aFRR Simulator

How it works

The simulator compares two strategies for curtailing a 1 MWp solar asset. As a base case, the asset is turned off during passive imbalance prices that are below the configured strike price. As an alternative, a simulated aFRR bid steers the asset on the same strike price using aFRR.

Data source

Underlying price and volume data is sourced from the ENTSO-E Transparency Platform and other publicly available data sources. The ENTSO-E solar forecast is used as a proxy for the 1 MWp solar installation.

Inputs

• Start / End date — the period to simulate over.
• Strike price (€/MWh) — the price threshold below which the solar asset is curtailed. A lower strike price leads to less curtailment, with a higher profit per curtailment.

Outputs

• Chart of cumulative profit (€/MWp) over time for both strategies.
• Table with total and annualised profit, average curtailed price, curtailed volume, original production, and coverage of the selected period.

Limitations

• The aFRR simulation assumes all available volume is offered to the aFRR bidding. This is not possible in practice, as Balancing Service Providers need to ensure all offered volume is available, and therefore bid in lower volumes.
• The passive imbalance incorporates the actual delta delay by TenneT as observed by ACC.

Results

Typical use cases show significantly less curtailed volume on aFRR vs. passive imbalance. This makes aFRR curtailment especially profitable for subsidised assets, where loss of production also results in loss of revenues. The overall profit from curtailment on aFRR is also higher, but the amount is determined by the effectiveness of the BSP, the forecasting precision and risk assessment of the BSP. Regardless, the profit per curtailed MWh is more appealing on aFRR.