The increasing demand for electricity and fluctuating renewable generation intensify congestion risks on the Dutch transmission grid, challenging the reliability ensured by TenneT, the national Transmission System Operator (TSO). Currently, redispatch and balancing are operated in separate markets, limiting efficient use of flexibility and increasing system costs. This study develops and evaluates Flexmeister, an integrated balancing and redispatch market design, where suppliers provide a uniform flexibility product that TenneT can allocate in real time. The simulations in this study were based on the actual Dutch high-voltage grid topology, physical power flow constraints, realistic generator locations, parametrised bidding behaviour and representative time-series data. To evaluate the performance of Flexmeister, four market designs were simulated: the Current (separated) design, Gross, Net, and All-in-one (one-step optimisation). Three market designs were structured around three sequential market rounds: DA, redispatch and imbalance, whereas All-in-one executed redispatch and imbalance at the same time-step. The benchmark results demonstrated that integrated designs consistently outperformed the current design across all key performance indicators: extra capacity, total costs, activated volumes and clearing prices up and down. Simulations consistently reported the performance in the following order: All-in-one > Net > Gross > Current. Unlike the current market, the integrated designs required no additional out-of-market capacity, thereby improving reliability without costly infrastructure investments. The findings provide the first quantitative evidence that market integration can strengthen grid reliability and lower societal costs. Moreover, the developed simulation model bridges economic market design and technical system modelling, offering policymakers and grid operators a practical tool to support the energy transition.

A transmission system operator (TSO) is responsible for balancing (BA) and congestion management (CM) of the high voltage grid. BA matches supply and demand while CM ensures the save transport of electricity. For both functions the TSO uses procured upward or downward reserves from connected parties, called flexibility. Five flexibility markets exist: Frequency Containment Reserve (FCR), automatic Frequency Restoration Reserve (aFRR), manual Frequency Restoration Reserve directly activated (mFRRda), Reserve Other Purposes (ROP), and Capacity Restriction Contracts (CRCs). FCR, aFRR, and mFRRda are used for BA, while ROP and CRCs are used for CM. Each product, as these are called, has distinct bid requirements and renumeration schemes. Therefore, flexibility providers commit their capacity to specific products in advance according to their needs and capabilities. Consequently, a TSO lacks the ability to address potential flexibility shortfalls in one area by drawing on capacity reserved for another. Mismatches can arise, possibly leading to stressful situations for operators, higher costs, and even regional power outages. In addition, the various market options create complexities for participants potentially increasing the likelihood of inefficiencies and misallocations of flexibility resources.

To address this issue and improve system efficiency, this study explored the possible integration of these markets, combining two or more of the current products into a single flexible reserve product, which offers can be used universally. This provides TSOs with more leeway to mix and match, increasing the use of the available capacity, and simplifies the offering process for market participants. The study specifically analyzed a combination of the capacities currently offered through aFRR and ROP in context of the Dutch system operations. These products turned out to have notable similarities, including moderate response times, overlapping procurement timelines, and comparable system properties, which increases the likelihood that their capacities can be used universally. In addition, these products had the highest accessibility of historical data, which was important for the proposed quantitative analysis, an area identified as a significant gap in the existing literature. The simulation compared the current market design, where aFRR and ROP handle distinct BA and CM issues, with an integrated system where capacities are interchangeable. Performance was measured by problem-solving capacity, failure frequency, capacity usage for BA and CM, and costs. Historical data over five days was used, simulating various imbalance and congestion scenarios.

Results showed a significant improvement: BA and CM costs for the TSO dropped by 70% and 80%, respectively, thanks to better utilization of low-priced bids. The problem-solving capacity, especially in the upward balancing direction, rose by 360%, attributed to complementary reserves from aFRR and ROP. CM capacity usage increased by 11%, as low-priced aFRR bids overruled the increased effectivity of bids for CM. While integrating aFRR and ROP showed significant benefits, combining markets like FCR and CRC, which have specific characteristics, is less promising. A partial integration of more general markets, while keeping specialized products, appears more feasible and still offers flexibility for TSOs. Challenges remain, including the need for locational information in all bids and potential auction structure adjustments. Further research should explore the best auction designs and operational rules for integrated market designs.

The integration of non-dispatchable renewable energy and the electrification of society pose significant challenges to maintaining grid stability and efficiency. Currently, balancing and redispatch services in the Dutch electricity market operate as two separate markets, each managed by the Transmission System Operator (TSO). However, this separation leads to inefficiencies such as conflicting price signals, competition for the same flexible capacity, and increased congestion. This thesis evaluates three new market design options aimed at integrating redispatch and balancing services: 1) Simultaneous co-optimization 2) Separate two-step optimization with net capacity use, and 3) Separate two-step optimization with gross capacity use. A simulation model was developed using a simplified small-scale electricity network, testing the impact of these market designs under different pricing approaches: Marginal Pricing (MP), Pay-As-Bid (PAB), and Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP). The results demonstrate that while co-optimization can reduce capacity requirements by 21%, up to 81% of this improvement can be achieved by integrating redispatch and balancing with net capacity usage, without co-optimization. The study concludes that net capacity usage offers a practical alternative to co-optimization, with significant cost and capacity improvements. Further research should explore the operational feasibility of these new designs and the impact of network scale on market performance.