What changes did Redispatch 2.0 bring?
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:49 am
The redispatch procedure is not limited to a specific control zone, but can be carried out within several control zones or in the entire interconnected grid. In summary, it is a central instrument for ensuring grid quality and enables the safe integration of renewable energies into the existing power grid and their efficient use.
Redispatch 2.0, which came into force on October 1, 2021, brought with it some significant changes. For example, plant operators receive financial compensation for redispatch, which is borne by the distribution system operator (DSO) instead of by the balancing group manager as before. This also means that the distribution system operator has additional expenses such as data exchange, processes and bookings.
The second version of the redispatch also takes into account plants that bolivia consumer email list deliver less than 10 megawatts (MW) of net power. In the original redispatch, only plants with a generation capacity of more than ten MW were considered. The threshold has now been lowered to ≥ 100 kilowatts (KW) and remotely controlled plants with < 100 KW are also considered in a lower priority. The shutdown sequence takes renewable energies, high-efficiency combined heat and power and remotely controllable small plants into account in a lower priority order. As a result, significantly more plants are now affected by the redispatch than was previously the case.
In the area of photovoltaic systems, there are also some concerns about the cost-benefit ratio. Older systems in particular cannot fully contribute to system security and require too much effort to be integrated into Redispatch 2.0. The reason for this is that older systems must first be made remotely controllable, which means that the systems have to be modified and adapted.
Another problem associated with Redispatch 2.0 is on the side of direct marketers. Although the short introduction time of the legally anchored Redispatch 2.0 was criticized by market partners, a gradual introduction was not carried out. The interim solution has led to immense additional work on the part of direct marketers, which is amplified by the lack of clear formats and deadlines for market communication and invoicing.
Redispatch 2.0, which came into force on October 1, 2021, brought with it some significant changes. For example, plant operators receive financial compensation for redispatch, which is borne by the distribution system operator (DSO) instead of by the balancing group manager as before. This also means that the distribution system operator has additional expenses such as data exchange, processes and bookings.
The second version of the redispatch also takes into account plants that bolivia consumer email list deliver less than 10 megawatts (MW) of net power. In the original redispatch, only plants with a generation capacity of more than ten MW were considered. The threshold has now been lowered to ≥ 100 kilowatts (KW) and remotely controlled plants with < 100 KW are also considered in a lower priority. The shutdown sequence takes renewable energies, high-efficiency combined heat and power and remotely controllable small plants into account in a lower priority order. As a result, significantly more plants are now affected by the redispatch than was previously the case.
In the area of photovoltaic systems, there are also some concerns about the cost-benefit ratio. Older systems in particular cannot fully contribute to system security and require too much effort to be integrated into Redispatch 2.0. The reason for this is that older systems must first be made remotely controllable, which means that the systems have to be modified and adapted.
Another problem associated with Redispatch 2.0 is on the side of direct marketers. Although the short introduction time of the legally anchored Redispatch 2.0 was criticized by market partners, a gradual introduction was not carried out. The interim solution has led to immense additional work on the part of direct marketers, which is amplified by the lack of clear formats and deadlines for market communication and invoicing.