@techreport{EhrhartEickeHirthetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Ehrhart, Karl-Martin and Eicke, Anselm and Hirth, Lion and Ocker, Fabian and Ott, Marion and Schlecht, Ingmar and Wang, Runxi}, title = {Analysis of a Capacity-Based Redispatch Mechanism}, publisher = {ZEW - Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Europ{\"a}ische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH}, address = {Mannheim}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4830366}, pages = {23}, abstract = {This paper discusses a capacity-based redispatch mechanism in which awarded market participants are compensated for their availability for redispatch, rather than activation. The rationale is to develop a market design that prevents so-called "inc-dec gaming" when including flexible consumers with a market-based approach. We conduct a game-theoretical analysis of a capacity-based redispatch mechanism. Our analysis reveals that despite its intention, the capacity-based redispatch is prone to undesirable behavior of market participants. The reason is that the availability payment incentivizes participants to change their energy consumption (generation) behavior. However, this also applies to undesired participants who increase the redispatch requirement through participation. Under certain assumptions, the additional redispatch potential equals the additional redispatch demand it creates. Consequently, the mechanism does not resolve network constraints, while causing costs for the compensation payments. Furthermore, we study three alternative implementation options, none of which resolves the underlying problem. It follows from our analysis that a mechanism can only be promising if it is capable to distinguish between the potential participants to exclude the undesirable ones.}, language = {en} } @article{EhrhartEickeHirthetal., author = {Ehrhart, Karl-Martin and Eicke, Anselm and Hirth, Lion and Ocker, Fabian and Ott, Marion and Schlecht, Ingmar and Wang, Runxi}, title = {Analysis of a capacity-based redispatch mechanism}, series = {Energy Economics}, volume = {149}, journal = {Energy Economics}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, doi = {10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108751}, abstract = {This paper discusses a capacity-based redispatch mechanism in which awarded market participants are compensated for their availability for redispatch, rather than activation. The rationale is to develop a market design that prevents so-called "inc-dec gaming" when including flexible consumers with a market-based approach. We conduct a game-theoretical analysis of a capacity-based redispatch mechanism. Our analysis reveals that despite its intention, the capacity-based redispatch is prone to undesirable behavior of market participants. The reason is that the availability payment incentivizes participants to change their energy consumption or generation behavior. However, this also applies to undesired participants who increase the redispatch requirement through participation. Under certain assumptions, the additional redispatch potential equals the additional redispatch requirement it creates. Consequently, the mechanism does not resolve network constraints, while causing costs for the compensation payments. Furthermore, we study three alternative implementation options, none of which resolves the underlying problem. It follows from our analysis that a mechanism can only be promising if it is capable to distinguish between the potential participants to exclude the undesired ones.}, language = {en} } @techreport{EhrhartEickeHirthetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Ehrhart, Karl-Martin and Eicke, Anselm and Hirth, Lion and Ocker, Fabian and Ott, Marion and Schlecht, Ingmar and Wang, Runxi}, title = {Congestion Management Games in Electricity Markets}, publisher = {ZEW - Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Europ{\"a}ische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH}, address = {Mannheim}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4300874}, pages = {36}, abstract = {This paper proposes a game-theoretic model to analyze the strategic behavior of inc-dec gaming in market-based congestion management (redispatch). We extend existing models by considering incomplete information about competitors' costs and a finite set of providers. We find that these extensions do not dissolve inc-dec gaming, which already occurs in our setup of two regions. We also benchmark market-based redispatch against grid investment, cost-based redispatch, and the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism. The comparison highlights a significant inefficiency of market-based redispatch and inflated redispatch payments. Finally, we study seven variations of our basic model to assess whether different market fundamentals or market design changes mitigate inc-dec gaming. None of these variations eliminate inc-dec gaming entirely.}, language = {en} } @article{EhrhartEickeHirthetal., author = {Ehrhart, Karl-Martin and Eicke, Anselm and Hirth, Lion and Ocker, Fabian and Ott, Marion and Schlecht, Ingmar and Wang, Runxi}, title = {Congestion Management Games in Electricity Markets}, series = {The Energy Journal}, volume = {47}, journal = {The Energy Journal}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1177/01956574251365606}, pages = {77 -- 108}, abstract = {This paper proposes a game-theoretic model to analyze the strategic behavior of inc-dec gaming in market-based congestion management (redispatch). We extend existing models by considering incomplete information about competitors' costs and a finite set of providers. We find that these extensions do not dissolve inc-dec gaming, which already occurs in our setup of two regions. We also benchmark market-based redispatch against grid investment, cost-based redispatch, and the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism. The comparison highlights a significant inefficiency of market-based redispatch and inflated redispatch payments. Finally, we study seven variations of our basic model to assess whether different market fundamentals or market design changes mitigate inc-dec gaming. None of these variations eliminate inc-dec gaming entirely.}, language = {en} }