ahead of
real time, and the system will require fast starting and
controllable resources (interconnectors, demand side
response, storage and fast response generators). It is easy to
imagine that the larger the ramps the bigger the need for
flexibility.
C. Integration of renewables
Integration of renewables creates ramping needs that
should be addressed through all available means: fast
generation, interconnections, demand response and/or
storage resources. Recent studies in Europe and around the
world confirm that flexibility is becoming gradually a crucial
point for system adequacy. Flexibility services and products
are growing in importance and are progressively being
integrated into the market.
There are different approaches to assessing the flexibility
of the electricity system, they can be more general,
evaluating only the primary resources or could cover a great
deal of detail. Some of these methods are [9]:
• The operation of the power plants is not taken into
account, only the available physical resources are accounted
for. [10]-[12]. The operation of the power plants is not taken
into account, only the available physical resources are
accounted for. The idea is to consider the ability to follow
the load schedule by considering physical resources. Such
approaches are likely to overestimate the availability of
resources to provide flexibility and, therefore, the results
from such studies can only be seen as a “screening”-type
analysis. This type of analysis takes into account the "real
life" of the electricity system, including minimum and
maximum loads, or sets other specific features of the load
schedule to be considered. FAST analysis presented the
following sections belongs in this category, however in
FLEXITRANSTORE the data used are more accurate than in
the reference [10], since the national TSOs are involved in
the modelling and calculation process.
• There are also so-called interim assessment methods.
These methods are used on a detailed justification, but they
also do not cover all the features of the generating sources,
such as time for technical support, possibility of dispatch,
etc. [13]-[16].
• Precise Assessment Methods: The information they
need to estimate how the system may operate, such as how
commitment and dispatch is performed, how transmission is
modelled, how energy forecasting is used and how markets
will operate. In general, the work schedule of the power
plants is detailed and economic optimization model is
applied [17]-[19], therefore, significant modelling effort and
computational resources are needed. If detailed data are not
available and various key operational issues are not known in
advance, then simulations of this type are difficult to be
carried out with a degree of certainty. This problem may be
solved by executing several scenarios, considering possible
values of the stochastic parameters (e.g. system load, fuel
prices, CO2 prices, etc.).
FLEXITRANSTORE methodology developed in the
current WP2 augments from intermediate to detailed
assessment methods, finally taking under consideration full
unit commitment and network topology and constraints.
Furthermore, the WP2 studies will link these flexibility
studies with a decision-making method proposing smart grid
solutions for flexibility inadequacies based on the
demonstrated technologies in FLEXITRANSTORE. In this
way, WP2 aims to channel the innovative functionalities of
the FLEXITRANSTORE innovation technologies into the
transmission system planning process.
There are significant efforts of assessing flexibility
‘adequacy’ related with our FLEXITRANSTORE work, that
we will mention briefly in the following paragraphs, in order
to introduce the FLEXITRANSTORE flexibility assessment
approach for the SEE.
III. FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT
A. Southwest Power Pool Study [2]
The goal of the NGP, as one of nine U.S. grid operators,
is to provide security and reliability in the delivery of
electricity. These operators are not the owners of the grid,
and care only for its dispatching in real time.
The general approach used in SPP conducted study is to
analyse the variability on three major levels. The simulation
tools used for the studies have been developed by EPRI [16].
This type of analysis is performed where the wind farm
electricity production is suspended to cover the load
schedule. Various calculations are made, taking into account
both the maximum loads during the year and the maximum
loads for each day. This can determine what the discrepancy
between them is.
The second level aims to determine the flexibility of the
electricity system, taking into account: startup time of
generators, operating ranges, static characteristics of
generators.
The third part analyzes the annual hourly dispatching by
comparing forecast and actual measurements. Thus
determines the ability of the system to ensure a balance
between production and consumption of electricity.
In summary, EPRI uses its own indicators to assess the
overall flexibility of the electricity system. The EPRI tool
actually calculates four flexibility adequacy metrics as part
of the functionality in Levels 3 and 4. In particular, in this
SPP report only Level 3 of the EPRI-developed tool is
considered, which includes analyses of the flexibility
available from the resources once they have been dispatched,
and the flexibility required by the system at that time.
Environmental limits are enforced through constraints in the
scheduling process1. Dedicated flexibility adequacy metrics
are calculated at this point. The goal of this level is to assess
the flexibility that the resource fleet is technically capable of
offering at each period, and measuring the adequacy of that
capability relative to the flexibility required in the system.
This is achieved with the implementation of the flexibility
metrics described below, the periods of flexibility deficit
(PFD), expected unreserved ramping (EUR), insufficient
ramp resource expectation (IRRE), and a flexibility well-
being assessment.
The first one, described as PFD is a measure of the
number of periods when the available flexible resources were
less than the required flexibility for a given time horizon and
direction. The PFD is calculated for a range of user selected
time horizons in the chosen direction based on the flexibility
available from simulated production time series. As well as
identifying the number of periods of flexibility shortages, the
PFD helps to identify the time horizons associated with the
shortages.
The PFD is used as a conservative indicator that takes
into account the likelihood of an event occurring. This metric
should not be associated with an actual occurrence. For its
calculation, the flexibility of the system is analyzed in the
order of one hour to 12 hours. When the value of zero for
available flexibility is reported in the analyzed periods, the
indicator increases. It is important to keep in mind that a
comparison is made between the actual system flexibility
available for this period and the worst statistically possible
case for the same period.
Fig. 1. Changes in the need for flexibility in the time interval of one to
twelve hours (U: upward, D:downward).

The EUR is an indicator which takes into account the
lack of flexibility for the period reported by the PFD. In
addition to the frequency of flexibility deficits, the
magnitude of any shortage is important. The EUR is the total
magnitude of the deficit of net flexibility. The EUR is similar
but not identical to the expected unserved energy metric in
capacity adequacy planning.
Fig. 2. EUR - needs for flexibility in the time interval of one to twelve
hours (U: upward, D:downward)
The third metric used in the analysis is IRRE. The
Insufficient Ramp Resource Expectation (IRRE) is a second
measure of the frequency of flexibility shortfalls over a
variety of time horizons. The key difference between the
PFD and IRRE is that the IRRE uses a probabilistic approach
to determine the likelihood of meeting each net load ramp
drawn from a distribution at each period in time. In order to
directly compare the available flexibility and the net load
ramps, a distribution of available flexibility is created. Using
this, the probability of meeting each ramp, as well as the
expected value over a time series, can be calculated.
Figure 3 shows the probability of inability to cover the
load. It has been calculated using the time intervals for the
two indicators above for the necessary flexibility and
available flexibility. Calculations show that problems with
insufficient flexibility are more likely to occur at longer
intervals. Up to two hours are not likely to be sufficient
flexibility, both up and down. The results poisoning and the
real work of wind farms for the respective region.
Fig. 3. IRRE for SPP for test period
B. “Long-Term Flexibility Assessment of the Greek Power
System”, Prepared by ECCO International [21]
In 2017, at the launch of FLEXITRANSTORE
consortium, this study was assigned by the Greek NRA to a
consulting company and addresses the long term flexibility
adequacy of the Greek power system with detailed hourly
simulations. The objective is to calculate the long-term
flexible capacity needs of the Greek interconnected power
system for the next 10-years (2018-2027). To do this a lot of
details are taken into account as load forecast, price of
emissions, operational time unknit commitment etc., RES
other power plans. In ECCO’s study, the following flexibility
needs are identified:
1. The needs for flexible capacity
2. The hourly and 3-hour variability of the residual load
3. Forecast errors
4. The need for balancing reserves
To determine the power system flexible capacity needs,
the study followed the deterministic methodology adopted by
the California ISO [22]. In general, the flexibility need of the
power system is simulated separately for each month m of
the year using:
Upward Flexibility Needp,m = Max [Net System Load
Rampp,t,m] + Max (MSCCm, 3,5% * E(PLm)) + ε
where,
Flexibility Needp,m = System flexibility need for
ramping product p, in month m
Net System Load Rampp,t,m = Net system load ramp
regarding product p, in time interval t, in month m.
MSCCm = Most Severe Single Contingency in month m
E(PLm) = Expected system peak load in month m
ε = Annually adjustable error term to account for load
forecast errors and variability methodology.
Similarly:
Downward Flexibility Needp,m = Max [Net System Load
Rampp,t,m]
Three different ramping ‘products’, namely 15-min, 1-h
and 3-h ramping where calculated for the year 2016 (real
measurements provided by IPTO with 15min granularity).
Hourly time resolution was used in all simulation runs for the
future study period (years 2018-2027) and the respective
system-wide flexible capacity needs for the period 2018-
2027 were calculated for 1-h and 3-h ramping intervals only.
The simulation runs of the hourly values were performed
for fourteen combinatorial scenarios with: a) ‘high’ and
‘base’ scenarios for system load, b) ‘high’ and ‘low’
scenarios for gas and CO2 emissions prices, c) additional
assumptions of interconnections availability and
commissioning/decommissioning of specific generation
plants.

Fig. 4. Gas Units 1-h Ramp-up Contribution, for the 14 scenarios studied
during the following decade [ECCO study]. Similar graphs were presented
for the Lignite and Hydro plants
Studying the 1-h Ramp-up Contributions as in the
previous figure, it was concluded that, in all simmulations,
the increase of RES power plants over time results in an
increased upward ramping provision by conventional coal
and hydro power plants to compensate for the increased net
load variability. Furthermore the 3h contribution was
examined: the 3-h upward ramping contribution for each unit
technology was not only considerably higher (around 2.5-3
times higher) but also presented much higher variation across
the examined scenarios as compared to the respective 1-h
upward ramping contribution. This was attributed to the fact
that 3-h net load ramps are normally higher (and present
much higher variation across different scenarios) than the 1-h
net load ramps, mainly on the hours preceding or following
the morning and evening peak load hours, where the highest
net load ramps are usually observed.
The ECCO study has been used by the NRA to provide
indications for formulating the Transitory Electricity
Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism (TFRM) and the
flexibility resources to be asked by candidate market
participants through auctions. This has been presented in
Deliverable 2.1. As previously mentioned, in WP2 the
FLEXITRANSTORE consortium aims to study the
flexibility needs and resources of SEE countries and provide
a platform to introduce the effect of technology innovations
into the system planning, improving the TSO portfolio of
solutions. Storage solutions play an important role in
FLEXITRANSTORE and they are linked with a cost benefit
study and various business models and market
reimbursement mechanisms, which are coming out of the
work in WP3 scope.
Fig. 5. Gas Units 3-h Ramp-up Contribution for the 14 scenarios studied
during the following decade [21]. Similar graphs were presented for the
Lignite and Hydro plants in the study
C. ELIA flexibility assessment
In 2016, ELIA published a detailed study on the
‘adequacy’ and flexibility needs of the Belgian power
system, putting side by side these two concepts on a high
level of the 10-year power systems planning. The basic idea
of this study is the definition of the ‘structural block’, which
is the volume of capacity between the estimated electricity
consumption and the generation capacity present in a given
scenario i.e. nuclear, RES, CoGEN, pumped hydro,
interconnections, demand response. This ‘structural block’
includes CCGT and OCGT units (tanked below in the ‘merit’
order} and pumped hydro, demand response, new storage
capacity, and new interconnections. The basic tool used in
these studies is Monte Carlo simulation and economic
dispatch scenarios
The study also addresses the flexibility needs of the
market and those for balancing purposes, i.e. the balancing
reserves:
(i) Primary Reserve R1 (FCR - Frequency
Containment Reserve): stabilization of the frequency within
a range between 49.8 and 50.2 Hertz, increasing/decreasing
generation capacity in less than 30 seconds in the event of a
decrease/rise in frequency,
(ii) Secondary Reserve R2 (aFRR - automatic
Frequency Restoration Reserve): reduction the frequency to
50 Hz (‘pressure relief’ on R1) and assurance of
import/export balance of nearby control areas according to
contractual agreements. R2 setpoint signal is also based on
ongoing measurements and transmitted to all power plants
participating in R2 every 10 secs.
(iii) Tertiary Reserve R3 (mFRR – manual Frequency
Restoration Reserve): R3 is activated and controlled
manually by dispatchers to overcome insufficiency of R2,
stemming from on-line generation or demand response,
during a period ranging from a few minutes to a maximum of
quarter of an hour
The results of the study regarding flexibility are very
much dependent on the initial assumptions made for the
evolution of the RES generation, intraday and balancing
markets, active demand management, decentralised storage,
and international cooperation between grid operators. In this
way the study estimates the required capacity for R1, R2 and
R3 for the next decade for the Belgian power system.
Especially, the ELIA flexibility assessment reveals that for
secondary control (aFRR)a few CCGT units (2 up to 4)
might be necessary in next four years to cover the load.
Fig. 6. Capacity of the ‘structural block’ resulting from the adequacy and
flexibility assessment form the ‘base case’ scenario
D. Joint Research Center study “Assessment of underlying
capacity mechanism studies for Greece” [4]
This report of Joint Research Center [4] presents a
thorough evaluation of the IPTO capacity adequacy studies’
methodology in comparison with international practices
(ELIA study, NREL study as in [25]) and mainly ENTSOe
[5, 7]. However, extra focus is given to the flexibility
assessment approaches being elaborated by research centers
and TSOs in order to assess whether the power system has an
adequate level of flexibility resources to face the
aforementioned technical challenges and/or to evaluate
future flexibility needs in a qualitative and quantitative
manner. JRC stresses that the actual availability of these
resources is not only a technical matter, but also a subject of
the regulatory framework of electricity markets which play a
decisive role.
Furthermore, in this report the JRC is providing insights
on the flexibility assessment approaches addressing pros and
cons:
1) The ECCO study does not provide a quantification of
the reserves requirements of the System in order to cope with
residual load variability and forecast errors. An extension of
the stydy should provide a robust quantification of the Greek
System reserve (FCR, aFRR, mFRR) requirements based on
the statistical analysis of the above parameters at hourly and
intra-hourly steps .
2) Market simulations could determine whether the
Hellenic system has adequate resources to cope with hourly
and 3-hour ramping requirements.
3) Outcomes of the flexibility assessment analysis and
their relation to the long-term planning process of the Greek
Power System
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Finally, an overall improvement of the simulation
approach is recommended that will incorporate the revision
of cross-border interconnector assumptions to account for
seasonality and operational constrains, use of flow-based
market methods, and advanced sequential Monte Carlo
simulations that will incorporate day-ahead, intraday and
balancing markets.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No 774407.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour et al., “Stochastic security-constrained unit
commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 800 – 811,
May 2007.
[2] “2016 Wind Integration Study”, Southwest Power Pool, Inc, USA
2016.
[3] .A. Tuohy, P. Meibom et al., “Unit commitment for systems with
significant wind penetration,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 592 – 601, May 2009.
[4] Antonopoulos G; Chondrogiannis S; Kanellopoulos K; Papaioannou
I; Spisto A; Efthimiadis T; Fulli G., Assessment of underlying
capacity mechanism studies for Greece, EUR 28611 EN, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-
68878-2, doi: 10.2760/51331, JRC106307.
[5] ENTSOe (2019): ENTSO-E Powerfacts Europe 2019.
[6] IPTO, “Handbook of Capacity Adequacy Calculation Mechanism /
Version 3 (in Greek),” Athens, 2013.
[7] ENTSO-E, Mid-term Adequacy Forecast 2018 Edition, Brussels,
2018
[8] Huang, Yuping, P. M. Pardalos, and Q. P. Zheng. Electrical power
unit commitment: deterministic and two-stage stochastic
programming models and algorithms. Springer, 2017.
[9] Bonneville Power Administration, EPRI and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, “Flexibility Assessment Methods DRAFT”,
January 2015.
[10] International Energy Agency, “Grid Integration of Variable
Renewables, phase 2”, 2011, available from IEA.
[11] Portland General Electric, “2009 Integrated Resource Plan: 2012
Integrated Resource Plan Update”, Nov 2012. Online].
Available:http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_company/energy_stra
tegy/resource_planning/docs/irp_nov2012.pdf
[12] Ma, J.; Silva, V.; Belhomme, R.; Kirschen, D.S.; Ochoa, L.F.,
"Evaluating and planning flexibility in sustainable power systems,"
Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PES), 2013 IEEE , vol.,
no., pp.1,11, 21-25 July 2013
[13] M.Schilmoeller, “Imbalance Reserves: Supply, Demand, and
Sufficiency”, Northwest Power and Conservation Council report,
2012
[14] S. Müller, “Evaluation of Power System Flexibility Adequacy - The
Flexibility Assessment Tool (FAST2)”, presented at the 12th
International Wind Integration Workshop, London, October 2012.
[15] Lannoye, E.; Flynn, D.; O'Malley, M., "Assessment of power system
flexibility: A high-level approach," Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2012 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1,8, 22-26 July 2012
[16] Electric Power Research Institute, “Power System Flexibility Metrics:
Framework, Software Tool and Case Study for Considering Power
System Flexibility in Planning”. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2013.
3002000331.
[17] J. Hargreaves, E. K. Hart, R. Jones and A. Olson, Energy and
Environmental Economics, “REFLEX: An Adapted Production
Simulation Methodology for Flexible Capacity Planning”, 2013.
Online].
[18] California Independent System Operator, “Flexible Resource
Adequacy Criteria and Must-Offer Obligation”, Draft proposal
available at www.caiso.com, March 2014.
[19] "Methods to model and calculate capacity contributions of variable
generation for resource adequacy planning", Tech. Report, North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Mar. 2011.
[20] “Study regarding the ‘Adequacy’ and Flexibility Needs of the Belgian
Power System: Period 2017-2027”, ELIA, Brussels 2016.
[21] “Long-Term Flexibility Assessment of the Greek Power System”,
ECCO International, San Francisco CA USA, 2017.